Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

previous studies in the literature

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

  • Collections
  • Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

Cover Art

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Wordvice

  • UNITED STATES
  • 台灣 (TAIWAN)
  • TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
  • Academic Editing Services
  • - Research Paper
  • - Journal Manuscript
  • - Dissertation
  • - College & University Assignments
  • Admissions Editing Services
  • - Application Essay
  • - Personal Statement
  • - Recommendation Letter
  • - Cover Letter
  • - CV/Resume
  • Business Editing Services
  • - Business Documents
  • - Report & Brochure
  • - Website & Blog
  • Writer Editing Services
  • - Script & Screenplay
  • Our Editors
  • Client Reviews
  • Editing & Proofreading Prices
  • Wordvice Points
  • Partner Discount
  • Plagiarism Checker
  • APA Citation Generator
  • MLA Citation Generator
  • Chicago Citation Generator
  • Vancouver Citation Generator
  • - APA Style
  • - MLA Style
  • - Chicago Style
  • - Vancouver Style
  • Writing & Editing Guide
  • Academic Resources
  • Admissions Resources

How to Make a Literature Review in Research (RRL Example)

previous studies in the literature

What is an RRL in a research paper?

A relevant review of the literature (RRL) is an objective, concise, critical summary of published research literature relevant to a topic being researched in an article. In an RRL, you discuss knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your study topic. If there are conflicts or gaps in existing literature, you can also discuss these in your review, as well as how you will confront these missing elements or resolve these issues in your study.

To complete an RRL, you first need to collect relevant literature; this can include online and offline sources. Save all of your applicable resources as you will need to include them in your paper. When looking through these sources, take notes and identify concepts of each source to describe in the review of the literature.

A good RRL does NOT:

A literature review does not simply reference and list all of the material you have cited in your paper.

  • Presenting material that is not directly relevant to your study will distract and frustrate the reader and make them lose sight of the purpose of your study.
  • Starting a literature review with “A number of scholars have studied the relationship between X and Y” and simply listing who has studied the topic and what each scholar concluded is not going to strengthen your paper.

A good RRL DOES:

  • Present a brief typology that orders articles and books into groups to help readers focus on unresolved debates, inconsistencies, tensions, and new questions about a research topic.
  • Summarize the most relevant and important aspects of the scientific literature related to your area of research
  • Synthesize what has been done in this area of research and by whom, highlight what previous research indicates about a topic, and identify potential gaps and areas of disagreement in the field
  • Give the reader an understanding of the background of the field and show which studies are important—and highlight errors in previous studies

How long is a review of the literature for a research paper?

The length of a review of the literature depends on its purpose and target readership and can vary significantly in scope and depth. In a dissertation, thesis, or standalone review of literature, it is usually a full chapter of the text (at least 20 pages). Whereas, a standard research article or school assignment literature review section could only be a few paragraphs in the Introduction section .

Building Your Literature Review Bookshelf

One way to conceive of a literature review is to think about writing it as you would build a bookshelf. You don’t need to cut each piece by yourself from scratch. Rather, you can take the pieces that other researchers have cut out and put them together to build a framework on which to hang your own “books”—that is, your own study methods, results, and conclusions.

literature review bookshelf

What Makes a Good Literature Review?

The contents of a literature review (RRL) are determined by many factors, including its precise purpose in the article, the degree of consensus with a given theory or tension between competing theories, the length of the article, the number of previous studies existing in the given field, etc. The following are some of the most important elements that a literature review provides.

Historical background for your research

Analyze what has been written about your field of research to highlight what is new and significant in your study—or how the analysis itself contributes to the understanding of this field, even in a small way. Providing a historical background also demonstrates to other researchers and journal editors your competency in discussing theoretical concepts. You should also make sure to understand how to paraphrase scientific literature to avoid plagiarism in your work.

The current context of your research

Discuss central (or peripheral) questions, issues, and debates in the field. Because a field is constantly being updated by new work, you can show where your research fits into this context and explain developments and trends in research.

A discussion of relevant theories and concepts

Theories and concepts should provide the foundation for your research. For example, if you are researching the relationship between ecological environments and human populations, provide models and theories that focus on specific aspects of this connection to contextualize your study. If your study asks a question concerning sustainability, mention a theory or model that underpins this concept. If it concerns invasive species, choose material that is focused in this direction.

Definitions of relevant terminology

In the natural sciences, the meaning of terms is relatively straightforward and consistent. But if you present a term that is obscure or context-specific, you should define the meaning of the term in the Introduction section (if you are introducing a study) or in the summary of the literature being reviewed.

Description of related relevant research

Include a description of related research that shows how your work expands or challenges earlier studies or fills in gaps in previous work. You can use your literature review as evidence of what works, what doesn’t, and what is missing in the field.

Supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue your research is addressing that demonstrates its importance: Referencing related research establishes your area of research as reputable and shows you are building upon previous work that other researchers have deemed significant.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can differ in structure, length, amount, and breadth of content included. They can range from selective (a very narrow area of research or only a single work) to comprehensive (a larger amount or range of works). They can also be part of a larger work or stand on their own.

types of literature reviews

  • A course assignment is an example of a selective, stand-alone work. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up an entire work on its own.
  • The literature review in a dissertation or thesis is both comprehensive and helps make up a larger work.
  • A majority of journal articles start with a selective literature review to provide context for the research reported in the study; such a literature review is usually included in the Introduction section (but it can also follow the presentation of the results in the Discussion section ).
  • Some literature reviews are both comprehensive and stand as a separate work—in this case, the entire article analyzes the literature on a given topic.

Literature Reviews Found in Academic Journals

The two types of literature reviews commonly found in journals are those introducing research articles (studies and surveys) and stand-alone literature analyses. They can differ in their scope, length, and specific purpose.

Literature reviews introducing research articles

The literature review found at the beginning of a journal article is used to introduce research related to the specific study and is found in the Introduction section, usually near the end. It is shorter than a stand-alone review because it must be limited to very specific studies and theories that are directly relevant to the current study. Its purpose is to set research precedence and provide support for the study’s theory, methods, results, and/or conclusions. Not all research articles contain an explicit review of the literature, but most do, whether it is a discrete section or indistinguishable from the rest of the Introduction.

How to structure a literature review for an article

When writing a literature review as part of an introduction to a study, simply follow the structure of the Introduction and move from the general to the specific—presenting the broadest background information about a topic first and then moving to specific studies that support your rationale , finally leading to your hypothesis statement. Such a literature review is often indistinguishable from the Introduction itself—the literature is INTRODUCING the background and defining the gaps your study aims to fill.

The stand-alone literature review

The literature review published as a stand-alone article presents and analyzes as many of the important publications in an area of study as possible to provide background information and context for a current area of research or a study. Stand-alone reviews are an excellent resource for researchers when they are first searching for the most relevant information on an area of study.

Such literature reviews are generally a bit broader in scope and can extend further back in time. This means that sometimes a scientific literature review can be highly theoretical, in addition to focusing on specific methods and outcomes of previous studies. In addition, all sections of such a “review article” refer to existing literature rather than describing the results of the authors’ own study.

In addition, this type of literature review is usually much longer than the literature review introducing a study. At the end of the review follows a conclusion that once again explicitly ties all of the cited works together to show how this analysis is itself a contribution to the literature. While not absolutely necessary, such articles often include the terms “Literature Review” or “Review of the Literature” in the title. Whether or not that is necessary or appropriate can also depend on the specific author instructions of the target journal. Have a look at this article for more input on how to compile a stand-alone review article that is insightful and helpful for other researchers in your field.

literature review examples

How to Write a Literature Review in 6 Steps

So how do authors turn a network of articles into a coherent review of relevant literature?

Writing a literature review is not usually a linear process—authors often go back and check the literature while reformulating their ideas or making adjustments to their study. Sometimes new findings are published before a study is completed and need to be incorporated into the current work. This also means you will not be writing the literature review at any one time, but constantly working on it before, during, and after your study is complete.

Here are some steps that will help you begin and follow through on your literature review.

Step 1: Choose a topic to write about—focus on and explore this topic.

Choose a topic that you are familiar with and highly interested in analyzing; a topic your intended readers and researchers will find interesting and useful; and a topic that is current, well-established in the field, and about which there has been sufficient research conducted for a review. This will help you find the “sweet spot” for what to focus on.

Step 2: Research and collect all the scholarly information on the topic that might be pertinent to your study.

This includes scholarly articles, books, conventions, conferences, dissertations, and theses—these and any other academic work related to your area of study is called “the literature.”

Step 3: Analyze the network of information that extends or responds to the major works in your area; select the material that is most useful.

Use thought maps and charts to identify intersections in the research and to outline important categories; select the material that will be most useful to your review.

Step 4: Describe and summarize each article—provide the essential information of the article that pertains to your study.

Determine 2-3 important concepts (depending on the length of your article) that are discussed in the literature; take notes about all of the important aspects of this study relevant to the topic being reviewed.

For example, in a given study, perhaps some of the main concepts are X, Y, and Z. Note these concepts and then write a brief summary about how the article incorporates them. In reviews that introduce a study, these can be relatively short. In stand-alone reviews, there may be significantly more texts and more concepts.

Step 5: Demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed.

In a literature review intro for an article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond to and/or confirm those sections in your own study. For a stand-alone literature review, this may mean highlighting the concepts in each article and showing how they strengthen a hypothesis or show a pattern.

Discuss unaddressed issues in previous studies. These studies that are missing something you address are important to include in your literature review. In addition, those works whose theories and conclusions directly support your findings will be valuable to review here.

Step 6: Identify relationships in the literature and develop and connect your own ideas to them.

This is essentially the same as step 5 but focused on the connections between the literature and the current study or guiding concepts or arguments of the paper, not only on the connections between the works themselves.

Your hypothesis, argument, or guiding concept is the “golden thread” that will ultimately tie the works together and provide readers with specific insights they didn’t have before reading your literature review. Make sure you know where to put the research question , hypothesis, or statement of the problem in your research paper so that you guide your readers logically and naturally from your introduction of earlier work and evidence to the conclusions you want them to draw from the bigger picture.

Your literature review will not only cover publications on your topics but will include your own ideas and contributions. By following these steps you will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research and you can turn a network of related works into a focused review of the literature.

Literature Review (RRL) Examples

Because creating sample literature reviews would take too long and not properly capture the nuances and detailed information needed for a good review, we have included some links to different types of literature reviews below. You can find links to more literature reviews in these categories by visiting the TUS Library’s website . Sample literature reviews as part of an article, dissertation, or thesis:

  • Critical Thinking and Transferability: A Review of the Literature (Gwendolyn Reece)
  • Building Customer Loyalty: A Customer Experience Based Approach in a Tourism Context (Martina Donnelly)

Sample stand-alone literature reviews

  • Literature Review on Attitudes towards Disability (National Disability Authority)
  • The Effects of Communication Styles on Marital Satisfaction (Hannah Yager)

Additional Literature Review Format Guidelines

In addition to the content guidelines above, authors also need to check which style guidelines to use ( APA , Chicago, MLA, etc.) and what specific rules the target journal might have for how to structure such articles or how many studies to include—such information can usually be found on the journals’ “Guide for Authors” pages. Additionally, use one of the four Wordvice citation generators below, choosing the citation style needed for your paper:

Wordvice Writing and Academic Editing Resources

Finally, after you have finished drafting your literature review, be sure to receive professional proofreading services , including paper editing for your academic work. A competent proofreader who understands academic writing conventions and the specific style guides used by academic journals will ensure that your paper is ready for publication in your target journal.

See our academic resources for further advice on references in your paper , how to write an abstract , how to write a research paper title, how to impress the editor of your target journal with a perfect cover letter , and dozens of other research writing and publication topics.

