literature review comparing articles

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

General Education Courses
School of Business
School of Design
School of Education
School of Health Sciences
School of Justice Studies
School of Nursing
School of Technology
CBE Student Guide
Online Library
Ask a Librarian
Learning Express Library
Interlibrary Loan Request Form
Library Staff
Databases A-to-Z
Articles by Subject
Discovery Search
Publication Finder
Video Databases
NoodleTools
Library Guides
Course Guides
Writing Lab
Rasmussen Technical Support (PSC)
Copyright Toolkit
Faculty Toolkit
Suggest a Purchase
Refer a Student Tutor
Live Lecture/Peer Tutor Scheduler
Faculty Interlibrary Loan Request Form
Professional Development Databases
Publishing Guide
Professional Development Guides (AAOPD)
Literature Review Guide
Back to Research Help

The Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?
Plan Your Literature Review
Identify a Research Gap
Define Your Research Question
Search the Literature
Analyze Your Research Results
Manage Research Results
Write the Literature Review

What is a Literature Review? What is its purpose?

The purpose of a literature review is to offer a comprehensive review of scholarly literature on a specific topic along with an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of authors' arguments . In other words, you are summarizing research available on a certain topic and then drawing conclusions about researchers' findings. To make gathering research easier, be sure to start with a narrow/specific topic and then widen your topic if necessary.

A thorough literature review provides an accurate description of current knowledge on a topic and identifies areas for future research. Are there gaps or areas that require further study and exploration? What opportunities are there for further research? What is missing from my collection of resources? Are more resources needed?

It is important to note that conclusions described in the literature you gather may contradict each other completely or in part. Recognize that knowledge creation is collective and cumulative. Current research is built upon past research findings and discoveries. Research may bring previously accepted conclusions into question. A literature review presents current knowledge on a topic and may point out various academic arguments within the discipline.

What a Literature Review is not

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography . An annotated bibliography provides a brief summary, analysis, and reflection of resources included in the bibliography. Often it is not a systematic review of existing research on a specific subject. That said, creating an annotated bibliography throughout your research process may be helpful in managing the resources discovered through your research.
A literature review is not a research paper . A research paper explores a topic and uses resources discovered through the research process to support a position on the topic. In other words, research papers present one side of an issue. A literature review explores all sides of the research topic and evaluates all positions and conclusions achieved through the scientific research process even though some conclusions may conflict partially or completely.

From the Online Library

SAGE Research Methods is a web-based research methods tool that covers quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers can explore methods and concepts to help design research projects, understand a particular method or identify a new method, and write up research. Sage Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, and is of potential use to researchers from the social sciences, health sciences and other research areas.

Sage Research Methods Project Planner - Reviewing the Literature View the resources and videos for a step-by-step guide to performing a literature review.

The Literature Review: Step by Step

Follow this step-by-step process by using the related tabs in this Guide.

Define your Research question
Analyze the material you’ve found
Manage the results of your research
Write your Review

Getting Started

Consider the following questions as you develop your research topic, conduct your research, and begin evaluating the resources discovered in the research process:

What is known about the subject?
Are there any gaps in the knowledge of the subject?
Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
Who are the significant research personalities in this area?
Is there consensus about the topic?
What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
What is the current status of research in this area?
What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
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?

What is Academic Literature?

What is the difference between popular and scholarly literature?

To better understand the differences between popular and scholarly articles, comparing characteristics and purpose of the publications where these articles appear is helpful.

Database Search Tips

Boolean Operators
Keywords vs. Subjects
Creating a Search String
Library databases are collections of resources that are searchable, including full-text articles, books, and encyclopedias.
Searching library databases is different than searching Google. Best results are achieved when using Keywords linked with Boolean Operators .
Applying Limiters such as full-text, publication date, resource type, language, geographic location, and subject help to refine search results.
Utilizing Phrases or Fields , in addition to an awareness of Stop Words , can focus your search and retrieve more useful results.
Have questions? Ask a Librarian

Boolean Operators connect keywords or concepts logically to retrieve relevant articles, books, and other resources. There are three Boolean Operators:

Using AND

Narrows search results
Connects two or more keywords/concepts
All keywords/concepts connected with "and" must be in an article or resource to appear in the search results list

Venn diagram of the AND connector

Example: The result list will include resources that include both keywords -- "distracted driving" and "texting" -- in the same article or resource, represented in the shaded area where the circles intersect (area shaded in purple).

Broadens search results ("OR means more!")
Connects two or more synonyms or related keywords/concepts
Resources appearing in the results list will include any of the terms connected with the OR connector

Venn diagram of the OR connector

Example: The result list will include resources that include the keyword "texting" OR the keyword "cell phone" (entire area shaded in blue); either is acceptable.

Excludes keywords or concepts from the search
Narrows results by removing resources that contain the keyword or term connected with the NOT connector
Use sparingly

Venn diagram of the NOT connector

Example: The result list will include all resources that include the term "car" (green area) but will exclude any resource that includes the term "motorcycle" (purple area) even though the term car may be present in the resource.

A library database searches for keywords throughout the entire resource record including the full-text of the resource, subject headings, tags, bibliographic information, etc.

Natural language words or short phrases that describe a concept or idea
Can retrieve too few or irrelevant results due to full-text searching (What words would an author use to write about this topic?)
Provide flexibility in a search
Must consider synonyms or related terms to improve search results
TIP: Build a Keyword List

Example: The keyword list above was developed to find resources that discuss how texting while driving results in accidents. Notice that there are synonyms (texting and "text messaging"), related terms ("cell phones" and texting), and spelling variations ("cell phone" and cellphone). Using keywords when searching full text requires consideration of various words that express an idea or concept.

Subject Headings
Predetermined "controlled vocabulary" database editors apply to resources to describe topical coverage of content
Can retrieve more precise search results because every article assigned that subject heading will be retrieved.
Provide less flexibility in a search
Can be combined with a keyword search to focus search results.
TIP: Consult database subject heading list or subject headings assigned to relevant resources

Example 1: In EBSCO's Academic Search Complete, clicking on the "Subject Terms" tab provides access to the entire subject heading list used in the database. It also allows a search for specific subject terms.

Example 2: A subject term can be incorporated into a keyword search by clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" and selecting "Subject Terms" from the dropdown list. Also, notice how subject headings are listed below the resource title, providing another strategy for discovering subject headings used in the database.

When a search term is more than one word, enclose the phrase in quotation marks to retrieve more precise and accurate results. Using quotation marks around a term will search it as a "chunk," searching for those particular words together in that order within the text of a resource.

"cell phone"

"distracted driving"

"car accident"

TIP: In some databases, neglecting to enclose phrases in quotation marks will insert the AND Boolean connector between each word resulting in unintended search results.

Truncation provides an option to search for a root of a keyword in order to retrieve resources that include variations of that word. This feature can be used to broaden search results, although some results may not be relevant. To truncate a keyword, type an asterisk (*) following the root of the word.

For example:

Library databases provide a variety of tools to limit and refine search results. Limiters provide the ability to limit search results to resources having specified characteristics including:

Resource type
Publication date
Geographic location

In both the EBSCO and ProQuest databases, the limiting tools are located in the left panel of the results page.

EBSCO ProQuest

The short video below provides a demonstration of how to use limiters to refine a list of search results.

Each resource in a library database is stored in a record. In addition to the full-text of the resources, searchable Fields are attached that typically include:

Journal title
Date of Publication

Incorporating Fields into your search can assist in focusing and refining search results by limiting the results to those resources that include specific information in a particular field.

In both EBSCO and ProQuest databases, selecting the Advanced Search option will allow Fields to be included in a search.

For example, in the Advanced Search option in EBSCO's Academic Search Complete database, clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" provides a list of fields that can be searched within that database. Select the field and enter the information in the text box to the left to use this feature.

Stop words are short, commonly used words--articles, prepositions, and pronouns-- that are automatically dropped from a search. Typical stop words include:

In library databases, a stop word will not be searched even if it is included in a phrase enclosed in quotation marks. In some instances, a word will be substituted for the stop word to allow for the other words in the phrase to be searched in proximity to one another within the text of the resource.

For example, if you searched company of America, your result list will include these variatons:

company in America
company of America
company for America

Creating an Search String

This short video demonstrates how to create a search string -- keywords connected with Boolean operators -- to use in a library database search to retrieve relevant resources for any research assignment.

Database Search Menu Template Use this search menu template to plan a database search.
Next: Back to Research Help >>
Last Updated: May 7, 2024 2:33 PM
URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/LitReview

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.

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 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.

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should:

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

From S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

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.

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:
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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

How to write a good literature review

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.

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.

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses.

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!

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, 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..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade.

Open access
Published: 17 August 2023

Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis

Emily South ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2187-4762 1 &
Mark Rodgers 1

Systematic Reviews volume 12 , Article number: 142 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3614 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews more useful to knowledge users. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation in a sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics, with a particular focus on interactive data visualisation.

Ovid MEDLINE ALL was searched for recent scoping reviews and evidence maps (June 2020-May 2021), and a sample of 300 papers that met basic selection criteria was taken. Data were extracted on the aim of each review and the use of data visualisation, including types of data visualisation used, variables presented and the use of interactivity. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken of the 238 reviews that aimed to map evidence.

Of the 238 scoping reviews or evidence maps in our analysis, around one-third (37.8%) included some form of data visualisation. Thirty-five different types of data visualisation were used across this sample, although most data visualisations identified were simple bar charts (standard, stacked or multi-set), pie charts or cross-tabulations (60.8%). Most data visualisations presented a single variable (64.4%) or two variables (26.1%). Almost a third of the reviews that used data visualisation did not use any colour (28.9%). Only two reviews presented interactive data visualisation, and few reported the software used to create visualisations.

Conclusions

Data visualisation is currently underused by scoping review authors. In particular, there is potential for much greater use of more innovative forms of data visualisation and interactive data visualisation. Where more innovative data visualisation is used, scoping reviews have made use of a wide range of different methods. Increased use of these more engaging visualisations may make scoping reviews more useful for a range of stakeholders.

Peer Review reports

Scoping reviews are “a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue” ([ 1 ], p. 950). While they include some of the same steps as a systematic review, such as systematic searches and the use of predetermined eligibility criteria, scoping reviews often address broader research questions and do not typically involve the quality appraisal of studies or synthesis of data [ 2 ]. Reasons for conducting a scoping review include the following: to map types of evidence available, to explore research design and conduct, to clarify concepts or definitions and to map characteristics or factors related to a concept [ 3 ]. Scoping reviews can also be undertaken to inform a future systematic review (e.g. to assure authors there will be adequate studies) or to identify knowledge gaps [ 3 ]. Other evidence synthesis approaches with similar aims have been described as evidence maps, mapping reviews or systematic maps [ 4 ]. While this terminology is used inconsistently, evidence maps can be used to identify evidence gaps and present them in a user-friendly (and often visual) way [ 5 ].