  • USC Libraries
  • Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

  • << Previous: Theoretical Framework
  • Next: Citation Tracking >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods

  • Getting Started
  • Literature Review Research
  • Research Design
  • Research Design By Discipline
  • SAGE Research Methods
  • Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

  • What is a Literature Review?
  • What is NOT a Literature Review?
  • Purposes of a Literature Review
  • Types of Literature Reviews
  • Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
  • Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

  • Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
  • Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
  • Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

  • Help gather ideas or information
  • Keep up to date in current trends and findings
  • Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

  • Explains the background of research on a topic.
  • Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
  • Helps focus your own research questions or problems
  • Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
  • Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
  • Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
  • Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
  • Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
  • Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

  • provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
  • helps focus one’s own research topic.
  • identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
  • suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
  • identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
  • helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
  • suggests unexplored populations.
  • determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
  • tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

previous studies in the literature

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

previous studies in the literature

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

  • clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
  • explicit, reproducible methodology
  • a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
  • assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
  • systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

  • << Previous: Getting Started
  • Next: Research Design >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Book cover

Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy pp 1–15 Cite as

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

  • Dennis Thomas 2 ,
  • Elida Zairina 3 &
  • Johnson George 4  
  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online: 09 May 2023

308 Accesses

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

  • Literature review
  • Systematic review
  • Meta-analysis
  • Scoping review
  • Research methodology

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Dennis Thomas

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

Elida Zairina

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

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

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

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

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

Download citation

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

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

University of Texas

  • 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

Creative Commons License

Boston College Libraries homepage

  • Research guides

Writing a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the principal research about the topic being studied. The review helps form the intellectual framework for the study. The review need not be exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible. However, the review should contain the most pertinent studies and point to important past and current research and practices in the field.

NECESSARY SKILLS

When conducting a literature review a researcher must have three quite distinct skills. He or she must be

  • adept at searching online databases and print indexes,
  • able to evaluate critically what she has read, and
  • able to incorporate the selected readings into a coherent, integrated, and meaningful account.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

  • provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
  • helps focus one’s own research topic.
  • identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
  • suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
  • identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
  • helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
  • suggests unexplored populations.
  • determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
  • tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
  • Next: Phase 1: Scope of Review >>
  • Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 2:26 PM
  • Subjects: Education , General
  • Tags: literature_review , literature_review_in_education

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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

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

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

  • formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
  • searching the extant literature,
  • screening for inclusion,
  • assessing the quality of primary studies,
  • extracting data, and
  • analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

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. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

  • Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
  • Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
  • Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
  • Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
  • Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
  • Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

  • Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
  • Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
  • Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
  • A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
  • Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
  • Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
  • Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
  • Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
  • Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
  • Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
  • Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
  • Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
  • Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
  • Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
  • Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
  • Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
  • Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
  • Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
  • Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
  • Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
  • Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
  • King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
  • Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
  • Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
  • Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
  • Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
  • Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
  • Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
  • Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
  • Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
  • Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
  • Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
  • Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
  • Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
  • Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
  • Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
  • Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
  • Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
  • Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
  • Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
  • Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
  • Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
  • Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
  • Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
  • Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
  • Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
  • Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
  • Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
  • Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
  • Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
  • Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
  • Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

  • Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
  • PDF version of this title (4.5M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

  • Introduction
  • Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
  • Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
  • Concluding Remarks

Related information

  • PMC PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

  • Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

Duke University Libraries

Literature Reviews

  • Getting started

What is a literature review?

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

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

previous studies in the literature

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

previous studies in the literature

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

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

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

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

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

previous studies in the literature

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

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

previous studies in the literature

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

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

previous studies in the literature

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

previous studies in the literature

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

Available online!

previous studies in the literature

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

previous studies in the literature

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

previous studies in the literature

The literature review: Six steps to success

previous studies in the literature

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

previous studies in the literature

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

  • Next: Types of reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:45 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Duke University Libraries

Services for...

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

Twitter

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

Creative Commons License

Training videos   |   Faqs

Ref-n-Write: Scientific Research Paper Writing Software

Academic Phrases for Writing Literature Review Section of a Research Paper

Overview |   Abstract   | Introduction | Literature Review | Materials & Methods | Results & Discussion | Conclusion & Future Work | Acknowledgements & Appendix

The literature review should clearly demonstrate that the author has a good knowledge of the research area. Literature review typically occupies one or two passages in the introduction section. A well-written literature review should provide a critical appraisal of previous studies related to the current research area rather than a simple summary of prior works. The author shouldn’t shy away from pointing out the shortcomings of previous works. However, criticising other’s work without any basis can weaken your paper. This is a perfect place to coin your research question and justify the need for such a study. It is also worth pointing out towards the end of the review that your study is unique and there is no direct literature addressing this issue. Add a few sentences about the significance of your research and how this will add value to the body of knowledge.

The literature review section of your research paper should include the following:

  • Previous literature
  • Limitations of previous research
  • Research questions
  • Research to be explored

1. Previous literature

The literature review shows that __ Previous research showed __ Seminal contributions have been made by __ A series of recent studies has indicated that __ Several theories have been proposed to __, some focusing on __, others on __ There has been numerous studies to investigate __ This has been used in several studies to assess __ Previous studies have shown __ Several studies suggest that __ This has also been explored in prior studies by __ Prior research suggests that __ Previous studies have emphasized __ The majority of prior research has applied __ Most early studies as well as current work focus on __ For instance, the following studies were conducted on __ Studies of __are well documented, it is also well acknowledged that __ A number of authors have recognized __ Some authors have also suggested that  __ Some authors have driven the further development of __ This has been discussed by a great number of authors in literature. For example, research has provided evidence for __ The authors bring some information about the background of the problem, __ As has been previously reported in the literature, __ A large number of existing studies in the broader literature have examined __ The literature review shows that __ There exists a considerable body of literature on  __ In short, the literature pertaining to __ strongly suggests that __ Over time, an extensive literature has developed on __ This section presents a review of recent literature on __ This paper begins with a short review of the literature regarding the __ Several methods are reported in the literature to address this issue. There is a wide choice of __ available in the literature. This section reviews the literature related to __ It was reported in literature that __ A recent study by __ concluded that __ In the light of reported __ it is conceivable that __ The method introduced by __ has the advantage that __ One method employed by __ is __ A more comprehensive description can be found in __ For example, recent research suggests that __ This was successfully established as described by __ The author employed a __ methodology which prescribes the use of __

2. Limitations of previous research

A number of questions regarding __ remain to be addressed. A closer look to the literature on __, however, reveals a number of gaps and shortcomings. This question has previously never been addressed because__ Most studies have relied on __ Previous studies by __ cannot be considered as conclusive because __ Previous studies have almost exclusively focused on __ This has been previously assessed only to a very limited extent because __ In the present studies __ were constrained to __ In previous studies were limited to __ Although results appear consistent with prior research, they appear inconsistent with __ These are previously unstudied because __ As far as we know, no previous research has investigated __ Moreover, although research has illuminated __ no study to date has examined __ Despite decades of research, this continues to be debated among __ This section points out some of the problems encountered in the extant research. Although there are many studies, the research in __ remains limited. However, the existing research has many problems in representing __ The literature on __ is less consistent Historically, there has been a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding __ This approach remains briefly addressed in the literature. These are rarely analyzed in the literature as __ There are key questions and notions that are still not discussed in the literature __ This is not clearly presented in the literature because __ This paper addresses the need for __, so far lacking in the scientific literature. To fill this literature gap, this paper identifies __ Only a few works in literature demonstrate __ Although studies have been conducted by many authors, this problem is still insufficiently explored. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined __ However, the existing research has many problems in __ Therefore, important issue in the literature is __ However, we argue that previous literature suffers from certain weaknesses: __ Previous research can only be considered a first step towards a more profound understanding of __ The previous studies reveal that __ are usually the most problematic to __

3. Research questions

More specific research questions will be introduced and investigated in __ A further question is whether __ Finally, another promising line of research would be __ The study addresses several further questions on __ Some of the interesting questions in this context are __ In order to address the questions outlined above, we report here __ These questions are of central interest as much recent research in __ Furthermore, __ is arguably an important question to be addressed. The question now is how __ can be used to explain __ Study addresses the research question __ In order to properly address this question, we __ An important question associated with __ is __ A critical open question is whether __ A still unsolved question is whether __ This remains an open question as __ This question has previously never been addressed because __ This study offers a test of __ research question Study addresses the research question __ Even in general __ research strategies is needed to explain __ The researcher should be interested here in __ Many questions remain unanswered __ There are some potentially open questions about the validity of __ The question that then naturally arises is __ The question then becomes how best to define__ This was an important question to study as __

4. Research to be explored

A more systematic and theoretical analysis is required for __ As the authors note earlier, more work is necessary to__ Additional studies to understand more completely the key tenets of __ are required. The unexpected findings signal the need for additional studies to understand more about __ This paper addresses __, so far lacking in the scientific literature. A new approach is therefore needed for __ One of the tough challenges for all researchers in this domain is __

Similar Posts

Useful Phrases and Sentences for Academic & Research Paper Writing

Useful Phrases and Sentences for Academic & Research Paper Writing

In this blog, we explain various sections of a research paper and give you an overview of what these sections should contain.

Academic Phrases for Writing Results & Discussion Sections of a Research Paper

Academic Phrases for Writing Results & Discussion Sections of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to results and discussion sections such as findings, limitations, arguments, and comparison to previous studies.

Academic Writing Resources – Academic PhraseBank | Academic Vocabulary & Word Lists

Academic Writing Resources – Academic PhraseBank | Academic Vocabulary & Word Lists

In this blog, we review various academic writing resources such as academic phrasebank, academic wordlists, academic vocabulary training sites.

Academic Phrases for Writing Conclusion Section of a Research Paper

Academic Phrases for Writing Conclusion Section of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to conclusion section such as summary of results and future work.

Academic Phrases for Writing Acknowledgements & Appendix Sections of a Research Paper

Academic Phrases for Writing Acknowledgements & Appendix Sections of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to thanking colleagues, acknowledging funders and writing the appendix section.

Academic Phrases for Writing Abstract Section of a Research Paper

Academic Phrases for Writing Abstract Section of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to the abstract section. An abstract is a self-contained and short synopsis that describes a larger work.

25 Comments

this helps and appreciate it. !

Thank you so much. This is very helpful

thanks mate

I have read and appreciated the content,very useful and academically well outlined.

Thank you! It’s very helpful!

Thank you. I find this helpful.

Thanks. it is very helpful

can such phrases be tracked as plagiarism? if yes, then what is left for the researchers to put on their paper?

Very helpful..Thanks

Good on you

Very useful! With this, I will improve my writing style!

Thanks a lot. God bless you.

Very useful

Thank you for this site, it helps me a lot when writing my literature reviews for my Research Module

Valuable information, thank you.

l appreciate it. it is very helpfull academically

very very good propositions

Thanks! This is what I was looking for

really appreciate

how to purchase a premium version

Thank you Sir,

This is invaluable. I will study it closely and incorporate as per guidance.

Amazing contents and great help. Thank you!

Could I copy your free academic phrases handbook for my research? Thank you

Helpful, Thanks

Thank you for this great assistance

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

  • 0.1K Share Facebook
  • 67 Share Twitter
  • 80 Share LinkedIn
  • 0.1K Share Email

previous studies in the literature

  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice

  • Annette Boaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294 1 ,
  • Juan Baeza 2 ,
  • Alec Fraser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-1551 2 &
  • Erik Persson 3  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  15 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.

We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions ( n  = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.

Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

Considerable time and money is invested in implementing and evaluating strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.

The growing body of evidence is not providing the anticipated clear lessons to support improved implementation.

Instead what is needed is better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice.

This would involve a more central role in implementation science for a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences and for greater use of different types of synthesis, such as realist synthesis.

Introduction

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice [ 1 , 2 ]. In recent years researchers have worked to improve the consistency in the ways in which these interventions (often called strategies) are described to support their evaluation. One notable development has been the emergence of Implementation Science as a field focusing explicitly on “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” ([ 3 ] p. 1). The work of implementation science focuses on closing, or at least narrowing, the gap between research and practice. One contribution has been to map existing interventions, identifying 73 discreet strategies to support research implementation [ 4 ] which have been grouped into 9 clusters [ 5 ]. The authors note that they have not considered the evidence of effectiveness of the individual strategies and that a next step is to understand better which strategies perform best in which combinations and for what purposes [ 4 ]. Other authors have noted that there is also scope to learn more from other related fields of study such as policy implementation [ 6 ] and to draw on methods designed to support the evaluation of complex interventions [ 7 ].

The increase in activity designed to support the implementation of research into practice and improvements in reporting provided the impetus for an update of a review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to support the use of research in clinical practice [ 8 ] which was itself an update of the review conducted by Grimshaw and colleagues in 2001. The 2001 review [ 9 ] identified 41 reviews considering a range of strategies including educational interventions, audit and feedback, computerised decision support to financial incentives and combined interventions. The authors concluded that all the interventions had the potential to promote the uptake of evidence in practice, although no one intervention seemed to be more effective than the others in all settings. They concluded that combined interventions were more likely to be effective than single interventions. The 2011 review identified a further 13 systematic reviews containing 313 discrete primary studies. Consistent with the previous review, four main strategy types were identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs). Nine of the reviews reported on MFIs. The review highlighted the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. MFIs claimed an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, although effect sizes remained small to moderate and this improvement in effectiveness relating to MFIs has been questioned in a subsequent review [ 10 ]. In updating the review, we anticipated a larger pool of reviews and an opportunity to consolidate learning from more recent systematic reviews of interventions.

This review updates and extends our previous review of systematic reviews of interventions designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. [ 9 ] and Boaz, Baeza and Fraser [ 8 ] overview articles. To ensure optimal retrieval, our search strategy was refined with support from an expert university librarian, considering the ongoing improvements in the development of search filters for systematic reviews since our first review [ 11 ]. We also wanted to include technology-related terms (e.g. apps, algorithms, machine learning, artificial intelligence) to find studies that explored interventions based on the use of technological innovations as mechanistic tools for increasing the use of evidence into practice (see Additional file 1 : Appendix A for full search strategy).

The search was performed in June 2022 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched for articles published since the 2011 review. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Reference lists of relevant papers were also examined.

We uploaded the results using EPPI-Reviewer, a web-based tool that facilitated semi-automation of the screening process and removal of duplicate studies. We made particular use of a priority screening function to reduce screening workload and avoid ‘data deluge’ [ 12 ]. Through machine learning, one reviewer screened a smaller number of records ( n  = 1200) to train the software to predict whether a given record was more likely to be relevant or irrelevant, thus pulling the relevant studies towards the beginning of the screening process. This automation did not replace manual work but helped the reviewer to identify eligible studies more quickly. During the selection process, we included studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. Studies were included if they met the following pre-determined inclusion criteria:

The study was a systematic review

Search terms were included

Focused on the implementation of research evidence into practice

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed as part of the review

Study populations included healthcare providers and patients. The EPOC taxonomy [ 13 ] was used to categorise the strategies. The EPOC taxonomy has four domains: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements and implementation strategies. The implementation strategies domain includes 20 strategies targeted at healthcare workers. Numerous EPOC strategies were assessed in the review including educational strategies, local opinion leaders, reminders, ICT-focused approaches and audit and feedback. Some strategies that did not fit easily within the EPOC categories were also included. These were social media strategies and toolkits, and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs) (see Table  2 ). Some systematic reviews included comparisons of different interventions while other reviews compared one type of intervention against a control group. Outcomes related to improvements in health care processes or patient well-being. Numerous individual study types (RCT, CCT, BA, ITS) were included within the systematic reviews.

We excluded papers that:

Focused on changing patient rather than provider behaviour

Had no demonstrable outcomes

Made unclear or no reference to research evidence

The last of these criteria was sometimes difficult to judge, and there was considerable discussion amongst the research team as to whether the link between research evidence and practice was sufficiently explicit in the interventions analysed. As we discussed in the previous review [ 8 ] in the field of healthcare, the principle of evidence-based practice is widely acknowledged and tools to change behaviour such as guidelines are often seen to be an implicit codification of evidence, despite the fact that this is not always the case.

Reviewers employed a two-stage process to select papers for inclusion. First, all titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer to determine whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Two papers [ 14 , 15 ] were identified that fell just before the 2010 cut-off. As they were not identified in the searches for the first review [ 8 ] they were included and progressed to assessment. Each paper was rated as include, exclude or maybe. The full texts of 111 relevant papers were assessed independently by at least two authors. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. 32 papers met the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction. The study selection procedure is documented in a PRISMA literature flow diagram (see Fig.  1 ). We were able to include French, Spanish and Portuguese papers in the selection reflecting the language skills in the study team, but none of the papers identified met the inclusion criteria. Other non- English language papers were excluded.

figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. Source: authors

One reviewer extracted data on strategy type, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact from the included studies. Two reviewers then independently read each paper and noted key findings and broad themes of interest which were then discussed amongst the wider authorial team. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a Quality Assessment Checklist based on Oxman and Guyatt [ 16 ] and Francke et al. [ 17 ]. Each study was rated a quality score ranging from 1 (extensive flaws) to 7 (minimal flaws) (see Additional file 2 : Appendix B). All disagreements were resolved through discussion. Studies were not excluded in this updated overview based on methodological quality as we aimed to reflect the full extent of current research into this topic.

The extracted data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns in the data linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

Thirty-two studies were included in the systematic review. Table 1. provides a detailed overview of the included systematic reviews comprising reference, strategy type, quality score, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact (see Table  1. at the end of the manuscript). Overall, the quality of the studies was high. Twenty-three studies scored 7, six studies scored 6, one study scored 5, one study scored 4 and one study scored 3. The primary focus of the review was on reviews of effectiveness studies, but a small number of reviews did include data from a wider range of methods including qualitative studies which added to the analysis in the papers [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. In this section, we discuss the different EPOC-defined implementation strategies in turn. Interestingly, we found only two ‘new’ approaches in this review that did not fit into the existing EPOC approaches. These are a review focused on the use of social media and a review considering toolkits. In addition to single interventions, we also discuss multi-faceted interventions. These were the most common intervention approach overall. A summary is provided in Table  2 .

Educational strategies

The overview identified three systematic reviews focusing on educational strategies. Grudniewicz et al. [ 22 ] explored the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour and patient outcomes and concluded they were not effective in any of these aspects. Koota, Kääriäinen and Melender [ 23 ] focused on educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency room/accident and emergency nurses and found that interventions involving face-to-face contact led to significant or highly significant effects on patient benefits and emergency nurses’ knowledge, skills and behaviour. Interventions using written self-directed learning materials also led to significant improvements in nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based practice. Although the quality of the studies was high, the review primarily included small studies with low response rates, and many of them relied on self-assessed outcomes; consequently, the strength of the evidence for these outcomes is modest. Wu et al. [ 20 ] questioned if educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes. Although based on evaluation projects and qualitative data, their results also suggest that positive changes on patient outcomes can be made following the implementation of specific evidence-based approaches (or projects). The differing positive outcomes for educational strategies aimed at nurses might indicate that the target audience is important.

Local opinion leaders

Flodgren et al. [ 24 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on opinion leaders. The review found that local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence‐based practice, but this varies both within and between studies and the effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The review found that, overall, any intervention involving opinion leaders probably improves healthcare professionals’ compliance with evidence-based practice but varies within and across studies. However, how opinion leaders had an impact could not be determined because of insufficient details were provided, illustrating that reporting specific details in published studies is important if diffusion of effective methods of increasing evidence-based practice is to be spread across a system. The usefulness of this review is questionable because it cannot provide evidence of what is an effective opinion leader, whether teams of opinion leaders or a single opinion leader are most effective, or the most effective methods used by opinion leaders.

Pantoja et al. [ 26 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on manually generated reminders delivered on paper included in the overview. The review explored how these affected professional practice and patient outcomes. The review concluded that manually generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably led to small to moderate increases in adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single quality improvement intervention. However, the authors indicated that this intervention would make little or no difference to patient outcomes. The authors state that such a low-tech intervention may be useful in low- and middle-income countries where paper records are more likely to be the norm.

ICT-focused approaches

The three ICT-focused reviews [ 14 , 27 , 28 ] showed mixed results. Jamal, McKenzie and Clark [ 14 ] explored the impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care. They examined the impact of electronic health record, computerised provider order-entry, or decision support system. This showed a positive improvement in adherence to evidence-based guidelines but not to patient outcomes. The number of studies included in the review was low and so a conclusive recommendation could not be reached based on this review. Similarly, Brown et al. [ 28 ] found that technology-enabled knowledge translation interventions may improve knowledge of health professionals, but all eight studies raised concerns of bias. The De Angelis et al. [ 27 ] review was more promising, reporting that ICT can be a good way of disseminating clinical practice guidelines but conclude that it is unclear which type of ICT method is the most effective.

Audit and feedback

Sykes, McAnuff and Kolehmainen [ 29 ] examined whether audit and feedback were effective in dementia care and concluded that it remains unclear which ingredients of audit and feedback are successful as the reviewed papers illustrated large variations in the effectiveness of interventions using audit and feedback.

Non-EPOC listed strategies: social media, toolkits

There were two new (non-EPOC listed) intervention types identified in this review compared to the 2011 review — fewer than anticipated. We categorised a third — ‘care bundles’ [ 36 ] as a multi-faceted intervention due to its description in practice and a fourth — ‘Technology Enhanced Knowledge Transfer’ [ 28 ] was classified as an ICT-focused approach. The first new strategy was identified in Bhatt et al.’s [ 30 ] systematic review of the use of social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. They reported that the use of social media resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and compliance with evidence-based guidelines compared with more traditional methods. They noted that a wide selection of different healthcare professionals and patients engaged with this type of social media and its global reach may be significant for low- and middle-income countries. This review was also noteworthy for developing a simple stepwise method for using social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. However, it is debatable whether social media can be classified as an intervention or just a different way of delivering an intervention. For example, the review discussed involving opinion leaders and patient advocates through social media. However, this was a small review that included only five studies, so further research in this new area is needed. Yamada et al. [ 31 ] draw on 39 studies to explore the application of toolkits, 18 of which had toolkits embedded within larger KT interventions, and 21 of which evaluated toolkits as standalone interventions. The individual component strategies of the toolkits were highly variable though the authors suggest that they align most closely with educational strategies. The authors conclude that toolkits as either standalone strategies or as part of MFIs hold some promise for facilitating evidence use in practice but caution that the quality of many of the primary studies included is considered weak limiting these findings.

Multi-faceted interventions

The majority of the systematic reviews ( n  = 20) reported on more than one intervention type. Some of these systematic reviews focus exclusively on multi-faceted interventions, whilst others compare different single or combined interventions aimed at achieving similar outcomes in particular settings. While these two approaches are often described in a similar way, they are actually quite distinct from each other as the former report how multiple strategies may be strategically combined in pursuance of an agreed goal, whilst the latter report how different strategies may be incidentally used in sometimes contrasting settings in the pursuance of similar goals. Ariyo et al. [ 35 ] helpfully summarise five key elements often found in effective MFI strategies in LMICs — but which may also be transferrable to HICs. First, effective MFIs encourage a multi-disciplinary approach acknowledging the roles played by different professional groups to collectively incorporate evidence-informed practice. Second, they utilise leadership drawing on a wide set of clinical and non-clinical actors including managers and even government officials. Third, multiple types of educational practices are utilised — including input from patients as stakeholders in some cases. Fourth, protocols, checklists and bundles are used — most effectively when local ownership is encouraged. Finally, most MFIs included an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation [ 35 ]. In contrast, other studies offer little information about the nature of the different MFI components of included studies which makes it difficult to extrapolate much learning from them in relation to why or how MFIs might affect practice (e.g. [ 28 , 38 ]). Ultimately, context matters, which some review authors argue makes it difficult to say with real certainty whether single or MFI strategies are superior (e.g. [ 21 , 27 ]). Taking all the systematic reviews together we may conclude that MFIs appear to be more likely to generate positive results than single interventions (e.g. [ 34 , 45 ]) though other reviews should make us cautious (e.g. [ 32 , 43 ]).