Scoping reviews are often targeted to an audience of healthcare professionals or policy-makers [ 6 ], suggesting that it is important to present results in a user-friendly and informative way. Until recently, there was little guidance on how to present the findings of scoping reviews. In recent literature, there has been some discussion of the importance of clearly presenting data for the intended audience of a scoping review, with creative and innovative use of visual methods if appropriate [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Lockwood et al. suggest that innovative visual presentation should be considered over dense sections of text or long tables in many cases [ 8 ]. Khalil et al. suggest that inspiration could be drawn from the field of data visualisation [ 7 ]. JBI guidance on scoping reviews recommends that reviewers carefully consider the best format for presenting data at the protocol development stage and provides a number of examples of possible methods [ 10 ].

Interactive resources are another option for presentation in scoping reviews [ 9 ]. Researchers without the relevant programming skills can now use several online platforms (such as Tableau [ 11 ] and Flourish [ 12 ]) to create interactive data visualisations. The benefits of using interactive visualisation in research include the ability to easily present more than two variables [ 13 ] and increased engagement of users [ 14 ]. Unlike static graphs, interactive visualisations can allow users to view hierarchical data at different levels, exploring both the “big picture” and looking in more detail ([ 15 ], p. 291). Interactive visualizations are often targeted at practitioners and decision-makers [ 13 ], and there is some evidence from qualitative research that they are valued by policy-makers [ 16 , 17 , 18 ].

Given their focus on mapping evidence, we believe that scoping reviews are particularly well-suited to visually presenting data and the use of interactive data visualisation tools. However, it is unknown how many recent scoping reviews visually map data or which types of data visualisation are used. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation methods in a large sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics. In particular, we were interested in the extent to which these forms of synthesis use any form of interactive data visualisation.

This study was a cross-sectional analysis of studies labelled as scoping reviews or evidence maps (or synonyms of these terms) in the title or abstract.

The search strategy was developed with help from an information specialist. Ovid MEDLINE® ALL was searched in June 2021 for studies added to the database in the previous 12 months. The search was limited to English language studies only.

The search strategy was as follows:

Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL

(scoping review or evidence map or systematic map or mapping review or scoping study or scoping project or scoping exercise or literature mapping or evidence mapping or systematic mapping or literature scoping or evidence gap map).ab,ti.

limit 1 to english language

(202006* or 202007* or 202008* or 202009* or 202010* or 202011* or 202012* or 202101* or 202102* or 202103* or 202104* or 202105*).dt.

The search returned 3686 records. Records were de-duplicated in EndNote 20 software, leaving 3627 unique records.

A sample of these reviews was taken by screening the search results against basic selection criteria (Table 1 ). These criteria were piloted and refined after discussion between the two researchers. A single researcher (E.S.) screened the records in EPPI-Reviewer Web software using the machine-learning priority screening function. Where a second opinion was needed, decisions were checked by a second researcher (M.R.).

Our initial plan for sampling, informed by pilot searching, was to screen and data extract records in batches of 50 included reviews at a time. We planned to stop screening when a batch of 50 reviews had been extracted that included no new types of data visualisation or after screening time had reached 2 days. However, once data extraction was underway, we found the sample to be richer in terms of data visualisation than anticipated. After the inclusion of 300 reviews, we took the decision to end screening in order to ensure the study was manageable.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was developed in EPPI-Reviewer Web, piloted on 50 reviews and refined. Data were extracted by one researcher (E. S. or M. R.), with a second researcher (M. R. or E. S.) providing a second opinion when needed. The data items extracted were as follows: type of review (term used by authors), aim of review (mapping evidence vs. answering specific question vs. borderline), number of visualisations (if any), types of data visualisation used, variables/domains presented by each visualisation type, interactivity, use of colour and any software requirements.

When categorising review aims, we considered “mapping evidence” to incorporate all of the six purposes for conducting a scoping review proposed by Munn et al. [ 3 ]. Reviews were categorised as “answering a specific question” if they aimed to synthesise study findings to answer a particular question, for example on effectiveness of an intervention. We were inclusive with our definition of “mapping evidence” and included reviews with mixed aims in this category. However, some reviews were difficult to categorise (for example where aims were unclear or the stated aims did not match the actual focus of the paper) and were considered to be “borderline”. It became clear that a proportion of identified records that described themselves as “scoping” or “mapping” reviews were in fact pseudo-systematic reviews that failed to undertake key systematic review processes. Such reviews attempted to integrate the findings of included studies rather than map the evidence, and so reviews categorised as “answering a specific question” were excluded from the main analysis. Data visualisation methods for meta-analyses have been explored previously [ 19 ]. Figure 1 shows the flow of records from search results to final analysis sample.

Flow diagram of the sampling process

Data visualisation was defined as any graph or diagram that presented results data, including tables with a visual mapping element, such as cross-tabulations and heat maps. However, tables which displayed data at a study level (e.g. tables summarising key characteristics of each included study) were not included, even if they used symbols, shading or colour. Flow diagrams showing the study selection process were also excluded. Data visualisations in appendices or supplementary information were included, as well as any in publicly available dissemination products (e.g. visualisations hosted online) if mentioned in papers.

The typology used to categorise data visualisation methods was based on an existing online catalogue [ 20 ]. Specific types of data visualisation were categorised in five broad categories: graphs, diagrams, tables, maps/geographical and other. If a data visualisation appeared in our sample that did not feature in the original catalogue, we checked a second online catalogue [ 21 ] for an appropriate term, followed by wider Internet searches. These additional visualisation methods were added to the appropriate section of the typology. The final typology can be found in Additional file 1 .

We conducted descriptive data analysis in Microsoft Excel 2019 and present frequencies and percentages. Where appropriate, data are presented using graphs or other data visualisations created using Flourish. We also link to interactive versions of some of these visualisations.

Almost all of the 300 reviews in the total sample were labelled by review authors as “scoping reviews” ( n = 293, 97.7%). There were also four “mapping reviews”, one “scoping study”, one “evidence mapping” and one that was described as a “scoping review and evidence map”. Included reviews were all published in 2020 or 2021, with the exception of one review published in 2018. Just over one-third of these reviews ( n = 105, 35.0%) included some form of data visualisation. However, we excluded 62 reviews that did not focus on mapping evidence from the following analysis (see “ Methods ” section). Of the 238 remaining reviews (that either clearly aimed to map evidence or were judged to be “borderline”), 90 reviews (37.8%) included at least one data visualisation. The references for these reviews can be found in Additional file 2 .

Number of visualisations

Thirty-six (40.0%) of these 90 reviews included just one example of data visualisation (Fig. 2 ). Less than a third ( n = 28, 31.1%) included three or more visualisations. The greatest number of data visualisations in one review was 17 (all bar or pie charts). In total, 222 individual data visualisations were identified across the sample of 238 reviews.

Number of data visualisations per review

Categories of data visualisation

Graphs were the most frequently used category of data visualisation in the sample. Over half of the reviews with data visualisation included at least one graph ( n = 59, 65.6%). The least frequently used category was maps, with 15.6% ( n = 14) of these reviews including a map.

Of the total number of 222 individual data visualisations, 102 were graphs (45.9%), 34 were tables (15.3%), 23 were diagrams (10.4%), 15 were maps (6.8%) and 48 were classified as “other” in the typology (21.6%).

Types of data visualisation

All of the types of data visualisation identified in our sample are reported in Table 2 . In total, 35 different types were used across the sample of reviews.

The most frequently used data visualisation type was a bar chart. Of 222 total data visualisations, 78 (35.1%) were a variation on a bar chart (either standard bar chart, stacked bar chart or multi-set bar chart). There were also 33 pie charts (14.9% of data visualisations) and 24 cross-tabulations (10.8% of data visualisations). In total, these five types of data visualisation accounted for 60.8% ( n = 135) of all data visualisations. Figure 3 shows the frequency of each data visualisation category and type; an interactive online version of this treemap is also available ( https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9396133/ ). Figure 4 shows how users can further explore the data using the interactive treemap.

Data visualisation categories and types. An interactive version of this treemap is available online: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9396133/ . Through the interactive version, users can further explore the data (see Fig. 4 ). The unit of this treemap is the individual data visualisation, so multiple data visualisations within the same scoping review are represented in this map. Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Screenshots showing how users of the interactive treemap can explore the data further. Users can explore each level of the hierarchical treemap ( A Visualisation category > B Visualisation subcategory > C Variables presented in visualisation > D Individual references reporting this category/subcategory/variable permutation). Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Data presented

Around two-thirds of data visualisations in the sample presented a single variable ( n = 143, 64.4%). The most frequently presented single variables were themes ( n = 22, 9.9% of data visualisations), population ( n = 21, 9.5%), country or region ( n = 21, 9.5%) and year ( n = 20, 9.0%). There were 58 visualisations (26.1%) that presented two different variables. The remaining 21 data visualisations (9.5%) presented three or more variables. Figure 5 shows the variables presented by each different type of data visualisation (an interactive version of this figure is available online).

Variables presented by each data visualisation type. Darker cells indicate a larger number of reviews. An interactive version of this heat map is available online: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/10632665/ . Users can hover over each cell to see the number of data visualisations for that combination of data visualisation type and variable. The unit of this heat map is the individual data visualisation, so multiple data visualisations within a single scoping review are represented in this map. Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Most reviews presented at least one data visualisation in colour ( n = 64, 71.1%). However, almost a third ( n = 26, 28.9%) used only black and white or greyscale.

Interactivity

Only two of the reviews included data visualisations with any level of interactivity. One scoping review on music and serious mental illness [ 22 ] linked to an interactive bubble chart hosted online on Tableau. Functionality included the ability to filter the studies displayed by various attributes.

The other review was an example of evidence mapping from the environmental health field [ 23 ]. All four of the data visualisations included in the paper were available in an interactive format hosted either by the review management software or on Tableau. The interactive versions linked to the relevant references so users could directly explore the evidence base. This was the only review that provided this feature.