While multi-faceted interventions still seem to be more effective than single-strategy interventions, there were important distinctions between how the results of reviews of MFIs are interpreted in this review as compared to the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ], reflecting greater nuance and debate in the literature. This was particularly noticeable where the effectiveness of MFIs was compared to single strategies, reflecting developments widely discussed in previous studies [ 10 ]. We found that most systematic reviews are bounded by their clinical, professional, spatial, system, or setting criteria and often seek to draw out implications for the implementation of evidence in their areas of specific interest (such as nursing or acute care). Frequently this means combining all relevant studies to explore the respective foci of each systematic review. Therefore, most reviews we categorised as MFIs actually include highly variable numbers and combinations of intervention strategies and highly heterogeneous original study designs. This makes statistical analyses of the type used by Squires et al. [ 10 ] on the three reviews in their paper not possible. Further, it also makes extrapolating findings and commenting on broad themes complex and difficult. This may suggest that future research should shift its focus from merely examining ‘what works’ to ‘what works where and what works for whom’ — perhaps pointing to the value of realist approaches to these complex review topics [ 48 , 49 ] and other more theory-informed approaches [ 50 ].

Some reviews have a relatively small number of studies (i.e. fewer than 10) and the authors are often understandably reluctant to engage with wider debates about the implications of their findings. Other larger studies do engage in deeper discussions about internal comparisons of findings across included studies and also contextualise these in wider debates. Some of the most informative studies (e.g. [ 35 , 40 ]) move beyond EPOC categories and contextualise MFIs within wider systems thinking and implementation theory. This distinction between MFIs and single interventions can actually be very useful as it offers lessons about the contexts in which individual interventions might have bounded effectiveness (i.e. educational interventions for individual change). Taken as a whole, this may also then help in terms of how and when to conjoin single interventions into effective MFIs.

In the two previous reviews, a consistent finding was that MFIs were more effective than single interventions [ 8 , 9 ]. However, like Squires et al. [ 10 ] this overview is more equivocal on this important issue. There are four points which may help account for the differences in findings in this regard. Firstly, the diversity of the systematic reviews in terms of clinical topic or setting is an important factor. Secondly, there is heterogeneity of the studies within the included systematic reviews themselves. Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency with regards to the definition and strategies included within of MFIs. Finally, there are epistemological differences across the papers and the reviews. This means that the results that are presented depend on the methods used to measure, report, and synthesise them. For instance, some reviews highlight that education strategies can be useful to improve provider understanding — but without wider organisational or system-level change, they may struggle to deliver sustained transformation [ 19 , 44 ].

It is also worth highlighting the importance of the theory of change underlying the different interventions. Where authors of the systematic reviews draw on theory, there is space to discuss/explain findings. We note a distinction between theoretical and atheoretical systematic review discussion sections. Atheoretical reviews tend to present acontextual findings (for instance, one study found very positive results for one intervention, and this gets highlighted in the abstract) whilst theoretically informed reviews attempt to contextualise and explain patterns within the included studies. Theory-informed systematic reviews seem more likely to offer more profound and useful insights (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ]). We find that the most insightful systematic reviews of MFIs engage in theoretical generalisation — they attempt to go beyond the data of individual studies and discuss the wider implications of the findings of the studies within their reviews drawing on implementation theory. At the same time, they highlight the active role of context and the wider relational and system-wide issues linked to implementation. It is these types of investigations that can help providers further develop evidence-based practice.

This overview has identified a small, but insightful set of papers that interrogate and help theorise why, how, for whom, and in which circumstances it might be the case that MFIs are superior (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 ] once more). At the level of this overview — and in most of the systematic reviews included — it appears to be the case that MFIs struggle with the question of attribution. In addition, there are other important elements that are often unmeasured, or unreported (e.g. costs of the intervention — see [ 40 ]). Finally, the stronger systematic reviews [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ] engage with systems issues, human agency and context [ 18 ] in a way that was not evident in the systematic reviews identified in the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ]. The earlier reviews lacked any theory of change that might explain why MFIs might be more effective than single ones — whereas now some systematic reviews do this, which enables them to conclude that sometimes single interventions can still be more effective.

As Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 7) note ‘Study findings concerning the effectiveness of various approaches are continuously synthesized and assembled in systematic reviews’. We may have gone as far as we can in understanding the implementation of evidence through systematic reviews of single and multi-faceted interventions and the next step would be to conduct more research exploring the complex and situated nature of evidence used in clinical practice and by particular professional groups. This would further build on the nuanced discussion and conclusion sections in a subset of the papers we reviewed. This might also support the field to move away from isolating individual implementation strategies [ 6 ] to explore the complex processes involving a range of actors with differing capacities [ 51 ] working in diverse organisational cultures. Taxonomies of implementation strategies do not fully account for the complex process of implementation, which involves a range of different actors with different capacities and skills across multiple system levels. There is plenty of work to build on, particularly in the social sciences, which currently sits at the margins of debates about evidence implementation (see for example, Normalisation Process Theory [ 52 ]).

There are several changes that we have identified in this overview of systematic reviews in comparison to the review we published in 2011 [ 8 ]. A consistent and welcome finding is that the overall quality of the systematic reviews themselves appears to have improved between the two reviews, although this is not reflected upon in the papers. This is exhibited through better, clearer reporting mechanisms in relation to the mechanics of the reviews, alongside a greater attention to, and deeper description of, how potential biases in included papers are discussed. Additionally, there is an increased, but still limited, inclusion of original studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries as opposed to just high-income countries. Importantly, we found that many of these systematic reviews are attuned to, and comment upon the contextual distinctions of pursuing evidence-informed interventions in health care settings in different economic settings. Furthermore, systematic reviews included in this updated article cover a wider set of clinical specialities (both within and beyond hospital settings) and have a focus on a wider set of healthcare professions — discussing both similarities, differences and inter-professional challenges faced therein, compared to the earlier reviews. These wider ranges of studies highlight that a particular intervention or group of interventions may work well for one professional group but be ineffective for another. This diversity of study settings allows us to consider the important role context (in its many forms) plays on implementing evidence into practice. Examining the complex and varied context of health care will help us address what Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 1) described as, ‘society’s health problems [that] require research-based knowledge acted on by healthcare practitioners together with implementation of political measures from governmental agencies’. This will help us shift implementation science to move, ‘beyond a success or failure perspective towards improved analysis of variables that could explain the impact of the implementation process’ ([ 6 ] p. 2).

This review brings together 32 papers considering individual and multi-faceted interventions designed to support the use of evidence in clinical practice. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been conducted. As a whole, this substantial body of knowledge struggles to tell us more about the use of individual and MFIs than: ‘it depends’. To really move forwards in addressing the gap between research evidence and practice, we may need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed. Harvey et al. [ 53 ] suggest that when context is likely to be critical to implementation success there are a range of primary research approaches (participatory research, realist evaluation, developmental evaluation, ethnography, quality/ rapid cycle improvement) that are likely to be appropriate and insightful. While these approaches often form part of implementation studies in the form of process evaluations, they are usually relatively small scale in relation to implementation research as a whole. As a result, the findings often do not make it into the subsequent systematic reviews. This review provides further evidence that we need to bring qualitative approaches in from the periphery to play a central role in many implementation studies and subsequent evidence syntheses. It would be helpful for systematic reviews, at the very least, to include more detail about the interventions and their implementation in terms of how and why they worked.

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

Before and after study

Controlled clinical trial

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care

High-income countries

Information and Communications Technology

Interrupted time series

Knowledge translation

Low- and middle-income countries

Randomised controlled trial

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362:1225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.” J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005;18:541–5. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 .

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 .

Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, et al. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-63 .

Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Eldh AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar. Implementation Sci. 2018;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0 .

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A, European Implementation Score Collaborative Group (EIS). Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior – an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39 8Suppl 2:II2–45.

Google Scholar  

Squires JE, Sullivan K, Eccles MP, et al. Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 .

Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:561–74. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1223 .

Thomas JM. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1:1–6.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). The EPOC taxonomy of health systems interventions. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2016. epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy . Accessed 9 Oct 2023.

Jamal A, McKenzie K, Clark M. The impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care: a systematic review. Health Inf Manag. 2009;38:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335830903800305 .

Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, et al. Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1024–32. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0451 .

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-38 .

Jones CA, Roop SC, Pohar SL, et al. Translating knowledge in rehabilitation: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2015;95:663–77. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130512 .

Scott D, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GDC, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-70 .

Wu Y, Brettle A, Zhou C, Ou J, et al. Do educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;70:109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.026 .

Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, Aloweni F, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1 .

Grudniewicz A, Kealy R, Rodseth RN, Hamid J, et al. What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0347-5 .

Koota E, Kääriäinen M, Melender HL. Educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency nurses: a systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;41:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2018.06.004 .

Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub5 .

Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, et al. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001175.pub4 .

Pantoja T, Grimshaw JM, Colomer N, et al. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001174.pub4 .

De Angelis G, Davies B, King J, McEwan J, et al. Information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines to health professionals: a systematic review. JMIR Med Educ. 2016;2:e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.6288 .

Brown A, Barnes C, Byaruhanga J, McLaughlin M, et al. Effectiveness of technology-enabled knowledge translation strategies in improving the use of research in public health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17274. https://doi.org/10.2196/17274 .

Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.013 .

Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H, et al. A systematic review of the use of social media for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.008 .

Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, et al. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006808 .

Afari-Asiedu S, Abdulai MA, Tostmann A, et al. Interventions to improve dispensing of antibiotics at the community level in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:259–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.009 .

Boonacker CW, Hoes AW, Dikhoff MJ, Schilder AG, et al. Interventions in health care professionals to improve treatment in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.008 .

Al Zoubi FM, Menon A, Mayo NE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3253-0 .

Ariyo P, Zayed B, Riese V, Anton B, et al. Implementation strategies to reduce surgical site infections: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;3:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.355 .

Borgert MJ, Goossens A, Dongelmans DA. What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0306-1 .

Cahill LS, Carey LM, Lannin NA, et al. Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012575.pub2 .

Pedersen ER, Rubenstein L, Kandrack R, Danz M, et al. Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression. Implement Sci. 2018;13:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0788-8 .

Jenkins HJ, Hancock MJ, French SD, Maher CG, et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2015;187:401–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141183 .

Bennett S, Laver K, MacAndrew M, Beattie E, et al. Implementation of evidence-based, non-pharmacological interventions addressing behavior and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review focused on implementation strategies. Int Psychogeriatr. 2021;33:947–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220001702 .

Noonan VK, Wolfe DL, Thorogood NP, et al. Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.62 .

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Snelgrove-Clarke E, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies to promote research uptake in child health settings. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31:235–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.12.002 .

Campbell A, Louie-Poon S, Slater L, et al. Knowledge translation strategies used by healthcare professionals in child health settings: an updated systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026 .

Bird ML, Miller T, Connell LA, et al. Moving stroke rehabilitation evidence into practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:1586–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519847253 .

Goorts K, Dizon J, Milanese S. The effectiveness of implementation strategies for promoting evidence informed interventions in allied healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06190-0 .

Zadro JR, O’Keeffe M, Allison JL, Lembke KA, et al. Effectiveness of implementation strategies to improve adherence of physical therapist treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2020;100:1516–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa101 .

Van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Nache AM, et al. Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies. Kidney Int. 2011;80:1021–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.222 .

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10Suppl 1:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 .

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 .

Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008592 .

Metz A, Jensen T, Farley A, Boaz A, et al. Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221105585 .

May CR, Finch TL, Cornford J, Exley C, et al. Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-131 .

Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Wilson P, et al. Connecting the science and practice of implementation – applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1162762 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Kathryn Oliver for her support in the planning the review, Professor Steve Hanney for reading and commenting on the final manuscript and the staff at LSHTM library for their support in planning and conducting the literature search.