Software requirements

Nine reviews clearly reported the software used to create data visualisations. Three reviews used Tableau (one of them also used review management software as discussed above) [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Two reviews generated maps using ArcGIS [ 25 ] or ArcMap [ 26 ]. One review used Leximancer for a lexical analysis [ 27 ]. One review undertook a bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer [ 28 ], and another explored citation patterns using CitNetExplorer [ 29 ]. Other reviews used Excel [ 30 ] or R [ 26 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic and in-depth exploration of the use of data visualisation techniques in scoping reviews. Our findings suggest that the majority of scoping reviews do not use any data visualisation at all, and, in particular, more innovative examples of data visualisation are rare. Around 60% of data visualisations in our sample were simple bar charts, pie charts or cross-tabulations. There appears to be very limited use of interactive online visualisation, despite the potential this has for communicating results to a range of stakeholders. While it is not always appropriate to use data visualisation (or a simple bar chart may be the most user-friendly way of presenting the data), these findings suggest that data visualisation is being underused in scoping reviews. In a large minority of reviews, visualisations were not published in colour, potentially limiting how user-friendly and attractive papers are to decision-makers and other stakeholders. Also, very few reviews clearly reported the software used to create data visualisations. However, 35 different types of data visualisation were used across the sample, highlighting the wide range of methods that are potentially available to scoping review authors.

Our results build on the limited research that has previously been undertaken in this area. Two previous publications also found limited use of graphs in scoping reviews. Results were “mapped graphically” in 29% of scoping reviews in any field in one 2014 publication [ 31 ] and 17% of healthcare scoping reviews in a 2016 article [ 6 ]. Our results suggest that the use of data visualisation has increased somewhat since these reviews were conducted. Scoping review methods have also evolved in the last 10 years; formal guidance on scoping review conduct was published in 2014 [ 32 ], and an extension of the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews was published in 2018 [ 33 ]. It is possible that an overall increase in use of data visualisation reflects increased quality of published scoping reviews. There is also some literature supporting our findings on the wide range of data visualisation methods that are used in evidence synthesis. An investigation of methods to identify, prioritise or display health research gaps (25/139 included studies were scoping reviews; 6/139 were evidence maps) identified 14 different methods used to display gaps or priorities, with half being “more advanced” (e.g. treemaps, radial bar plots) ([ 34 ], p. 107). A review of data visualisation methods used in papers reporting meta-analyses found over 200 different ways of displaying data [ 19 ].

Only two reviews in our sample used interactive data visualisation, and one of these was an example of systematic evidence mapping from the environmental health field rather than a scoping review (in environmental health, systematic evidence mapping explicitly involves producing a searchable database [ 35 ]). A scoping review of papers on the use of interactive data visualisation in population health or health services research found a range of examples but still limited use overall [ 13 ]. For example, the authors noted the currently underdeveloped potential for using interactive visualisation in research on health inequalities. It is possible that the use of interactive data visualisation in academic papers is restricted by academic publishing requirements; for example, it is currently difficult to incorporate an interactive figure into a journal article without linking to an external host or platform. However, we believe that there is a lot of potential to add value to future scoping reviews by using interactive data visualisation software. Few reviews in our sample presented three or more variables in a single visualisation, something which can easily be achieved using interactive data visualisation tools. We have previously used EPPI-Mapper [ 36 ] to present results of a scoping review of systematic reviews on behaviour change in disadvantaged groups, with links to the maps provided in the paper [ 37 ]. These interactive maps allowed policy-makers to explore the evidence on different behaviours and disadvantaged groups and access full publications of the included studies directly from the map.

We acknowledge there are barriers to use for some of the data visualisation software available. EPPI-Mapper and some of the software used by reviews in our sample incur a cost. Some software requires a certain level of knowledge and skill in its use. However numerous online free data visualisation tools and resources exist. We have used Flourish to present data for this review, a basic version of which is currently freely available and easy to use. Previous health research has been found to have used a range of different interactive data visualisation software, much of which does not required advanced knowledge or skills to use [ 13 ].

There are likely to be other barriers to the use of data visualisation in scoping reviews. Journal guidelines and policies may present barriers for using innovative data visualisation. For example, some journals charge a fee for publication of figures in colour. As previously mentioned, there are limited options for incorporating interactive data visualisation into journal articles. Authors may also be unaware of the data visualisation methods and tools that are available. Producing data visualisations can be time-consuming, particularly if authors lack experience and skills in this. It is possible that many authors prioritise speed of publication over spending time producing innovative data visualisations, particularly in a context where there is pressure to achieve publications.

Limitations

A limitation of this study was that we did not assess how appropriate the use of data visualisation was in our sample as this would have been highly subjective. Simple descriptive or tabular presentation of results may be the most appropriate approach for some scoping review objectives [ 7 , 8 , 10 ], and the scoping review literature cautions against “over-using” different visual presentation methods [ 7 , 8 ]. It cannot be assumed that all of the reviews that did not include data visualisation should have done so. Likewise, we do not know how many reviews used methods of data visualisation that were not well suited to their data.

We initially relied on authors’ own use of the term “scoping review” (or equivalent) to sample reviews but identified a relatively large number of papers labelled as scoping reviews that did not meet the basic definition, despite the availability of guidance and reporting guidelines [ 10 , 33 ]. It has previously been noted that scoping reviews may be undertaken inappropriately because they are seen as “easier” to conduct than a systematic review ([ 3 ], p.6), and that reviews are often labelled as “scoping reviews” while not appearing to follow any established framework or guidance [ 2 ]. We therefore took the decision to remove these reviews from our main analysis. However, decisions on how to classify review aims were subjective, and we did include some reviews that were of borderline relevance.

A further limitation is that this was a sample of published reviews, rather than a comprehensive systematic scoping review as have previously been undertaken [ 6 , 31 ]. The number of scoping reviews that are published has increased rapidly, and this would now be difficult to undertake. As this was a sample, not all relevant scoping reviews or evidence maps that would have met our criteria were included. We used machine learning to screen our search results for pragmatic reasons (to reduce screening time), but we do not see any reason that our sample would not be broadly reflective of the wider literature.

Data visualisation, and in particular more innovative examples of it, is currently underused in published scoping reviews on health topics. The examples that we have found highlight the wide range of methods that scoping review authors could draw upon to present their data in an engaging way. In particular, we believe that interactive data visualisation has significant potential for mapping the available literature on a topic. Appropriate use of data visualisation may increase the usefulness, and thus uptake, of scoping reviews as a way of identifying existing evidence or research gaps by decision-makers, researchers and commissioners of research. We recommend that scoping review authors explore the extensive free resources and online tools available for data visualisation. However, we also think that it would be useful for publishers to explore allowing easier integration of interactive tools into academic publishing, given the fact that papers are now predominantly accessed online. Future research may be helpful to explore which methods are particularly useful to scoping review users.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Organisation formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, McLnerney P, Godfrey CM, Peters M, Tricco AC. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:950–952.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, Langlois EV, Lillie E, O’Brien KK, Tunçalp Ӧ, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021;10:263.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36:202–22.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5:28.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.

Khalil H, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Munn Z. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:156–60.

Lockwood C, dos Santos KB, Pap R. Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: scoping review methods. Asian Nurs Res. 2019;13:287–94.

Article Google Scholar

Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, Evans C, de Moraes ÉB, Godfrey CM, Pieper D, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;10:11124.

Google Scholar

Peters MDJ GC, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E MZ, editor. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . Accessed 1 Feb 2023.

Tableau Public. https://www.tableau.com/en-gb/products/public . Accessed 24 January 2023.

flourish.studio. https://flourish.studio/ . Accessed 24 January 2023.

Chishtie J, Bielska IA, Barrera A, Marchand J-S, Imran M, Tirmizi SFA, Turcotte LA, Munce S, Shepherd J, Senthinathan A, et al. Interactive visualization applications in population health and health services research: systematic scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24: e27534.

Isett KR, Hicks DM. Providing public servants what they need: revealing the “unseen” through data visualization. Public Adm Rev. 2018;78:479–85.

Carroll LN, Au AP, Detwiler LT, Fu T-c, Painter IS, Abernethy NF. Visualization and analytics tools for infectious disease epidemiology: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2014;51:287–298.

Lundkvist A, El-Khatib Z, Kalra N, Pantoja T, Leach-Kemon K, Gapp C, Kuchenmüller T. Policy-makers’ views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization. Arch Public Health. 2021;79:17.

Zakkar M, Sedig K. Interactive visualization of public health indicators to support policymaking: an exploratory study. Online J Public Health Inform. 2017;9:e190–e190.

Park S, Bekemeier B, Flaxman AD. Understanding data use and preference of data visualization for public health professionals: a qualitative study. Public Health Nurs. 2021;38:531–41.

Kossmeier M, Tran US, Voracek M. Charting the landscape of graphical displays for meta-analysis and systematic reviews: a comprehensive review, taxonomy, and feature analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:26.

Ribecca, S. The Data Visualisation Catalogue. https://datavizcatalogue.com/index.html . Accessed 23 November 2021.

Ferdio. Data Viz Project. https://datavizproject.com/ . Accessed 23 November 2021.

Golden TL, Springs S, Kimmel HJ, Gupta S, Tiedemann A, Sandu CC, Magsamen S. The use of music in the treatment and management of serious mental illness: a global scoping review of the literature. Front Psychol. 2021;12: 649840.

Keshava C, Davis JA, Stanek J, Thayer KA, Galizia A, Keshava N, Gift J, Vulimiri SV, Woodall G, Gigot C, et al. Application of systematic evidence mapping to assess the impact of new research when updating health reference values: a case example using acrolein. Environ Int. 2020;143: 105956.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Jayakumar P, Lin E, Galea V, Mathew AJ, Panda N, Vetter I, Haynes AB. Digital phenotyping and patient-generated health data for outcome measurement in surgical care: a scoping review. J Pers Med. 2020;10:282.

Qu LG, Perera M, Lawrentschuk N, Umbas R, Klotz L. Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where? World J Urol. 2021;39:3151–60.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Rossa-Roccor V, Acheson ES, Andrade-Rivas F, Coombe M, Ogura S, Super L, Hong A. Scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the term “planetary health” in the peer-reviewed literature. Front Public Health. 2020;8:343.

Hewitt L, Dahlen HG, Hartz DL, Dadich A. Leadership and management in midwifery-led continuity of care models: a thematic and lexical analysis of a scoping review. Midwifery. 2021;98: 102986.

Xia H, Tan S, Huang S, Gan P, Zhong C, Lu M, Peng Y, Zhou X, Tang X. Scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the most influential publications in achalasia research from 1995 to 2020. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:8836395.

Vigliotti V, Taggart T, Walker M, Kusmastuti S, Ransome Y. Religion, faith, and spirituality influences on HIV prevention activities: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0234720.

van Heemskerken P, Broekhuizen H, Gajewski J, Brugha R, Bijlmakers L. Barriers to surgery performed by non-physician clinicians in sub-Saharan Africa-a scoping review. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18:51.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.

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

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

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:99–110.

Wolffe TAM, Whaley P, Halsall C, Rooney AA, Walker VR. Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management. Environ Int. 2019;130:104871.

Digital Solution Foundry and EPPI-Centre. EPPI-Mapper, Version 2.0.1. EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London. 2020. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3790 .

South E, Rodgers M, Wright K, Whitehead M, Sowden A. Reducing lifestyle risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups in high-income countries: a scoping review of systematic reviews. Prev Med. 2022;154: 106916.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Melissa Harden, Senior Information Specialist, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, for advice on developing the search strategy.

This work received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Emily South & Mark Rodgers

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors conceptualised and designed the study and contributed to screening, data extraction and the interpretation of results. ES undertook the literature searches, analysed data, produced the data visualisations and drafted the manuscript. MR contributed to revising the manuscript, and both authors read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily South .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

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.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Typology of data visualisation methods.

Additional file 2.

References of scoping reviews included in main dataset.

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.

South, E., Rodgers, M. Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev 12 , 142 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2023

Accepted : 07 August 2023

Published : 17 August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y

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

Scoping review
Evidence map
Data visualisation

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 10.5.2024 in Vol 10 (2024)

Community Engagement in Vaccination Promotion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

Yao Jie Xie 1, 2 * , PhD ;
Xiaoli Liao 1 * , PhD ;
Meijuan Lin 1 , MM ;
Lin Yang 1 , PhD ;
Kin Cheung 1 , PhD ;
Qingpeng Zhang 3, 4 , PhD ;
Yan Li 1 , PhD ;
Chun Hao 5 , PhD ;
Harry HX Wang 5, 6 , PhD ;
Yang Gao 7 , PhD ;
Dexing Zhang 8 , PhD ;
Alex Molassiotis 9 , PhD ;
Gilman Kit Hang Siu 10 , PhD ;
Angela Yee Man Leung 1, 11 , PhD

1 School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

2 Research Centre for Chinese Medicine Innovation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

3 Musketeers Foundation Institute of Data Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

4 Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

5 School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

6 Usher Institute, Deanery of Molecular, Genetic & Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

7 Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

8 JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

9 Health and Social Care Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

10 Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

11 Research Institute on Smart Aging (RISA), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong)

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Yao Jie Xie, PhD

School of Nursing

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

11 Yuk Choi Road

Hung Hom, Kowloon

China (Hong Kong)

Phone: 852 34003798

Fax:852 23649663

Email: [email protected]

Background: Community engagement plays a vital role in global immunization strategies, offering the potential to overcome vaccination hesitancy and enhance vaccination confidence. Although there is significant backing for community engagement in health promotion, the evidence supporting its effectiveness in vaccination promotion is fragmented and of uncertain quality.

Objective: This review aims to systematically examine the effectiveness of different contents and extent of community engagement for promoting vaccination rates.

Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive and exhaustive literature search was performed in 4 English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wan Fang) to identify all possible articles. Original research articles applying an experimental study design that investigated the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed the literature search, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with the arbitration of a third reviewer where necessary.

Results: A total of 20 articles out of 11,404 records from 2006 to 2021 were retrieved. The studies used various designs: 12 applied single-group pre-post study designs, 5 were cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 3 were non-RCTs. These studies targeted multiple vaccines, with 8 focusing on children’s immunization, 8 on human papillomavirus vaccine, 3 on hepatitis B virus vaccine, and 1 on COVID-19 vaccine. The meta-analysis revealed significant increases in vaccination rates both in pre-post comparison (rate difference [RD] 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.47, I 2 =99.9%, P <.001) and between-group comparison (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.29, I 2 =98.4%, P <.001). The meta-analysis revealed that participant recruitment had the largest effect size (RD 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.67, I 2 =99.9%, P <.001), followed by intervention development (RD 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.50, I 2 =100.0%, P <.001), intervention implementation (RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.47, I 2 =99.8%, P <.001), and data collection (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.50, I 2 =99.8%, P <.001). The meta-analysis indicated that high community engagement extent yielded the largest effect size (RD 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-0.82, I 2 =100.0%, P <.001), followed by moderate community engagement extent (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, I 2 =99.6%, P <.001) and low community engagement extent (RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.25, I 2 =99.2%, P <.001). The meta-analysis revealed that “health service support” demonstrated the largest effect sizes (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.65, I 2 =99.9%, P <.001), followed by “health education and discussion” (RD 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, I 2 =99.7%, P <.001), “follow-up and reminder” (RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.42, I 2 =99.3%, P <.001), and “social marketing campaigns and community mobilization” (RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.41, I 2 =99.9%, P <.001).

Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis supported the effectiveness of community engagement in vaccination promotion with variations in terms of engagement contents and extent. Community engagement required a “fit-for-purpose” approach rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach to maximize the effectiveness of vaccine promotion.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022339081; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339081

Introduction

Vaccination stands as one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the last century. It has made significant strides in eliminating and controlling various vaccine-preventable diseases, as evidenced by the reduction in morbidity, mortality, and disability caused by these diseases [ 1 , 2 ]. A notable illustration is the use of vaccines as a crucial measure to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic in the past 3 years [ 3 , 4 ]. A previous study analyzed the economic advantages of vaccination against 10 diseases across 73 countries from 2001 to 2020. It reported that vaccinations have prevented over 20 million deaths and saved approximately US $350 billion in disease costs [ 5 ]. A modeling study examined the health implications of vaccination against 10 pathogens across 98 countries from 2000 to 2030. It revealed that vaccinations have prevented 69 million deaths [ 6 ].

Both the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 and Immunization Agenda 2030 have established strategic objectives to immunize every eligible individual with appropriate vaccines and to ensure equitable coverage of immunization benefits for all. However, the immunization coverage of many vaccines has yet to reach the expected level. For instance, between 2006 and 2014, only 47 million women across 80 countries and territories received the full course of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, representing a mere 1.4% coverage of the total female population [ 7 ]. In addition, a study assessing the coverage of childhood vaccines across 1366 administrative regions in 43 countries revealed that only one-third of children in 4 countries had fully received routine childhood vaccines [ 8 ]. In terms of adult vaccination, only 11 out of 204 countries achieved the World Health Organization (WHO) target of 90% coverage for 11 routine vaccines by 2019 [ 9 ]. Various reasons and barriers contribute to the lack of vaccination, with a significant obstacle being vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy has been steadily rising worldwide over the past decade [ 10 , 11 ], emerging as one of the top 10 threats to global health listed by the WHO in 2019.

Community engagement is a process that involves engaging and motivating diverse partners to collaborate in harnessing community potential and enhancing community health [ 12 , 13 ]. It first gained prominence in the public health sphere with the Declaration of Alma-Ata and has since become increasingly prominent, particularly with the introduction of the new Sustainable Development Goals [ 14 ]. The WHO defines community engagement as “a process of developing relationship which enables stakeholders work together to address health issues” [ 15 ]. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) defines community engagement as “an action for working with community stakeholders to improve community health” [ 13 ]. The definition of community engagement often intersects, competes with, and contradicts definitions of other terms such as community participation and community involvement, among others. Despite the extensive literature on community engagement, there is a lack of comprehensive guidelines to clarify the content and scope of community engagement, including what constitutes community engagement and the extent of its involvement. The levels of community engagement are structured along a continuum that spans from informing and consulting to involving, collaborating, and empowering [ 16 , 17 ]. The elements of community engagement manifest across a spectrum of initiatives, encompassing participant recruitment, intervention development, intervention implementation, and data collection [ 18 , 19 ]. Community engagement is characterized as a dynamic process rather than a singular intervention, operating within diverse contexts to address various issues through multiple mechanisms involving different actors.

A meta-analysis, incorporating 131 individual studies, supported the positive impact of community engagement on health and psychosocial outcomes for disadvantaged groups across various conditions [ 20 ]. It plays a prominent role in global immunization strategies, as it has the capacity to alleviate vaccination hesitancy and enhance vaccination confidence. A systematic review, which included 14 studies, examined the effectiveness of community interventions on HPV vaccine coverage. Of these, 12 studies reported that community interventions led to an increase in the uptake of the HPV vaccine [ 21 ]. Another review, spanning across 19 countries, assessed studies indicating that community engagement enhanced the timeliness and coverage of routine childhood immunization vaccines [ 22 ]. Despite robust evidence supporting the role of community engagement in promoting health within diverse populations, the evidence for community engagement specifically in vaccination promotion remains fragmented. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness of various aspects and levels of community engagement in enhancing vaccination rates.

This study was conducted following the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 23 ], and the results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [ 24 ]. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022339081). Two reviewers (ML and YJX) conducted the literature search, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction independently. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer (LY) was consulted for arbitration when necessary.

Ethics Approval

This review paper was a secondary analysis of existing data from original studies published before, rather than a direct collection of new data, and thus, does not require ethical approval.

Search Strategies

A comprehensive and exhaustive literature search was conducted across 4 English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library), as well as 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wan Fang).

The search strategy involved combining terms related to “community engagement” and “vaccination” using specific vocabulary terms (MeSH and Emtree) and their corresponding free-text terms [ 25 , 26 ]. These terms were identified based on key publications in relevant fields, and the search strategy was adjusted to suit each database. Boolean operators, specifically “OR” between terms and “AND” between concepts, were used to combine search terms effectively.

No restrictions were placed on language, study design, country of origin, or publication date. Studies were searched in the selected databases from their inception to April 30, 2023. The initial literature searches were performed in June 2022, with an updated search conducted in April 2023. In addition, the reference lists of relevant articles and previous reviews were manually reviewed to identify any additional relevant studies. The ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database was consulted to identify unpublished dissertations and theses. Furthermore, Google and Google Scholar were searched to identify gray literature for potential inclusion. Clinical trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, were also searched to identify trials with outcomes that had not yet been published.

Details of the full search strategy for each database are listed in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Selection Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) strategy [ 27 ]. Initially, these criteria were applied to titles and abstracts, and subsequently to full-text articles, to determine their final inclusion status ( Table 1 ).

All records retrieved from the literature search were imported into the bibliographic database EndNote (Clarivate), which was used to manage records and eliminate duplicates. Two reviewers (ML and XL) independently screened the records based on the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies between the 2 reviewers were resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer (YJX) was consulted if consensus could not be reached. The search terms and selection criteria were designed to provide inclusive flexibility and discretion, considering the various permutations of community engagement.

Data Extraction

A data extraction form was developed and piloted on 6 randomly selected sample studies to establish consensus on the data abstraction procedures. Subsequently, 2 independent investigators (ML and XL) extracted information including the first author, publication year, study design, country, participant number, intervention details, control condition, vaccine rates, and effect size of the intervention, where reported. In cases where a study provided data for both vaccine series initiation and completion, only the latter was included in the summary table. If a study evaluated multiple vaccine types and reported a combined vaccination rate, that result was selected; otherwise data for the primary vaccine under focus were presented. In instances where a study reported incomplete data, the authors were contacted via email to obtain the required information.