This study was supported by LSHTM’s Research England QR strategic priorities funding allocation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Grant number NIHR200152. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or Research England.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK

Annette Boaz

King’s Business School, King’s College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK

Juan Baeza & Alec Fraser

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Campus Universitário Reitor João Davi Ferreira Lima, Florianópolis, SC, 88.040-900, Brazil

Erik Persson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AB led the conceptual development and structure of the manuscript. EP conducted the searches and data extraction. All authors contributed to screening and quality appraisal. EP and AF wrote the first draft of the methods section. AB, JB and AF performed result synthesis and contributed to the analyses. AB wrote the first draft of the manuscript and incorporated feedback and revisions from all other authors. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

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: appendix a., additional file 2: appendix b., 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.

Boaz, A., Baeza, J., Fraser, A. et al. ‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice. Implementation Sci 19 , 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2023

Accepted : 05 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Implementation
  • Interventions
  • Clinical practice
  • Research evidence
  • Multi-faceted

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

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

previous studies in the literature

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, how to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections of a research paper.

  • Charlesworth Author Services
  • 07 October, 2021

There are many articles which discuss how you can include and discuss existing studies and research in the literature review section of a paper. However, in addition to the literature review , there are many other opportunities to discuss or engage with prior studies in your research. This article offers guidance on how to include other studies or literature in different sections in a research paper.

Engaging with literature in the Introduction

Prior studies are often mentioned in the Introduction , generally as high-level summaries without much detail. Although some people may choose not to use existing literature or research to motivate a study, this is not an uncommon practice. Researchers sometimes rely on prior studies to emphasise the importance of the current study – for example, in challenging a standing argument or addressing an outstanding gap . Prior studies are also often discussed to build the foundation of the arguments of the research paper in question. 

Working with previous studies in the Methodology

It is also common practice to refer to prior literature in the Methodology. You may refer to prior studies as you design the study, collect and/or select data and perform the analysis. If this is the case, it is important to explain clearly why you are using and drawing from previous studies and how these are relevant to your own research paper. 

It is also possible to refer to prior studies to highlight the different methodological choices you have taken in your research. For example, there may be a comparison of the data sources, the sample or subject selections. Or, you might offer a comparison in the decisions made for different parameters, constructs, factors, model selection preferences and so on. Highlighting these differences can help you to clearly present new perspectives and why your study provides value to the field.

If you are offering a comparison between your current and previous studies, try to avoid solely comparing and contrasting, or simply stating what you have performed. What is more important is to explain why you have made these different decisions so that readers can understand the rationale behind your methodological decisions and your project design .

Referring to the literature in the Discussion and Conclusion

It is always a good idea to refer to prior studies and existing literature in the Discussion or Conclusion sections. This is a good time to reiterate the arguments, research questions/hypotheses and objectives that you introduced in the earlier sections of the paper and to discuss your results and findings .

Integrating other relevant literature into your Discussion serves two key purposes . First, it outlines what has already been achieved in prior studies. Second, you can explain how your study builds on this existing work to advance the knowledge in the field . 

Sometimes, through this discussion, you can also demonstrate why or how your findings are the same as or different from prior studies. 

Three common mistakes to avoid

When forging connections between prior studies and your own research paper, it is important to be aware of three common mistakes that authors make.

  • Some researchers sometimes focus too much on the existing literature , so that their research paper does not, ultimately, seem to provide many new insights. 
  • Because of the way authors might present and discuss prior studies in the Introduction, readers may become distracted or be led to raise more questions that are not relevant to the present research paper. [ Tip : In this and the above instances, it is advisable that you ensure your discussion of the literature is relevant at all times to the specific issues that you are discussing in each section and does not overshadow the main idea(s) in the research paper.]
  • Although you can critique prior studies to highlight the unique approach or key message of your study, it is a good practice to avoid subjective assessments, so as not to introduce any personal biases into your discussion of either the literature or your own research. 

In conclusion

Remember that engagement with the literature serves primarily to set the scene and contextualise your own research . It should provide enough information for your reader to understand the relevance and significance of your study, but not take over the main focus of the paper.

Read next (fifth/final) in series: Difference between a literature review and a critical review

Read previous (third) in series: Deciding what to include and exclude as you begin to write your literature review

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit:  Our Services

Visit our new Researcher Education Portal  that offers articles and webinars covering all aspects of your research to publication journey! And sign up for our newsletter on the Portal to stay updated on all essential researcher knowledge and information!

Register now:  Researcher Education Portal

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

previous studies in the literature

Conducting a Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 10/03/2021 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Important factors to consider as you Start to Plan your Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 06/10/2021 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Deciding what to Include and Exclude as you begin to write your Literature Review

Related webinars.

previous studies in the literature

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication- Module 3: Understand the structure of an academic paper

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

previous studies in the literature

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 8: Write a strong methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 9:Write a strong results and discussion section

Paper sections.

previous studies in the literature

How to write an Introduction to an academic article

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Writing a strong Methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 12/03/2021 00:00:00

previous studies in the literature

Writing an effective Discussion section in a scientific paper

Charlesworth Author Services 27/10/2021 00:00:00

  • Link to facebook
  • Link to linkedin
  • Link to twitter
  • Link to youtube
  • Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

  • 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Embed a Video in PowerPoint

Including a video in your PowerPoint presentation can make it more exciting and engaging. And...

What Is a Patent?

A patent is a form of intellectual property that restricts who can copy your invention....

How to Add Speaker Notes in PowerPoint

Adding speaker notes to your PowerPoint allows you to present with confidence while avoiding information...

How to Download a PowerPoint Presentation

PowerPoint is Microsoft’s presentation software. It’s frequently used by families, students, and businesses to create...

6-minute read

How to Conduct a Meta-Analysis for Research

Are you considering conducting a meta-analysis for your research paper? When applied to the right...

How to Add a Hanging Indent in Google Slides

A hanging indent adds an indent to the first line of each paragraph and is...

Logo Harvard University

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

The Relationship between Mushroom Intake and Cognitive Performance: An Epidemiological Study in the European Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk Cohort (EPIC-Norfolk)

Affiliation.

  • 1 School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights Road, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6ES, UK.
  • PMID: 38337638
  • PMCID: PMC10857520
  • DOI: 10.3390/nu16030353

The previous literature suggests that regular consumption of edible mushrooms may confer neuroprotective cognitive health benefits. To further investigate the possible association between mushrooms and brain function during ageing, data from a population-based study of diet and chronic disease (EPIC-Norfolk cohort) were analysed. Changes in mushroom intake were measured using a food frequency questionnaire at three health check (HC) points over an 18-year period, with participants categorised based on their consumption frequency. Cognitive performance was assessed at the final health check (3HC) via a battery of validated tests assessing a range of different cognitive domains. The findings revealed a significant reduction in mushroom intake over time, with 4.12% of the cohort giving up mushrooms after previously consuming them. At 3HC, mushroom consumers displayed better cognitive performance than non-consumers across multiple cognitive domains. This relationship was observed to be dose-dependent, with those consuming 1 or more portions per week showing the highest cognitive scores. These findings suggest that regular mushroom consumption may be beneficial for cognitive function during aging. Further randomised controlled trials will be needed to confirm any potential benefits of mushrooms on long-term cognitive health, alongside public health initiatives to promote mushroom consumption in this older-adult demographic.

Keywords: cognitive performance; epidemiological; global memory; mushroom intake; older adults.

  • Agaricales*
  • Cohort Studies
  • Epidemiologic Studies
  • Neoplasms* / epidemiology
  • Prospective Studies

Grants and funding

previous studies in the literature

Check Research

  • Your Guide to write Previous Studies in the paper

Your Guide to write Previous Studies in the paper

What are the previous studies in scientific research?

  • Previous studies, which make up the second half of the theoretical framework for scientific study, are regarded as one of the most crucial aspects of the field. Every scientific study requires the presence of earlier studies, and without them, the scientific research will be incorrect.
  • Previous studies are a collection of research and studies that dealt with the issue that the researcher investigated, and these studies give the researcher with a wealth of information on the subject of the study that aids him in fully comprehending the subject of his scientific research.
  • When writing past studies in scientific research, the researcher must use primary and original sources and ensure that the material contained therein is correct. The researcher should study scientific publications that contain a big number of original scientific studies that he or she can refer to as reputable past studies when producing scientific research.
  • The researcher should be able to select studies that are relevant to the scientific study he is conducting, as well as present data that is relevant to scientific research. The researcher should also be able to objectively, sequentially, and freely communicate past studies in scientific research.
  • Furthermore, the researcher must take care to write prior studies correctly, free of spelling and grammatical problems, and he should select earlier studies that bring the reader closer to scientific research.

What are the reasons for writing previous studies in scientific research?

  • Previous studies provide information and a basic notion about the study's subject, allowing the researcher to avoid making the same mistakes as previous researchers. Previous research saves time and effort by giving detailed information about the study's topic.
  • Previous research is one of the factors that aid the researcher's decision-making process when selecting a theoretical framework.
  • Previous studies save time and effort for the researcher by giving ready-to-use, validated knowledge about the issue under study, ensuring that the researcher does not squander time.
  • Furthermore, past research alerts the researcher to the error locations that other researchers have signed, allowing him to avoid and not make them, ensuring that his research is error-free.
  • Prior studies allow the researcher to see and discuss the recommendations made by previous researchers.
  • Previous research plays an important function in offering a vast number of sources and references for the researcher's research
  • The researcher will be able to conduct comparisons between his scientific research and other studies, and so uncover points of agreement and difference, thanks to past research.
  • The researcher can view the curricula utilized by prior researchers through previous studies, and so determine the approach that is most appropriate for his scientific research, saving time in the process.

Steps to Write Previous Studies Through Emtyiaz for Educational Service.

  • Define the subject and the scope of the review: many students have difficulty selecting a topic so they have to use brainstorming techniques to narrow their focus.
  • Enhance a strategy: through considering what types of sources would include the information you need.
  • Define the information: through using search tools designed to see the resources you need.
  • Evaluating information: through knowing how the materials answer your questions.
  • Synthesize: through integrate and organize in formation from many resources.
  • Evaluate the work: through knowing how the work is effective and meets requirements.

Emtyiaz is stand beside our dear student to write a well Previous Studies by an experienced academic team. We have many techniques to write it from all scientific specializations in English or Arabic.

Keep in touch with us.
know more about Statistical Analysis Process by Emtyiaz Write a successful Proposal offered by Emtyiaz What about university assignment in Arabic provided by Emtyiaz.. Know more much about analytical approach What about r1 research universities? Important Steps to Write Arabic Assignment Help What Do You Know my dear student about a research plan? Your guide for quality analytical design in research How to write Arabic assignments design successfully Your Guide to writing project through Emtyiaz for student services Your Guide dear student to know more about the types of qualitative research

Latest Posts

previous studies in the literature

أهم 5 أسئلة شائعة حول بدل التعليم الجامعي

نظام ابن الهيثم للدراسات العليا

اتجاهات عمل بحوث علمية طبية pdf في عام 2024

previous studies in the literature

Online Translation Agency in saudi arabia

previous studies in the literature

CERTIFIED TRANSLATION In Saudi Arabia 2023

previous studies in the literature

LEGAL TRANSLATION services from Emtyiaz

previous studies in the literature

Get your best arabic translation from Emtyiaz

previous studies in the literature

Islamic translation services from Emtyiaz

previous studies in the literature

Emtyiaz is the perfect office of Religious Translation in Riyadh

previous studies in the literature

Get your perfect project graduation from Emtyiaz

Send Message

Subscribe to our Newsletter list to receive the latest offers available and leave your note to help us improving our services.

previous studies in the literature

أفحص بحثك بالمجان

REVIEW article

The effectiveness of music–movement integration for vulnerable groups: a systematic literature review.