Assessment of the Risk of Bias

The revised Cochrane Tool for Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB2) was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [ 33 ]. For nonrandomized trials and controlled pre-post studies, the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias [ 34 ].

Each study was assessed and categorized as having low, moderate, or high risk of bias for each domain. Studies with low risk in 3 or more domains and moderate risk in any remaining domain(s) were classified as having an overall low risk of bias. Studies with moderate risk in 3 or more domains and low or unclear risk in any remaining domain(s) were classified as having an overall moderate risk of bias. Studies with high risk in 3 or more domains and moderate risk in any remaining domain(s) were classified as having an overall high risk of bias. Studies with moderate risk in 3 or more domains and high risk in any remaining domain(s) were also classified as having an overall high risk of bias.

Data Synthesis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the key variables of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp LLC) to investigate the effectiveness of community engagement in promoting vaccination.

Vaccination rates were computed as the proportion of vaccinated individuals to the total targeted population. Effect sizes were represented as the rate difference (RD) of vaccination rates, along with 95% CIs [ 35 , 36 ]. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect sizes, considering the expected heterogeneity among studies. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering effects when trials used a cluster randomized controlled design.

Forest plots were used to display individual and pooled vaccination rates. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q test ( P CQ <.10) and the I 2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age groups, vaccine types, and immunization. A meta-regression analysis was performed to explore the effects of study design or quality on the pooled effect size [ 37 , 38 ]. Sensitivity analysis using a single-study knockout approach was performed to determine the contribution of each study to the pooled effect size. Publication bias was evaluated through visual inspection of the funnel plot, and the asymmetry of the funnel plot was further assessed using the Egger test [ 39 ]. The Egger tests required a minimum of 10 publications to examine the association between SE and effect size in the funnel plot [ 37 ]. We classified the evidence quality into different levels according to the recommendations from van Tulder et al [ 40 ].

Study Identification and Selection

The flowchart depicting the study selection process is presented in Figure 1 . The literature search was conducted across 6 electronic databases from July 5, 2022, to July 12, 2022, yielding a total of 11,404 records. After removing duplicates, 9512 articles remained. Following the preliminary review of titles and abstracts, 83 articles were retained for full-text assessment. Subsequently, after reviewing the full texts, the final selection of 19 eligible articles was made. An additional article was identified through a manual search of reference lists. Therefore, a total of 20 eligible articles published in English were identified that met all inclusion criteria.

Characteristics of the Included Studies

The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . This review did not restrict the timeframe of the literature search to provide a broad temporal perspective. The included studies were published between 2006 and 2021, with the majority (n=8) in the last 5 years. These studies were conducted in various countries, with the highest number (n=13) conducted in the United States [ 41 - 53 ], followed by Nigeria (n=3) [ 54 - 56 ] and Peru (n=2) [ 57 , 58 ], and 1 each in Pakistan [ 29 ] and India [ 59 ]. The studies used various designs, with over one-half (n=12) adopting single-group pre-post study designs [ 41 - 44 , 46 - 48 , 53 , 54 , 56 - 58 ], while the rest used cluster RCTs (n=5) [ 29 , 45 , 52 , 55 , 59 ] and non-RCTs (n=3) [ 49 - 51 ]. The studies recruited participants across all age groups, spanning from children (n=8) [ 29 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 54 - 56 , 59 ], to adolescents (n=7) [ 41 , 49 - 52 , 57 , 58 ], and to adults (n=5) [ 42 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 53 ]. The sample sizes of pre-post studies ranged from 30 to 12,103, with a median of 323, while the sample sizes of RCTs ranged from 337 to 2598, with a median of 349. These included studies targeted multiple vaccines, with 8 studies focusing on children’s immunization [ 29 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 54 - 56 , 59 ], 8 studies on HPV vaccine [ 41 , 47 , 49 - 52 , 57 , 58 ], 3 studies on hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine [ 42 , 45 , 53 ], and 1 study on COVID-19 vaccine [ 48 ]. Vaccination coverage was calculated using either individual-reported or officially recorded data.

Conceptualization of Community Engagement

Community engagement does not neatly fit into predefined typologies, as it encompasses a variety of contexts, extents, and outcomes [ 60 , 61 ]. To address this complexity, a conceptual framework of community engagement was developed. This framework aims to delineate the different contents and extent of community engagement, drawing from the WHO definition of community engagement [ 62 ] and the utilitarian perspective of community engagement [ 63 ]. The contents of community engagement were delineated into 4 main categories: participant recruitment, intervention development, intervention implementation, and data collection. The extents of community engagement were categorized as low, moderate, and high [ 64 ]. Specifically, a low extent of community engagement indicated that studies fulfilled 1 or 2 contents of community engagement; a moderate extent of community engagement indicated that studies fulfilled 3 contents of community engagement; and a high extent of community engagement indicated that studies fulfilled all 4 contents of community engagement [ 64 ].

Most studies incorporated 2 engagement contents, with the majority engaged in intervention implementation (19/20, 95%) [ 29 , 41 - 46 , 48 - 59 ] and intervention development (13/20, 65%) [ 41 - 43 , 45 - 50 , 52 - 54 , 56 ], followed by participant recruitment (12/20,60%) [ 41 , 43 - 49 , 51 , 56 - 58 ] and outcome evaluation (11/20, 55%) [ 29 , 42 - 44 , 46 , 48 , 51 , 53 - 55 , 57 ] ( Table 2 ). Furthermore, most studies fell into the moderate engagement extent category (n=10) [ 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 ], followed by low engagement extent (n=7) [ 29 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 58 , 59 ] and high engagement extent (n=3) [ 43 , 46 , 48 ] ( Table 2 ).

Community engagement in these studies took various forms of intervention strategies, including social marketing campaigns, community mobilization, health education and discussions, health service support, and follow-up and reminders. These interventions were often combined into intervention packages, which included combinations such as health education and discussion with follow-up and reminders, health education and discussion with health service support, health education and discussion with health service support and follow-up reminders, social marketing campaigns and community mobilization with health service support and follow-up reminders, and social marketing campaigns and community mobilization with health education and discussion as well as follow-up reminders.

Community engagement varied in geographical coverage, ranging from localized sites in 1 village or city to broader areas encompassing 1 district or more. However, many interventions failed to consider implementation constraints and practicalities on the ground, which in turn limited the fidelity of community engagement and the efficient utilization of community resources.

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

These studies exhibited variable quality across different study designs, with none meeting all the elements of a good quality design. Individual domain ratings and overall bias risk ratings for each study are presented in Tables S3 and S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Two cluster RCT studies [ 29 , 59 ] were identified as having a low risk of bias, 1 [ 55 ] as a moderate risk of bias, and 2 [ 45 , 52 ] as a high risk of bias. This variability in the risk of bias may result from incorrect randomization procedures, deviations in intervention implementation, and incomplete outcome reporting. In addition, 6 quasi-experimental studies [ 44 , 48 , 49 , 53 , 54 , 57 ] were rated as having a low risk of bias, 4 [ 42 , 46 , 47 , 56 ] were rated as having a moderate risk of bias, and 5 [ 41 , 43 , 50 , 51 , 58 ] were rated as having a high risk of bias. The sources of bias in these studies may include confounding effects, missing outcome data, and selective reporting of results.

Overall Meta-Analysis of Community Engagement on Vaccination Rates

The pooled meta-analysis incorporated usable data from 21 intervention groups across 20 studies. The random effects meta-analysis of pre-post intervention effects revealed a moderate positive effect size of community engagement on promoting vaccination rates (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.47, I 2 =99.9%, P CQ <.001; Figure 2 , see also [ 29 , 41 - 59 ]). Similarly, the random effects meta-analysis of between-group intervention effects showed a small positive effect size of community engagement on promoting vaccination rates (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.29, I 2 =98.4%, P CQ <.001; Figure 2 ).

Meta-Analysis of Community Engagement Contents and Extent on Vaccination Rates

Regarding the contents of community engagement, the random effects meta-analysis revealed that participant recruitment yielded the largest effect size (RD 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.67, I 2 =99.9%, P CQ <.001), followed by intervention development (RD 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.50, I 2 =100.0%, P CQ <.001), intervention implementation (RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.47, I 2 =99.8%, P CQ <.001), and data collection (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.50, I 2 =99.8%, P CQ <.001; Figure 3 , see also [ 29 , 41 - 59 ]).

With regard to the extent of community engagement, the random effects meta-analysis found that high community engagement extent yielded the largest effect size (RD 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-0.82, I 2 =100.0%, P CQ <.001), followed by moderate community engagement extent (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, I 2 =99.6%, P CQ <.001) and low community engagement extent (RD 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.25, I 2 =99.2%, P CQ <.001; Figure 4 , see also [ 29 , 41 - 59 ]).

Meta-Analysis of Intervention Strategies on Vaccination Rates

With regard to single types of intervention strategies, the meta-analysis of 4 intervention strategies found that “health service support” yielded the largest effect sizes (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.65, I 2 =99.9%, P CQ <.001), followed by “health education and discussion” (RD 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, I 2 =99.7%, P CQ <.001), “follow-up and reminder” (RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.42, I 2 =99.3%, P CQ <.001), and “social marketing campaigns and community mobilization” (RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.41, I 2 =99.9%, P CQ <.001; Figure 5 , see also [ 29 , 41 - 59 ]).

With regard to combined types of intervention strategies, the meta-analysis of 5 intervention strategy packages found that intervention package 2 yielded the largest increase in vaccination rates (RD 0.64, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, I 2 =99.3%, P CQ <.001), followed by intervention package 3 (RD 0.58, 95% CI 0.05-1.11, I 2 =99.1%, P CQ <.001), intervention package 4 (RD 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.41, I 2 =99.2%, P CQ <.001), and intervention package 1 (RD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.41, I 2 =98.6%, P CQ <.001). However, intervention package 5 had no statistically significant impact on vaccination rates (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.00-0.14, I 2 =72.7%, P CQ =.03; Figure 6 , see also [ 41 , 43 - 45 , 47 , 49 - 57 , 59 ]). Data from 5 studies were not synthesized because of high heterogeneity in their intervention strategies [ 29 , 42 , 46 , 48 , 58 ].