\r\nMarja-Leena Juntunen*

  • 1 Department of Music Education, Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • 2 Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

This systematic review synthesized the outcomes of previous intervention studies published from January 2000–October 2022 to evaluate the effectiveness of Dalcroze-based or similar music–movement integration among groups of individuals considered vulnerable (in relation to their abilities and health/wellbeing). The target groups addressed in previous intervention studies included individuals with special educational needs (such as disorders, disabilities, or impairments) or with a (risk of) decline in health and/or physical strength. Twenty articles met the review inclusion criteria. All studies showed beneficial outcomes for music–movement intervention except one that suffered from low adherence rates. In older adults, the benefits were cognitive, physical, social, and/or emotional, including improved postural stability, balance, gait safety, confidence in mobility, metamemory skills, dual-task performance, social and physical pleasure, autotelic/flow experience, enjoyment, health, and quality of life. In individuals with special educational needs, improvement was seen in relation to inclusion, reductions in compulsive and other problematic behaviors, self-regulation, perceptual and cognitive abilities and functions, linguistic and learning skills, auditory attention and phonological awareness, social interaction, engagement, and agency.

Introduction

This systematic review examined and synthesized intervention studies published from 2000–October 2022 that investigated the effectiveness of Dalcroze-based (or similar) music–movement integration in a variety of contexts among “vulnerable groups.” “Dalcroze-based” here refers to practices of music–movement integration in which whole-body movement is a way of responding to, expressing, and experiencing music rather than an end in itself (as opposed to in dance where the role of music varies greatly). Vulnerability as a notion is complex and, as Schröder-Butterfill and Marianti (2006 , p. 9) noted, contains substantial conceptual and terminological diversity. Etymologically, vulnerability refers “to the susceptibility of being physically or emotionally wounded” ( Sanchini et al., 2022 ). Vulnerability can be defined both as resulting from a condition and a process related, for example, to wellbeing, the possibility of exposure to risk, and capacity to manage risks ( Zarowsky et al., 2013 ). It has been suggested that vulnerability does not depend on any single attribution, but rather it results from complex relationships among a variety of factors, such as social class, gender, race, age, and ability—people are made vulnerable rather than born vulnerable ( Kuran et al., 2020 ). Thus, being vulnerable is not necessarily a fixed existential position ( Zarowsky et al., 2013 ), and there are different bases for defining who can be considered vulnerable. In this article, our working definition of vulnerable groups draws on a more traditional and narrow view related to ability- and health/wellbeing-related factors.

Thus, by vulnerable we here refer to groups of individuals whose possibilities for participation, learning, and/or agency in music and beyond are (at risk of being) restricted (see Ketefian, 2015 , p. 165) as a result of having (or being at risk of having) a disorder, disability, impairment, or decline in health and/or physical strength (see Schröder-Butterfill and Marianti, 2006 ). Based on our preliminary examination of research articles according to these criteria, older adults, who have historically been associated with vulnerability ( Sanchini et al., 2022 ) and people with special educational needs (SEN) were identified as the main target groups of Dalcroze-based music–movement interventions in the articles in the chosen time period. SEN implies learning difficulties or disabilities that require support in an additional or different form than what is generally available to others of a similar age ( Florian, 2019 , p. 693) and includes impairments (cognitive, memory, visual, and/or hearing), dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as well as developmental, behavioral, and/or cognitive challenges.

Music–movement integration

In this study, the integration of music and movement as a practical activity not only refers to their co-existence but also to deeper reciprocal connections between music and movement, based on the shared characteristics of music and body/movement (see e.g., Sievers et al., 2013 ). The interconnection and shared qualities have been identified in several fields of science, such as ethnomusicology ( Blacking, 1977 ), neuropsychology (e.g., Seitz, 2005a , b ), the neurosciences (e.g., Hodges and Gruhn, 2012 ), and musicology (e.g., Lidov, 2005 ; Godøy, 2018 ). Many philosophical approaches within music education, such as the phenomenological approach (e.g., Bowman, 1998 ; Juntunen, 2004 ) and praxialism (e.g., Elliott, 2005 ), address the role of the body and movement in musical experience and knowledge.

Within the cognitive sciences, the enactivist approach in particular focuses on how concrete sensorimotor patterns of action and perception underlie and shape our cognitive processes and emphasize the role of the human body as a mediator for meaning formation ( Leman and Maes, 2014 ; Gallagher, 2017 , p. 5). Perception, action, and cognition are regarded as mutually dependent and deeply intermixed in our worldly experience ( Schiavio, 2014 ). During the last decade, embodied music cognition research has become an influential paradigm treating embodied interactions with music in diverse ways ( Leman et al., 2018 ). Among other things, it highlights how body movement and bodily interactions with music influence music perception and strongly determine music cognition ( Leman and Maes, 2014 ; Leman et al., 2018 ). It has also been suggested that besides being connected on a behavioral level, sound and body motion are intertwined on a neurophysiological level ( Kohler et al., 2002 ).

Today, movement is among the key working methods of many music education and therapy practices, and integrating (rhythmic) movement and music in educational and therapeutic practices has been identified as beneficial in many studies. The idea of music–movement integration in music education was first presented by Swiss musician, composer, and music educator Jaques-Dalcroze (1865–1950) in the late 19th century. His pedagogical efforts were aimed at how musical experience, understanding and learning could be more rooted in perception and embodied experience ( Juntunen, 2022 ). Although he began with a focus on exploring and testing the possibilities of music–movement integration in the context of music education, he soon recognized its therapeutic potential, as the practice aims to reinforce the unity of the body, mind, and emotions ( Jaques-Dalcroze, 1921/1980 , p. 182; Habron, 2014 ). Consequently, by 1930, Dalcrozian ideas had been applied in many fields related to therapy ( Dutoit, 1965 , p. 67) and Dalcroze teachers employed ideas from the approach in their work with individuals with special needs. Such practices have continued to develop. At present, Dalcroze applications can be found in many practices, disciplines, and fields of research, such as music, dance, theater, cinema, special education, music therapy, and gerontology ( Mathieu, 2010 ; Habron, 2014 ).

In Dalcroze-based teaching, participants in group activities respond through whole-body movement to (often improvised) music. Music is explored, experienced, learnt, and expressed through movements that show what the participants hear and understand of the music ( Juntunen, 2016 ). The exercises can be functional (e.g., reflecting the dynamics of music), rhythmic, creative, and dramatic, among other possibilities (for more, see e.g., Juntunen, 2002 , 2016 , 2022 ). The approach addresses a wide range of capabilities on the physical, cognitive, affective, and social domains ( Juntunen, 2016 ; Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez, 2018b ). In Dalcroze practice, music–movement integration implies multisensory integration, which is also one of its recognized benefits (e.g., Altenmüller and Scholz, 2016 ; Juntunen, 2020a , b ). Multisensory pertains to the integration of information from different sensory modalities. In music–movement integration, you actively listen and respond to the music, which guides your movement (showing what you hear), while simultaneously seeing other participants move and perceiving your movement through kinesthesia, both of which influence movement and listening. 1 Another important and beneficial feature of Dalcroze training is that the movement is mainly improvisational and involves responding to music—while interacting with the movement of others—and thus it activates the so-called perception–action loop (for more, see e.g., Capdepuy et al., 2012 ; Schiavio, 2014 ; Spivey and Huette, 2014 ). It is precisely because of these qualities of music–movement integration that this study focused on Dalcroze-based practices (instead of dance, for example). Some of the ideas of the Dalcroze approach have been adopted and modified in other (music education) approaches, such as those of Laban, Orff, and Kodály (see Juntunen, 2022 ; also Abril, 2011 ). These approaches share similarities and differences in relation to the role of movement; however, each builds on the close connection between music and movement.

Aims and objectives

This systematic literature review summarizes and synthesizes the evidence for the effectiveness of Dalcroze-based (or similar) music–movement integration interventions among vulnerable persons and integrates evidence from quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed-methods studies (see Mays et al., 2005 ; Pluye et al., 2009 ; Booth et al., 2016 ; Hong and Pluye, 2018 ). It also provides insights into the intervention practices and types of exercises used in the interventions.

To be included in the review, the target group had to be identified as vulnerable, according to our working definition, and the studies had to explicitly mention the use of both music and whole-body movement. For example, studies of music education and music therapy that did not involve the use of movement or in which body movement involved only stomping, tapping, playing an instrument, or similar were excluded. The studies that did not explicitly talk about music were also omitted. 2 Furthermore, music had to be more than just (mechanical) rhythm. Thus, interventions that used only a metronome or another steady rhythmic pulse as music were not included. The studies had to be based on an intervention and apply valid measures. Finally, only journal articles reporting original research were included. Other forms of publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, textbooks, (systematic) reviews, letters, and conference proceedings and abstracts, as well as works based on the reflections of practitioners, were excluded from the review.

In short, the inclusion criteria for the journal articles were as follows: they had to (1) have been conducted with vulnerable individuals (according to our criteria), (2) be based on an intervention, (3) examine the influences of music–movement integration (explicitly mentioning music), (4) use reliable and valid measures, and (5) be published in a scientific journal, (6) be in English, and (7) have been published from January 2000–October 2022.

Electronic searches

We selected the articles through a process of identification and conducted literature searches in the following eight databases: Academic Search Ultimate, Arsca, Finna, Google Scholar, ERIC, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search terms below were employed in the databases:

(“deficiency” OR “disabled” OR “disorder” OR “special needs” OR “learning difficult*” OR “social anxiety” OR “seniors” OR “older adults”)

AND (“music education” OR “music therapy” OR “music intervention” OR “music movement therapy”)

AND (“Dalcroze” OR “music(–)movement” OR “music and movement”).

Additionally, the snowball technique and citation tracking were used to identify publications that met the criteria.

Before screening the articles, we removed duplicates and studies that were not conducted with vulnerable persons. Then, we excluded the articles that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Figure 1 3 illustrates the number of studies retrieved from the systematic search and the final number of studies included in the review in the form of a PRISMA flow diagram.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic literature review search illustrating the number of studies retrieved from the systematic search and the final number of studies included in the systematic review.

Before the analysis, we generated a database by using Excel to collect, categorize, and save information about the articles, including author(s) and year of publication; title of the article; publication information; research task/question; research design; participants; context; type of music–movement exercises; process; measures; outcomes; and conclusion. We divided all the extracted articles that met the criteria into three groups: (1) individuals with special (educational) needs or impairment ( N = 4); (2) individuals with dyslexia ( N = 3); and (3) older adults with a risk of or suffering from a decline in health and/or physical strength ( N = 10 + 3). Later, we combined the first two categories because dyslexia is considered a special need and classified as a learning disability.

The review process

In the review, we used the SPIDER strategy (see Table 1 ), and also considering the topic of the journal number to which the review was to be submitted ( Music Education, Embodiment and Flourishing ), we formulated the following research question:

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. The SPIDER strategy (as used in the review).

1. What were the outcomes of music–movement integration interventions among vulnerable groups?

As we were also interested in how the outcomes were measured, what was done in the interventions, and what was found to be particularly beneficial in the interventions, we incorporated the following questions:

2. What measures were used to assess the outcomes?

3. What types of exercises were included?

4. What qualities of music–movement integration were identified as effective?

To answer these questions, we both summarized and synthesized the studies.

Overview of the included studies

The data for the analysis consisted of 20 articles (based on 18 intervention studies). Twelve interventions were conducted among older adults (13 publications), including three studies among individuals with diagnosed cognitive decline or impairment (see Table 2 ). The interventions focused on the improvement of body posture, balance and gait, cognitive functions, autotelic and positive experiences, as well as wellbeing and quality of life more generally. Six interventions were conducted among individuals with varying SEN (seven publications): three among those with dyslexia, one among a mixed group of students with SEN, one among individuals with ASD, and one with brain injury patients (see Table 3 ). The interventions among people with SEN focused on supporting participants’ bodily and cognitive functions, linguistic skills, agency, interactions, and/or inclusion. In the reference list, the reviewed articles are marked with an asterisk.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Studies of older adults.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 3. Studies of individuals with SEN.