Subgroup Analyses of Age Groups, Vaccine Types, and Immunization Definitions on Vaccination Rates

Subgroup analyses revealed that adults (RD 0.50, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, I 2 =100.0%, P CQ <.001) exhibited a larger effect size compared with adolescents (RD 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-0.70, I 2 =99.3%, P CQ <.001) or children (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.33, I 2 =99.7%, P <.001; Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). HPV vaccination (RD 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-0.70, I 2 =99.3%, P CQ <.001) exhibited a larger effect size compared with HBV vaccination (RD 0.42, 95% CI 0.12-0.72, I 2 =99.8%, P CQ <.001) or children immunization (RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.33, I 2 =99.7%, P CQ <.001; Figure S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Full immunization (RD 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.53, I 2 =99.5%, P CQ <.001) exhibited a larger effect size compared with partial immunization (RD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.33, I 2 =93.3%, P CQ <.001). However, no significant increase was found in the vaccine rate of up-to-date immunization (RD 0.25, 95% CI –0.10 to 0.60, I 2 =100.0%, P CQ <.001; Figure S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Sensitivity, Meta-Regression, Publication Bias, and Evidence Level

Sensitivity analysis showed that no significant changes were observed in the effect size of the pre-post intervention effect analysis (Figure S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). However, the pooled effect size decreased dramatically when eliminating the study of Ma et al [ 45 ] in the between-group intervention effect analysis (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.20; Figure S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Meta-regression analyses did not show any association between effect size and study design or study quality for the pre-post intervention effect analysis ( P =.16 or P =.65; Figure S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). As evidenced by the funnel plot and Egger test, no discernible signs of publication bias were detected either in the pre-post or in the between-group intervention effect analyses ( P =.25; Figures S7 and S8 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). According to recommendations from van Tulder et al [ 40 ], evidence quality in our meta-analysis was graded as moderate in both the pre-post and between-group intervention effect analyses (Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Principal Findings

Community engagement drives interventions operated in a bottom-up manner rather than the traditional top-down approach. This approach supports stakeholders coming together to achieve global vaccination coverage goals from childhood to adulthood.

This study reported that community engagement strategies resulted in a 34% increase in vaccination rates through a pre-post intervention effect analysis and an 18% increase in vaccination rates through a between-group intervention effect analysis. The random effects meta-analyses indicated that participant recruitment exhibited the largest effect size, followed by intervention development, intervention implementation, and data collection. Consistent with previous evidence [ 64 ], intervention implementation constituted the primary engagement approach of most included studies and yielded a moderate effect size, while participant recruitment represented the engagement approach of over half of the included studies and yielded the largest effect size. Community partners who possess the knowledge and skills to effectively approach the target population and actively engage in participant recruitment hold the most potential to achieve relatively high recruitment and retention rates for participants. This meta-analysis found that the effect size increased with the extent of community engagement, with the highest community engagement extent exhibiting the largest effect size. Similar to previous evidence [ 65 ], a higher extent of community engagement resulted in greater vaccination promotion. Previous systematic reviews, which classify community engagement into different levels from low to high, also reported positive correlations between community engagement extents and intervention effects [ 65 ]. Regarding intervention strategies, the meta-analyses showed that health service support yielded the largest effect size, followed by health education and discussion, follow-up and reminder, and social marketing campaigns and community mobilization. Similar to previous studies, health service support increased routine childhood vaccine coverage [ 66 ]; health education and discussion increased HPV vaccine coverage among adolescents [ 21 , 67 ] and influenza vaccine coverage among older adults [ 68 ]; follow-up and reminder increased HBV vaccine coverage among adults [ 69 ]; and social marketing campaigns and community mobilization increased routine childhood vaccine coverage [ 70 ]. Health service support, whether used alone or in combination with other strategies, demonstrated effectiveness for vaccination promotion. Consistent with our analysis, previous studies have supported the effectiveness of health service support in the form of free vaccination, vaccination outreach or mobile clinic vaccination [ 66 , 71 ], and flexible vaccination schedules [ 72 ]. Intervention packages that combined health service support with the other 3 strategies resulted in a significant boost in vaccine rates. The intervention packages with adaptability and flexibility, which incorporated diverse intervention strategies, could effectively meet the needs of the community population and maximize intervention benefits.

Meta-analyses across a broad range of topics, populations, and interventions often encounter a disjunction between considerable heterogeneity arising from broad questions and the limited statistical methods available for variance analysis. The limited number of included studies precluded the performance of subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to fully address the sources of heterogeneity. The development of a conceptual framework provided homogeneity at the theoretical level despite the unavoidable nature of situational heterogeneity.

The geographic coverage of the included studies spanned across 5 countries, with most studies located in the United States, which could reflect a type of publication bias along with the skewed nature of global health research. These included studies were published between 2006 and 2021, with the majority in the last 5 years, which could reflect increased academic enthusiasm and enhanced policy support in recent years. However, most studies failed to disclose the social characteristics of community participants, which highlights the reality of known social hierarchies within communities.

Many studies proposed operational definitions of community engagement, and some studies suggested empirical models to explain its connotation. However, few articles made references to definitions or frameworks, reflecting a lack of theoretical basis and critical perspective. The lack of common definitions, along with the absence of conceptual frameworks, has led to diversified procedures and contents of engagement across diverse contexts and practices. Despite the wide acceptance of community engagement in theory and practice, considerable challenges remain in identifying the best engagement approach and evaluating engagement effectiveness [ 73 - 75 ]. Community engagement shares similar spirits but varies in practices, as the extent of engagement spans a spectrum from minimal superficial involvement to fully collaborative participation. Operating community engagement is cost-intensive rather than cost-neutral, requiring labor, capital, and time to establish, develop, and sustain fruitful partnerships, thus posing challenges to its successful and sustainable implementation. These included studies failed to report any analysis of costs, which precluded conclusions about the economic case for community engagement. While studies support the value of community engagement, the evaluation of community engagement has largely focused on health outcomes and ignored economic information. Future studies should incorporate economic analysis to explore the potential cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of community engagement in real-world contexts. This will help close the research-practice gap and facilitate evidence-based policy making.

The inclusion of experimental designs allowed the identification of a clear link between community engagement and vaccination promotion. However, none of these included studies were located at the top level of the evidence hierarchy, which limited the direct contribution of community engagement to vaccination promotion. Future studies with more rigorous designs should be performed to draw more definitive linkages about which participant group benefits the most from which engagement type in what community context. Randomized trials followed allocation sequence methods to ensure between-group comparability, but most interventions differed from comparisons in more ways than just community engagement. The comparator for community engagement always involved a completely different multicomponent intervention rather than the conventional health promotion activity without community engagement. The lack of a pure comparator in most community engagement interventions could cloud the interpretation of this meta-analysis. Community engagement often operates in nonlinear pathways synergized between various components and multiple outcomes, thus complicating effect evaluation compared with simple dose-response relationships. Community engagement functions as a dynamic process rather than as a discrete intervention, implying that evaluation should fully account for intrinsic complexities rather than simply focusing on outcome indicators. The primary studies should conduct thorough process evaluations to incorporate a spectrum of outcome measures and complement qualitative evaluations to elucidate the active ingredients of community engagement and the potential unintended effects of community engagement.

The effects of community engagement on vaccination promotion did not occur as a linear progression, but rather consisted of complex processes influenced by facilitators or challenges. These included studies identified individual- and community-level factors that facilitated or challenged community engagement in the context of vaccination promotion. At the individual level, the sense of confidence and ownership, along with the development of leadership skills and knowledge, facilitated community partners to engage with participatory processes. Conversely, the lack of interest and capacity, as well as the ambiguity of role and responsibility, challenged community partners to engage with participatory processes. At the community level, trust facilitated effective community engagement, while mistrust inhibited genuine community engagement. Further work should adopt a broader range of study designs that encompass both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to measure these intangible facilitators or challenges in the area of community engagement.

These included studies faced the challenge of measuring the level of community engagement, as engagement levels span a spectrum from more passive involvement to more active participation. This study proposed operationalized extents of community engagement beyond levels of community engagement from a pragmatic perspective. Further studies should be performed to develop tools or standards to measure and evaluate the levels of community engagement effectively.

As most studies narrowly defined community engagement as an intervention program imposed on the community, they framed the effectiveness of community engagement in terms of short-term individual-level outcomes [ 60 ] while neglecting multidimensional community-level outcomes. A narrow definition of community engagement, along with a restricted view of effectiveness, excludes a conceptually coherent and methodologically sound evaluation of community engagement [ 15 ]. Evaluating community engagement raises a unique set of challenges around conceptual, methodological, and practical aspects [ 76 ]. The interaction between the engagement strategy and the community system creates a degree of complexity beyond the detail of intervention implementation [ 77 ]. This complexity grows in concert with the delivery of the engagement strategy, which may, in some instances, reshape the intervention and the community context [ 77 ]. Future work should focus on intervention theories, logic models, and outcome frameworks to clarify the relationship between community engagement and health outcomes.

Community engagement can function independently or in conjunction with other initiatives. However, when combined with other initiatives, it becomes challenging to isolate the specific contribution of community engagement to health outcomes [ 78 ]. On the other hand, some studies treated community engagement as a discrete intervention rather than a dynamic process. This oversight has resulted in a lack of alternative process evaluations to explore how community engagement contributes to vaccination promotion [ 79 - 81 ]. Despite the widespread use and recognized significance of community engagement [ 82 ], there are still gaps in measuring and evaluating its implementation. While there is a vast body of literature on community engagement spanning various disciplines, comprehensive guidelines and frameworks for community engagement are lacking. The adoption of consistent guidelines and frameworks can formalize the implementation and evaluation of community engagement efforts.

Limitations

This study faces some challenges and limitations that warrant consideration and point toward future directions. The first challenge was the range of different definitions and terminology referring to engagement versus involvement and participation. The second challenge was the disjunction between the conceptual heterogeneity inherent in such broad questions and the limited statistical methods available to analyze variance. The third limitation was the possibility of study omission due to search deficiencies or publication bias, despite the extensive and rigorous literature search conducted.

Conclusions

The findings of this meta-analysis support the effectiveness of community engagement in promoting vaccination, with variations observed in terms of the contents and extent of engagement. Experimental studies often involve differences between the intervention and comparison groups beyond just community engagement. Studies designed to specifically isolate community engagement as the only differing factor between the intervention and comparison groups are suggested, which allows for a clearer understanding of its added value in vaccination promotion. Comprehensive process evaluations and qualitative evaluations should be used, to provide insights into the active ingredients of community engagement and uncover any unintended effects it may have. A further scientific agenda on community engagement should focus on theory development, framework construction, and effectiveness evaluation. Future studies will benefit from the adoption of standard guidelines and frameworks to enable cross-study or cross-country comparisons of community engagement, promoting effective, sustainable, and appropriate community initiatives.

Acknowledgments

This study is funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund (HMRF)–Commissioned Research on the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19; reference number COVID1903006-A). The funding body has (and will continue to have) no role in the study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of any data, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Data Availability

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

Disclosure of AI Use

The generative artificial intelligence was not used in any portion of the manuscript writing.