All interventions were group-based, as is typical for music–movement integration practices (e.g., Juntunen, 2002 ). Fifteen of the interventions were based or drew on the Dalcroze approach, including three that also integrated other approaches or practices. Three studies used an approach exclusively designed for the intervention (see Table 4 ). Out of the 18 intervention studies, nine were carried out in Europe (Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland), four in the US, four in Mexico, and one in New Zealand.

www.frontiersin.org

Table 4. The music–movement integration approaches employed.

The reviewed studies used both qualitative and quantitative data gathering methods. Among the 18 interventions, 13 studies applied only quantitative methods (three of them among those with dyslexia and 10 among older adults), two employed only qualitative methods, and three were mix-methods studies. Four were pilot studies. The research methods/designs are described in Table 5 . The sample size was low in most studies, varying from 9–134 participants ( Tables 2 and 3 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 5. Research designs of the studies.

The measures used to assess the outcomes were selected according to the target group and research aims. The studies on older adults used measures typical in geriatrics and psychology, and the studies on individuals with dyslexia applied those typical in speech therapy, and so on. In all studies, the measures employed were carefully chosen and clearly detailed. Most interventions had pre- and post-testing.

Interventions and outcomes

In this result section, we will first answer the main research question: What were the outcomes of the music–movement integration interventions among vulnerable groups?

Individuals with varying SEN or impairment

Studies among individuals with SEN showed evidence of the effectiveness of music–movement integration in supporting participation, experiential music learning, and agency. Interventions among those with dyslexia improved participants’ specific linguistic skills. The studies, which will be summarized below, emphasized the potential of music–movement integration as an inclusive and multisensory practice.

A school-year-long intervention by Sutela in a music classroom of a special comprehensive school was reported in two articles ( Sutela et al., 2020 , 2021 ). According to the latter work, Dalcroze-based music–movement integration supported the agency of 15-year-old students with SEN as they became recognized by others as active music makers and enhanced their initiative, decision-making, interaction, engagement, and expression of emotions. The authors described how, as the intervention proceeded, hyperactive students gradually increased their self-regulation, which then enabled them to concentrate better on interactions with peers and take initiative. Sutela et al. (2020) reported the development of agency of one student with ASD: The student’s compulsive and other behaviors typical of this condition decreased, and he transformed from a passive outsider into an active participant. This was observed not only by the researcher and teacher but also by school staff and his peers outside the classroom.

Similar results were seen in two pilot studies reported in Lakes et al. (2019) , wherein 20 children with ASD participated in a music–movement intervention specially designed for the target group (Creatively Able). The results showed some group-level reductions in compulsive and other behaviors commonly seen in those with ASD. However, there were notable individual differences in how children responded to the intervention. These studies suggest that music–movement integration provides an alternative (multimodal) method of teaching and communication through movement, gestures, and music instead of verbal communication.

Three of the reviewed studies involved children with dyslexia ( Flaugnacco et al., 2015 ; Habib et al., 2016 ; Bouloukou et al., 2021 ). The interventions focused on musical training including movement activities and were based on the similarities between music and language. 4 All the studies reported positive changes and improvements in specific linguistic skills, either for individual progress or compared to control group participants. The progress often took place along with advancement in rhythmical and metrical abilities, which were related to improvements in auditory processing, prosodic and phonemic sensitivity sequencing abilities, as well as auditory and temporal orienting of attention. The findings strongly imply the beneficial influence of music training on phonological awareness and reading skills through a specific effect on perceptual and cognitive abilities shared by music and language. All these studies argue for using music/music–movement as part of systematic therapeutic and pedagogical practices for children with dyslexia. In the following, we discuss each study in more detail.

The study of Habib et al. (2016) examined the effectiveness of the cognitivo–musical training (CMT) method, which was designed by speech therapists. The intervention consists of musical exercises that activate “jointly and simultaneously sensory (visual, auditory, and somatosensory) and motor systems, with special emphasis on rhythmic perception and production” (p. 1). Two experiments (considered here as one intervention) were conducted among two different samples of children with dyslexia, one in specialized classes and the other in a primary school-like environment. Both experiments resulted in significant improvements in some untrained, linguistic, and non-linguistic skills, such as “in categorical perception and auditory perception of temporal components of speech” and “auditory attention, phonological awareness (syllable fusion), reading abilities, and repetition of pseudo-words” (p. 1). Importantly, most improvements lasted over a six-week period without training. These studies suggest there are benefits to using multisensory and multimodal music training in systematic therapeutic and pedagogical practices for children with dyslexia.

Flaugnacco et al. (2015) examined the effectiveness of music training in developing reading and phonological abilities. Children with dyslexia (but without language or comorbid attention disorders) participated in training sessions for seven months. Movement was part of the music training influenced by Kodaly and Orff approaches. Those with music training clearly improved their reading accuracy, both in text reading and pseudo-word reading. Rhythmic reproduction (not working memory or auditory attention) and the ability to determine metrical structure predicted phonological awareness, and improvement in rhythmic reproduction predicted improvement in phonological abilities. These findings imply a causal relationship between rhythm-based processing and language acquisition and phonological development.

The study of Bouloukou et al. (2021) investigated the influence of a music-training program focusing on the perception of rhythm among those with dyslexia. The 12-week intervention was conducted with primary school students. The study showed improvement in students’ performance related to rhythm reproduction, visual sequences, word recognition, grammar, and spelling; participants in the control group did not improve in terms of their verbal or written comprehension, verbal expression, or completion of sentences. The research findings offer evidence that incorporating properly modified music training into the primary school curriculum and continuous music education elsewhere may have positive effects on children with dyslexia.

Among brain injury patients, the study of Kang et al. (2016) examined the influence of music–movement integration on cardiovascular function, cognitive function, and balance. Due to the small sample size, statistically significant differences were not identified between the pre- and post-tests. However, the results indicated improvement in the abovementioned measures. The only participant who completed the exit survey strongly agreed with the benefits of the Dalcroze approach in rehabilitation and enjoyment. Similarly, enjoyment of music and social interactions were reported by the researchers. Feedback was positive overall.

Older adults with a risk of falling or a decline in health

In this section, we report nine studies based on interventions conducted among older adults (65 +) facing the risk of falling or the threat of a decline in their health and/or physical strength because of age and/or living conditions. All the interventions were Dalcroze-based. In short, all the studies reported positive outcomes, including reduced rates and risk of falling; improved accuracy and speed of movements, postural stability, gait variability, and balance, both in single-and dual-task conditions; an enhanced state of flow, 5 sense of control, and enjoyment; and decreased self-consciousness.

Based on the findings of Beauchet et al. (2003) showing that variation in gait and speed increases notably in older adults when they engage in a counting activity, Kressig et al. (2005) examined a group of women who had engaged in regular Dalcroze practice for at least 40 years to determine whether this type of long-term music–movement intervention would make a difference in gait. The study showed that long-term Dalcroze practice can prevent age-related increases in stride-to-stride variability when dual-tasking (counting backward while walking). In contrast, gait variability increased considerably in the healthy older adults in the control group when dual-tasking. These results were the first to demonstrate such positive influences of Dalcroze practice in older adults.

The study by Trombetti et al. (2011) examined the influence of a six-month Dalcroze program with multitask exercises on the gait, balance, and functional performance of older adults living in a community who had a risk of falling and no previous experience with such activities. The participants’ gait variability and balance improved in a statistically significant way, and the rates and risk of falling declined. Additionally, gait performance under the dual task improved, and stride length variability decreased also when the speed of walking was varied.

After three years, Hars et al. (2014) conducted a follow-up study among those who had maintained exercise program participation (long-term intervention group) and among those who had discontinued participation (control group). In four years, the intervention participants’ gait and balance (one-legged stance time) improved significantly. They also did better on the timed-up-and-go, five-times-sit-to-stand, and handgrip strength tests than those in the control group. The results suggest that a long-term music program with multitask exercises is promising in preventing age-related physical decline in older individuals and that physical exercises aimed at preventing falls are effective in the long term.

A similar study was conducted by Ferguson-Stegall et al. (2017) to examine whether a three-month Dalcroze intervention would improve gait and balance, self-perceptions of health, and fear of falling in older adults living in a community. The participants’ gait speed improved significantly, including when dual-tasking. The authors recommended using the Dalcroze approach in programs for older adults to reduce the risk of falling.

Adamczyk et al. (2020) studied the effects of Dalcroze practice on dynamic agility under single- and dual-task conditions in women who were over 65 years old and lived in a community (in Poland). After the 12-week program intervention, the participants scored significantly better on both single- and dual-task tests than those in the control group. Based on the same intervention, Adamczyk et al. (2022) investigated the influence of the program on postural stability. The intervention participants’ accuracy and the speed of their movements improved significantly compared to those of the members of control group. The study concluded that using the Dalcroze approach may improve postural stability by increasing the speed and accuracy of body (torso) movements.

The pilot study of Beaulieu et al. (2017) was performed among older adults in a community health program based on the Dalcroze approach. The study used focus group interviews to examine participants’ experiences related to the strengths and possible challenges of the program. The identified strengths involved: “(1) social and physical pleasure; (2) improved health, including balance, gait, recovery after an injury, confidence in mobility, metamemory skills, and a greater understanding of health promotion and fall prevention strategies; and (3) the collaborative nature of individualized support” ( Beaulieu et al., 2017 , p. 276). The identified challenges by the participants related to transportation, schedules, and participants’ varying skills.

The exploratory study of Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez (2016) , which had a single-group design, assessed the effect of a six-week (twice a week) Dalcroze intervention on the “state of flow” in older adults (mean age 69.8) with a pre- and post-questionnaire. Although the participants had limited musical and physical skills to engage in the activities, they were motivated and enjoyed participating. The perceived challenges of the exercises correlated with the participants’ level of musical and physical abilities. Toward the end of the intervention, the participants began to feel more comfortable with the exercises and more in control of the situation.

Based on the study described above, Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez (2018b) evaluated the effectiveness of an eight-week (once a week) Dalcroze intervention on the state of flow in older adults. The participants lived in a vulnerable socio-demographic area of the Monterrey metropolitan area. The authors reported that the intervention partially promoted a state of flow in the intervention participants and had a significant impact on the autotelic experience in one group. The need for longitudinal investigation was also recognized.

A similar study ( Treviño et al., 2018 ) was conducted among older adults living in a geriatric residence in Monterrey investigating the impact of a 10-week Dalcroze intervention on state of flow. The participants’ sense of control improved, and they became less self-conscious; these results were statistically significant. The intervention also enhanced the state of flow in the sample. With the increasing number of older adults worldwide, the Dalcroze approach can be considered a valuable option for an ecological and non-pharmacological intervention for older people in public health systems.

Older adults with cognitive decline or impairment

Three of the reviewed studies were conducted on older adults with some cognitive decline, impairment, or dementia. Two studies ( Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez, 2018a ; Fischbacher et al., 2020 ) applied the Dalcroze approach, and one was based on the specially designed intuitive movement re-embodiment (IMR) program in which the music component drew on the Dalcroze approach and the creative movement incorporated ideas from the Laban approach ( Choo et al., 2020 ). The studies reported improvement in positive affectivity, state of flow, quality of life, sense of humor, imagination, motivation for dance, and joyful interaction. However, one of the studies did not obtain any results because of low attendance.

First, the study of Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez (2018a) evaluated the effectiveness of a four-week (twice a week) Dalcroze intervention among older adults on “psychological health, social relationships, affectivity, and the state of flow” (p. 23). The inclusion criteria included some age-related cognitive decline and the ability to walk with no external aid. The intervention had positive effects on the variables addressed in the study, especially on positive affectivity and state of flow.

The 12-month pilot study of Fischbacher et al. (2020) examined the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of a Dalcroze-based program and a home exercise program (designed to prevent falls) among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or early dementia. The study showed no differences between the intervention and control groups. The low adherence and small sample size were challenging for the study, which noted the difficulties involved in the recruitment of older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia for a long-term intervention.