Authors' Contributions

YJX conceptualized the study. XL and ML drafted the initial manuscript. YJX checked and revised the manuscript. All other authors contributed to article revisions for important intellectual content and approved the final draft.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Literature search results, characteristics of included studies, risk-of-bias assessment, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Andre FE, Booy R, Bock HL, Clemens J, Datta SK, John TJ, et al. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bull World Health Organ. Feb 2008;86(2):140-146. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Chang YC, Tung HJ, Huang YT, Lu CT, Ernawaty E, Wu SY. Effect of influenza vaccination on mortality and risk of hospitalization in elderly individuals with and without disabilities: a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Vaccines (Basel). Mar 02, 2020;8(1):112. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Jeyanathan M, Afkhami S, Smaill F, Miller MS, Lichty BD, Xing Z. Immunological considerations for COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Nat Rev Immunol. Oct 04, 2020;20(10):615-632. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Thomas SJ, Moreira ED, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al. C4591001 Clinical Trial Group. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine through 6 months. N Engl J Med. Nov 04, 2021;385(19):1761-1773. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ozawa S, Clark S, Portnoy A, Grewal S, Stack ML, Sinha A, et al. Estimated economic impact of vaccinations in 73 low- and middle-income countries, 2001-2020. Bull World Health Organ. Sep 01, 2017;95(9):629-638. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Li X, Mukandavire C, Cucunubá ZM, Echeverria Londono S, Abbas K, Clapham HE, et al. Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium. Estimating the health impact of vaccination against ten pathogens in 98 low-income and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2030: a modelling study. Lancet. Jan 30, 2021;397(10272):398-408. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bruni L, Diaz M, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Herrero R, Bray F, Bosch FX, et al. Global estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level: a pooled analysis. The Lancet Global Health. Jul 2016;4(7):e453-e463. [ CrossRef ]
Dimitrova A, Carrasco-Escobar G, Richardson R, Benmarhnia T. Essential childhood immunization in 43 low- and middle-income countries: analysis of spatial trends and socioeconomic inequalities in vaccine coverage. PLoS Med. Jan 2023;20(1):e1004166. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
GBD 2020‚ Release 1‚ Vaccine Coverage Collaborators. Measuring routine childhood vaccination coverage in 204 countries and territories, 1980-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020, Release 1. Lancet. Aug 07, 2021;398(10299):503-521. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lane S, MacDonald NE, Marti M, Dumolard L. Vaccine hesitancy around the globe: analysis of three years of WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form data-2015-2017. Vaccine. Jun 18, 2018;36(26):3861-3867. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lazarus JV, Wyka K, White TM, Picchio CA, Rabin K, Ratzan SC, et al. Revisiting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy around the world using data from 23 countries in 2021. Nat Commun. Jul 01, 2022;13(1):3801. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
WHO TEAM: Enhanced Well-being (WEL), Health Promotion (HPR). Community engagement: a health promotion guide for universal health coverage in the hands of the people. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; Oct 05, 2020. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010529 [accessed 2024-04-13]
Minimum quality standards and indicators in community engagement. A guidance towards high quality, evidence-based community engagement in development and humanitarian contexts. UNICEF. New York, NY. UNICEF; Mar 1, 2020. URL: https://www.unicef.org/mena/reports/community-engagement-standards [accessed 2024-04-13]
Marston C, Hinton R, Kean S, Baral S, Ahuja A, Costello A, et al. Community participation for transformative action on women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. Bull World Health Organ. May 01, 2016;94(5):376-382. [ CrossRef ]
World Health Organization (WHO). Tool 16: Community engagement: refugee and migrant health toolkit. WHO. URL: https://www.who.int/tools/refugee-and-migrant-health-toolkit/module-5/tool-16 [accessed 2024-04-13]
Dayna B, Antonio D. Rhetoric or reality? Putting affected people at the centre of humanitarian action. ReliefWeb. 2014. URL: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/rhetoric-or-reality-putting-affected-people-centre-humanitarian-action [accessed 2024-04-21]
IAP2 Australasia. Public participation spectrum. International Association for Public Participation. URL: https://iap2.org.au/resources/spectrum/ [accessed 2024-04-21]
Rifkin SB, Muller F, Bichmann W. Primary health care: on measuring participation. Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(9):931-940. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
O'Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, Thomas J. The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. Feb 12, 2015;15(1):129. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Niccolai LM, Hansen CE. Practice- and community-based interventions to increase human papillomavirus vaccine coverage: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr. Jul 2015;169(7):686-692. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Jain M, Shisler S, Lane C, Bagai A, Brown E, Engelbert M. Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. Nov 08, 2022;12(11):e061568. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cumpston MS, McKenzie J, Welch V, Brennan SE. Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition. J Public Health (Oxf). Dec 01, 2022;44(4):e588-e592. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29, 2021;372:n71. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 2nd Edition. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass; Oct 01, 2012.
Osborne J, Paget J, Giles-Vernick T, Kutalek R, Napier D, Baliatsas C, et al. Community engagement and vulnerability in infectious diseases: a systematic review and qualitative analysis of the literature. Soc Sci Med. Sep 2021;284:114246. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Booth A, Sutton A, Clowes M, James MMS. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (3rd Edition). London, UK. SAGE Publications Ltd; Nov 01, 2021.
Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Key concepts in consumer and community engagement: a scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. Jun 13, 2014;14:250. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Habib MA, Soofi S, Cousens S, Anwar S, Haque NU, Ahmed I, et al. Community engagement and integrated health and polio immunisation campaigns in conflict-affected areas of Pakistan: a cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health. Jun 2017;5(6):e593-e603. [ CrossRef ]
Bondy JN, Thind A, Koval JJ, Speechley KN. Identifying the determinants of childhood immunization in the Philippines. Vaccine. Jan 01, 2009;27(1):169-175. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
O'Donnell S, Dubé E, Tapiero B, Gagneur A, Doll MK, Quach C. Determinants of under-immunization and cumulative time spent under-immunized in a Quebec cohort. Vaccine. Oct 13, 2017;35(43):5924-5931. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Robison SG, Groom H, Young C. Frequency of alternative immunization schedule use in a metropolitan area. Pediatrics. Jul 2012;130(1):32-38. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Aug 28, 2019;366:l4898. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Higgins JPT. Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd Edition). Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons; 2019;621-641.
Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer H. Antibacterial efficacy of calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. Jan 2007;40(1):2-10. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Grossman DC, Garcia CC. Effectiveness of health promotion programs to increase motor vehicle occupant restraint use among young children. Am J Prev Med. Jan 1999;16(1 Suppl):12-22. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ. In: Welch VA, editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd Edn). Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Phan K, Tian DH, Cao C, Black D, Yan TD. Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. Mar 2015;4(2):112-122. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. Sep 2018;74(3):785-794. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jun 15, 2003;28(12):1290-1299. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lennon T, Gundacker C, Nugent M, Simpson P, Magallanes NK, West C, et al. Ancillary benefit of increased HPV immunization rates following a CBPR approach to address immunization disparities in younger siblings. J Community Health. Jun 2019;44(3):544-551. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Weir RC, Toyoji M, McKee M, Li V, Wang CC. Assessing the impact of electronic health record interventions on hepatitis B screening and vaccination. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(4):1587-1605. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Findley SE, Irigoyen M, Sanchez M, Guzman L, Mejia M, Sajous M, et al. Community-based strategies to reduce childhood immunization disparities. Health Promot Pract. Jul 2006;7(3 Suppl):191S-200S. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Suryadevara M, Bonville CA, Ferraioli F, Domachowske JB. Community-centered education improves vaccination rates in children from low-income households. Pediatrics. Aug 2013;132(2):319-325. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ma GX, Lee MM, Tan Y, Hanlon AL, Feng Z, Shireman TI, et al. Efficacy of a community-based participatory and multilevel intervention to enhance hepatitis B virus screening and vaccination in underserved Korean Americans. Cancer. Mar 01, 2018;124(5):973-982. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Willis E, Sabnis S, Hamilton C, Xiong F, Coleman K, Dellinger M, et al. Improving immunization rates through community-based participatory research: community health improvement for Milwaukee's children program. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2016;10(1):19-30. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lee HY, Koopmeiners JS, McHugh J, Raveis VH, Ahluwalia JS. mHealth pilot study: text messaging intervention to promote HPV vaccination. Am J Hlth Behav. Jan 01, 2016;40(1):67-76. [ CrossRef ]
Marquez C, Kerkhoff AD, Naso J, Contreras MG, Castellanos Diaz E, Rojas S, et al. A multi-component, community-based strategy to facilitate COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Latinx populations: from theory to practice. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257111. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ma GX, Zhu L, Tan Y, Zhai S, Lin TR, Zambrano C, et al. A multilevel intervention to increase HPV vaccination among Asian American adolescents. J Community Health. Feb 2022;47(1):9-16. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Sanderson M, Canedo JR, Khabele D, Fadden MK, Harris C, Beard K, et al. Pragmatic trial of an intervention to increase human papillomavirus vaccination in safety-net clinics. BMC Public Health. Feb 02, 2017;17(1):158. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Parra-Medina D, Morales-Campos DY, Mojica C, Ramirez AG. Promotora outreach, education and navigation support for HPV vaccination to Hispanic women with unvaccinated daughters. J Cancer Educ. Jun 2015;30(2):353-359. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Paskett ED, Krok-Schoen J, Pennell M, Tatum CM, Reiter PL, Peng J, et al. Results of a multilevel intervention trial to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among adolescent girls. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Apr 2016;25(4):593-602. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bailey MB, Shiau R, Zola J, Fernyak SE, Fang T, So SKS, et al. San Francisco hep B free: a grassroots community coalition to prevent hepatitis B and liver cancer. J Community Health. Aug 2011;36(4):538-551. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bawa S, Shuaib F, Saidu M, Ningi A, Abdullahi S, Abba B, et al. Conduct of vaccination in hard-to-reach areas to address potential polio reservoir areas, 2014-2015. BMC Public Health. Dec 13, 2018;18(Suppl 4):1312. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Oyo-Ita A, Bosch-Capblanch X, Ross A, Oku A, Esu E, Ameh S, et al. Effects of engaging communities in decision-making and action through traditional and religious leaders on vaccination coverage in Cross River State, Nigeria: a cluster-randomised control trial. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0248236. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Akwataghibe NN, Ogunsola EA, Popoola OA, Agbo AI, Dieleman MA. Using participatory action research to improve immunization utilization in areas with pockets of unimmunized children in Nigeria. Health Res Policy Syst. Aug 11, 2021;19(Suppl 2):88. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Levinson KL, Abuelo C, Chyung E, Salmeron J, Belinson SE, Sologuren CV, et al. The Peru Cervical Cancer Prevention Study (PERCAPS): community-based participatory research in Manchay, Peru. Int J Gynecol Cancer. Jan 01, 2013;23(1):141-147. [ CrossRef ]
Abuelo CE, Levinson KL, Salmeron J, Sologuren CV, Fernandez MJV, Belinson JL. The Peru Cervical Cancer Screening Study (PERCAPS): the design and implementation of a mother/daughter screen, treat, and vaccinate program in the Peruvian jungle. J Community Health. Jun 2014;39(3):409-415. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
More NS, Das S, Bapat U, Alcock G, Manjrekar S, Kamble V, et al. Community resource centres to improve the health of women and children in informal settlements in Mumbai: a cluster-randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health. Mar 2017;5(3):e335-e349. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
Attree P, French B, Milton B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health Soc Care Community. May 2011;19(3):250-260. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kenny A, Hyett N, Sawtell J, Dickson-Swift V, Farmer J, O'Meara P. Community participation in rural health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. Feb 18, 2013;13:64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
World Health Organization (WHO). Community Engagement: A Health Promotion Guide for Universal Health Coverage in the Hands of the People. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 2020.
Brunton G, Thomas J, O'Mara-Eves A, Jamal F, Oliver S, Kavanagh J. Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions. BMC Public Health. Dec 11, 2017;17(1):944. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
De las Nueces D, Hacker K, DiGirolamo A, Hicks LS. A systematic review of community-based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups. Health Serv Res. Jun 2012;47(3 Pt 2):1363-1386. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Campbell JA, Yan A, Egede LE. Community-based participatory research interventions to improve diabetes outcomes: a systematic review. Diabetes Educ. Dec 2020;46(6):527-539. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Machado AA, Edwards SA, Mueller M, Saini V. Effective interventions to increase routine childhood immunization coverage in low socioeconomic status communities in developed countries: a systematic review and critical appraisal of peer-reviewed literature. Vaccine. May 21, 2021;39(22):2938-2964. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Abdullahi LH, Kagina BM, Ndze VN, Hussey GD, Wiysonge CS. Improving vaccination uptake among adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 17, 2020;1(1):CD011895. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Thomas RE, Lorenzetti DL. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. May 30, 2018;5(5):CD005188. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Juon HS, Strong C, Kim F, Park E, Lee S. Lay health worker intervention improved compliance with hepatitis B vaccination in Asian Americans: randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162683. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Opel DJ, Diekema DS, Lee NR, Marcuse EK. Social marketing as a strategy to increase immunization rates. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. May 2009;163(5):432-437. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Abraham SAA, Amoah JO, Agyare DF, Sekimpi DK, Bosomtwe-Duker D, Druye AA, et al. Health service factors affecting the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in a Ghanaian metropolis: a qualitative exploratory study. BMJ Open. Dec 20, 2023;13(12):e076184. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Gazmararian JA, Coleman M, Prill M, Hinman AR, Ribner BS, Washington ML, et al. Influenza vaccination of health care workers: policies and practices of hospitals in a community setting. Am J Infect Control. Sep 2007;35(7):441-447. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Ahmed SM, Nelson D, Kissack A, Franco Z, Whittle J, Kotchen T, et al. Towards building a bridge between community engagement in research (CEnR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Clin Transl Sci. Apr 2015;8(2):160-165. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. Feb 26, 2014;14:89. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Graffigna G, Barello S, Riva G, Corbo M, Damiani G, Iannone P, et al. Italian consensus statement on patient engagement in chronic care: process and outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jun 11, 2020;17(11):4167. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: a systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141091. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Mason AR, Carr Hill R, Myers LA, Street AD. Establishing the economics of engaging communities in health promotion: what is desirable, what is feasible? Critical Public Health. Sep 2008;18(3):285-297. [ CrossRef ]
South J, Phillips G. Evaluating community engagement as part of the public health system. J Epidemiol Community Health. Jul 2014;68(7):692-696. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Butterfoss FD. Process evaluation for community participation. Annu Rev Public Health. Dec 11, 2006;27(1):323-340. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Farnsworth SK, Böse K, Fajobi O, Souza PP, Peniston A, Davidson LL, et al. Community engagement to enhance child survival and early development in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence review. J Health Commun. Sep 10, 2014;19 Suppl 1(sup1):67-88. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Rifkin SB. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: a review of the literature. Health Policy Plan. Sep 01, 2014;29 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii98-i106. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
March S, Torres E, Ramos M, Ripoll J, García A, Bulilete O, et al. Adult community health-promoting interventions in primary health care: a systematic review. Prev Med. Jul 2015;76 Suppl:S94-104. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani, T Sanchez; submitted 06.06.23; peer-reviewed by X Liu, O Baggio; comments to author 01.09.23; revised version received 27.09.23; accepted 27.02.24; published 10.05.24.

©Yao Jie Xie, Xiaoli Liao, Meijuan Lin, Lin Yang, Kin Cheung, Qingpeng Zhang, Yan Li, Chun Hao, Harry HX Wang, Yang Gao, Dexing Zhang, Alex Molassiotis, Gilman Kit Hang Siu, Angela Yee Man Leung. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 10.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

IMAGES

Sample literature review mla format
Example of a Literature Review for a Research Paper by
Writing a review article: what to do with my literature review
15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide & Samples)
Literature attributes table comparing key multi-hazard reviews using a

VIDEO

How to write literature review #literaturereview #review #research #researcheverything #researchtips
Reviews of Related Literature : Research Topic
Literature Review, Systematic Literature Review, Meta
Mastering The Art Of Literature Review with AI Tools
WRITING THE LITERATURE REVIEW #research#trending
How to Do a Good Literature Review for Research Paper and Thesis

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Literature review as a research methodology: An ...
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
PDF How to Write a Literature Review
classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles • To emphasize the credibility of the writer in their field • To provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW SHOULD… • Be organized around a thesis statement or research question(s)
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
Writing a Literature Review
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).
Literature Review Guide
A literature review explores all sides of the research topic and evaluates all positions and conclusions achieved through the scientific research process even though some conclusions may conflict partially or completely. From the Online Library. Conducting Your Literature Review by Susanne Hempel. ISBN: 9781433830921.
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.
Methodological Approaches to Literature Review
A literature review is defined as "a critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." (The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison 2022) A literature review is an integrated analysis, not just a summary of scholarly work on a specific topic.
How to write a superb literature review
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
How do I compare and contrast theories and ideas in my literature
This section provides tools to help you organize your ideas and identify themes and gaps in the literature you review on your topic. See the links below to access the tutorial and to get additional explanation of how to compare and contrast ideas, topics, and resources.
Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview
In this article, we compare and contrast methods of reviewing, summarizing, and synthesizing the literature, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews. Review articles are essential to help investigators wade through the plethora of exponentially growing medical literature. In the era of evidence-based medicine, a ...
Comparing Integrative and Systematic Literature Reviews
A literature review is a systematic way of collecting and synthesizing previous research (Snyder, 2019).An integrative literature review provides an integration of the current state of knowledge as a way of generating new knowledge (Holton, 2002).HRDR is labeling Integrative Literature Review as one of the journal's four non-empirical research article types as in theory and conceptual ...
What is a literature review?
A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. ... Compare a study with other research that's been done; Or it ...
A practical guide to data analysis in general literature reviews
This article is a practical guide to conducting data analysis in general literature reviews. The general literature review is a synthesis and analysis of published research on a relevant clinical issue, and is a common format for academic theses at the bachelor's and master's levels in nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, public health and other related fields.
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 ...
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations. EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist.
Critically reviewing literature: A tutorial for new researchers
Instead, a literature review for an empirical article or for a thesis is usually organized by concept. However, a literature review on a topic that one is trying to publish in its own right could be organized by the issues uncovered in that review e.g. definitional issues, measurement issues and so on. 3.3. Assessing the literature that was ...
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
This article is organized as follows: The next section presents the methodology adopted by this research, followed by a section that discusses the typology of literature reviews and provides empirical examples; the subsequent section summarizes the process of literature review; and the last section concludes the paper with suggestions on how to improve the quality and rigor of literature ...
Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health
Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews more useful to knowledge users. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation in a ...
Community Engagement in Vaccination Promotion: Systematic Review and
A comprehensive and exhaustive literature search was performed in 4 English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wan Fang) to identify all possible articles. ... The meta-analysis revealed significant increases in vaccination rates both in pre-post comparison (rate difference [RD] 0. ...
The learning curve in endoscopic transsphenoidal skull-base surgery: a
The selection criteria included studies comparing the outcomes of skull-base surgeries involving pure EETA in the early and late stages of surgeons' experience, studies that assessed the learning curve of at least one surgical parameter, and articles published in English. ... This systematic review aims to evaluate the literature and identify ...
The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review. An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-as-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event.
Luminescence Thermometry with Nanoparticles: A Review
This review article primarily centers on luminescent nanoparticles employed in the field of luminescence thermometry. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of the recent literature pertaining to the utilization of lanthanide and transition metal nanophosphors, semiconductor quantum dots, polymer nanoparticles, carbon dots, and ...
Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the 'tip of the iceberg'
First, they uploaded five peer-review reports from the two manuscripts that his laboratory had submitted to a rudimentary online plagiarism-detection tool. The reports had 44-100% similarity to ...
Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical
A meta-narrative review seeks to explore and make sense of contradictions and tensions within the literature. A meta-narrative review maps how a certain topic is understood in distinct ways, conducts a focused search to describe and compare narratives, and then seeks to make sense of how such narratives are interpreted across different ...
A scoping review of emotion regulation and inhibition in emotional
Emotional eating is defined as a nonpathological eating behavior, whereas binge-eating disorder (BED) is defined as a pathological eating behavior. While different, both share some striking similarities, such as deficits in emotion regulation and inhibition. Previous research has suggested the existence of an "eating continuum" that might reflect the increased severity of overeating ...

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

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

The Literature Review

Database Search Tips

Creating an Search String

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

Purpose of a Literature Review

Limitations of a Literature Review

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

Table of Contents

What is a literature review?

What is the purpose of literature review?

Literature review example

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

Conducting a 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:

Frequently asked questions

Related Reads:

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

Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis

Conclusions

Data extraction

Number of visualisations

Categories of data visualisation

Types of data visualisation

Data presented

Interactivity

Software requirements

Limitations

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Additional file 2.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Systematic Reviews

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Community Engagement in Vaccination Promotion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Corresponding Author:

Introduction

Ethics Approval

Search Strategies

Selection Criteria