In the study of Choo et al. (2020) older adults with dementia, who were grouped according to the degree of their dementia, participated in 10 weekly sessions. The data included self-reported ratings of quality of life and qualitative onsite observations. There was a statistically significant improvement in quality of life after the 6th session. According to the qualitative analysis, the program improved sense of humor and imagination as well as motivated the participants to dance and interact with joy.

Outcome measures employed

The reviewed studies used both qualitative and quantitative data gathering methods. The selection of measures was based on the target group and the research aims, resulting in questions of validity. While the studies among older adults employed measures typically used in geriatrics and psychology, the studies on those with dyslexia applied those typical in speech therapy, and so on. For all the studies, the measures were carefully chosen and clearly articulated, with most interventions involving both pre- and post-testing.

Individuals with special needs

When studying the benefits for students with SEN, both qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilized (see Table 5 ). Video analysis was used in three studies ( Lakes et al., 2019 ; see Nvivo in Sutela et al., 2020 , 2021 ). In the study of Lakes et al. (2019) , participants were also rated using the Response to Challenge Scale, which aids the observer in rating a child’s self-regulation. Individual outcomes in turn were analyzed using the statistical analysis system with the linear mixed-model procedure.

To assess language skills (reading, writing) among individuals with dyslexia, several types of tests were applied. For example, in Habib et al. (2016) , “three tasks tapping into different aspects of auditory and speech perception were used: categorical perception (identification and discrimination tests), syllabic duration and pitch variations” (p. 4). In the study of Flaugnacco et al. (2015) , rhythm reproduction and tapping tasks were used to assess, for example, accuracy and speed of reading words and text, phonological knowledge, auditory attention, verbal short-term and working memory, as well as temporal processing. Bouloukou et al. (2021) employed the LAMDA test to evaluate the learning skills of students.

Older adults

To measure the outcomes in older participants, several measures typical in geriatrics were applied. For example, gait and balance were assessed using an electronic pressure-sensitive walkway and angular velocity transducers ( Kressig et al., 2005 ; Trombetti et al., 2011 ). Balance and coordinated stability were measured with the swaymeter test ( Ferguson-Stegall et al., 2017 ). Measuring dual-task ability incorporated counting backwards while walking at a self-selected speed ( Ferguson-Stegall et al., 2017 ). In addition to physical examination, Trombetti et al. (2011) used functional tests, instrumental gait and balance analysis, and interviews to collect data about “sociodemographic characteristics, fall history, nutritional status, physical activity level, and neuropsychological status” (p. 526). Similar measures were applied in the follow-up study by Hars et al. (2014) . As completing measures, Ferguson-Stegall et al. (2017) used questionnaires to assess participants’ perceptions of their overall, physical, and mental health. Fear of falling was determined with the Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale.

In the study of Adamczyk et al. (2020) , dynamic agility was ascertained by the timed-up-and-go test, which was conducted both in single- and dual-task conditions (walking and simultaneously counting down from 60 every third step). Adamczyk et al. (2022) also used a test on the AMTI AccuSway Plus posturography platform, together with Balance Trainer software, to determine postural stability.

Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez (2016 , 2018b , a ; also Treviño et al., 2018 ) applied a wide variety of tests and other measurements from the field of psychology. For example, for assessing the state of flow, flow state scales were used, and the level of enjoyment of physical activity was assessed according to the physical activity enjoyment scale. Other measurement instruments included the subscales of the domains of psychological health and personal relationships of the reduced version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale and Positive and Negative Affectivity Scale with a total of 20 items.

Only one study applied qualitative data alone: Beaulieu et al. (2017) used focus group interviews to examine older adults’ perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the constructed program and their recommendations for improvement. Choo et al. (2020) employed a mix-method design, including self-reported ratings of quality of life with the World Health Organization’s questionnaire, alongside qualitative onsite observations.

Intervention exercises

Among studies on individuals with SEN, three interventions (out of six) were at least partly based on the Dalcroze approach (see Table 4 ; Supplementary Appendix 1 ). The others were based on Kodaly and Orff approaches or methods designed for the specific group of individuals. In older adults, all interventions applied the Dalcroze approach in some way. For instance, in the creative dance program of Choo et al. (2020) designed for older adults with dementia, Dalcroze ideas guided the use of music.

As Dalcroze practice includes a variety of possible focuses and exercises (see e.g., Juntunen, 2016 ), the selection of exercises reflected the target group and aims of the intervention: the interventions were adapted to the needs of each target group and addressed the examined variables. For example, in the study of Habib et al. (2016) on those with dyslexia, the intervention was designed by speech therapists and built on an understanding of what constitutes an effective intervention for such individuals. Thus, the exercises focused on both multisensory and multimodal engagement and required transcoding processes from one modality to another. Furthermore, visuo-spatial and motor engagement and building connections between music and language were used. In their intervention for older adults with dementia, Choo et al. (2020) employed a dance program that aimed to promote better quality of life for people with dementia by providing memory stimulation, mood moderation, and social interaction through music–movement integration. In the study of Sutela et al. (2021) examining students’ manifestation and development of agency, the exercises enabled the students with SEN to practice and develop their motor and movement skills, communication, and autonomy. Therefore, the exercises included lead and follow, moving to music, rhythmic movement, and quick response. In particular, lead and follow and creative exercises were designed to offer the students an opportunity to take initiative and express their agency.

In the study of Kang et al. (2016) examining the possibilities of the Dalcroze approach for brain injury patients’ cardiovascular fitness, mobility and cognitive functions were examined through activities such as walking in tempo, stopping as cued to the music, manipulating props, and creative freeform movements. Memory and quick reaction games were also utilized to help the participants achieve the desired outcomes.

While some studies described the intervention exercises in detail (see Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez, 2016 , 2018a , b ; Treviño et al., 2018 ), others focused on the main features and only provided a general description of the exercises. For example, Kressig et al. (2005) stated that their intervention consisted of “multitask exercises, mostly performed to the rhythm of improvised piano music” (p. 728). As in the interventions with those with dyslexia, movement as part of music training was often applied to express and experience rhythmic elements of music, such as pulse, meter, or time values, and integrated with speech.

As using music with individuals with autism is supposed to both eliminate potential distractions and over-stimulation and support movements, specific requirements for the music were presented. These included employing music with an easy-to-follow and steady rhythm ( Lakes et al., 2019 ; Sutela et al., 2020 ), with a melodic structure that does not over-stimulate hypersensitivity ( Lakes et al., 2019 ), and without lyrics ( Lakes et al., 2019 ). A steady rhythm offered structure and organization to the sessions and movements ( Lakes et al., 2019 ). The exercises were mostly performed in pairs or in a group, which supported student interaction and helped build social skills ( Lakes et al., 2019 ; Sutela et al., 2020 ). Different objects, such as tennis balls, were used to make the perception of musical elements more concrete (e.g., students bounced the balls in tempo or rolled them according to a certain meter).

For children with dyslexia, Habib et al. (2016) employed specially designed CMT that focused on the rhythmic and temporal aspects of music training. When using Kodaly and Orff approaches, Flaugnacco et al. (2015) made use of activities selected from training books and programs and adapted them to focus on rhythm and temporal processing. Percussion instruments, rhythm syllables, rhythmic body movements accompanying music, and sensorimotor synchronization games were employed. In the intervention in Bouloukou et al. (2021) , “the music training was based on innovative multisensory, vocal, acoustic, kinesthetic activities, adapted to the needs of students with dyslexia” (p. 458). The exercises included adapted speech, movement, touch, hearing, and pulse sensing activities with participants to develop their perception of the musical rhythm (see Supplementary Appendix 1 ).

Of the 12 interventions among older adults, 11 were based on the Dalcroze approach. The activities consisted of Dalcroze exercises in which the participants expressed and responded to (improvised piano) music through (synchronized and improvised) body movements, including a variety of multitask exercises. Again, the exercises reflected the aims of the study. For example, in studies that examined gait and balance in dual-task conditions, the exercises challenged gait and balance but also functions of memory, attention, and coordination ( Beauchet et al., 2003 ; Trombetti et al., 2011 ; Hars et al., 2014 ; Adamczyk et al., 2020 , 2022 ) to integrate motor and cognitive functions simultaneously.

During a session, exercises gradually became more complex. For example, they started as single-task and then turned into multitask exercises. In some cases, exercises involved the handling of objects (such as percussion instruments or balls) (e.g., Trombetti et al., 2011 ). Basic exercises were comprised of walking (in time) with music and responding to its rhythmical changes. Exercises applied a wide range of movements and challenged balance by requiring multidirectional weight shifting, sequences of walking and turning, and exaggerated upper body movements (while walking or standing).

Dalcroze-based exercises could involve different rhythmic themes, such as double and triple speed or slowing down, rhythmic transformation, and polyrhythms ( Adamczyk et al., 2020 ). In addition, “inhibition and stimulation of movement, exercises reflecting dynamic, agogic, and articulatory courses in music, improvisation of movements, and exercises shaping independence of movements and their coordination were performed” ( Adamczyk et al., 2020 , p. 2; see also Adamczyk et al., 2022 ). The interventions of Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez (2016 , 2018a , b ) and Treviño et al. (2018) applied the Dalcroze approach in carefully timed, structured, and sequenced sessions ( Supplementary Appendix 2 ).

Choo et al. (2020) presented an original creative dance program designed as a community dance activity for people with dementia. It used music and natural gestures to construct a series of dance exercises. After the teaching period, the participants were guided to perform the practiced routine independently with the same music that included a variation. The program aimed to enhance the quality of life of people with dementia by providing memory stimulation, mood moderation, and social interaction.

Effectiveness of music–movement integration

In this section, we will answer our fourth research question: What qualities of music–movement integration were identified as effective? The main effective qualities included (1) the mutually supportive potential of music and movement, (2) rhythmic performance and experience, (3) active engagement and a related state of flow, joyfulness, and other positive experiences, (4) integration of motor and cognitive faculties, as in dual-task exercises, (5) multisensory integration and multimodal expression, and (6) non-verbal communication and interaction.

First, most studies were based on the mutually supportive potential of music–movement integration wherein music supported movement, movement supported listening, and the two together resulted in animation and participation. Movement also enabled bodily engagement and working with others. Thus, in addition to sensory integration, this working method offered motivating and rewarding social engagement with others. Working with live music was considered extremely valuable as it supported participants’ movement in terms of style and rhythm, and listening to it was experientially satisfying. In some music–movement integration interventions, either music or movement was considered primary. For example, among those with dyslexia, the studies emphasized the possibilities of music as primary whereas among individuals with autism, movement seemed to be more important as it allowed active participation and supported agency.

In many reviewed studies, the positive influence of music–movement activities was principally identified as related to rhythm , especially in those focusing on dyslexia. For example, according to Flaugnacco et al. (2015) “the ability to detect the temporal regularity of an auditory sequence” (p. 12/17) in musical exercises strongly correlated with phonological skills. Their findings “highlight an important role of rhythm on phonological perception and production” (p. 13/17), in line with the results other studies (see e.g., Huss et al., 2011 ; Reifinger, 2019 ). In many Dalcroze-based interventions, it has been emphasized that the exercises were done to the rhythm of (improvised) music (e.g., Beauchet et al., 2003 ).

Studies that focused on mental health among older adults particularly underlined active and social engagement and positive experience as important outcomes of participation in music–movement activities (e.g., Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez, 2018b ). Flaugnacco et al. (2015) noted that the emotionally engaging and playful nature of the exercises motivated children to participate in and value the training. Trombetti et al. (2011) stated that Dalcroze activities seem “to be able to change patterns of physical activity in elderly people by providing a strong motivation for the initiation and maintenance of exercise behavior, especially in women…who are often less physically active than men” (p. 531). Over half the participants entered the program again after the study at their own cost.

One identified strength of music–movement integration was that it stimulated both motor and cognitive functions and thus was particularly beneficial for cognitively impaired older adults ( Fischbacher et al., 2020 ). The studies on older adults addressing (dual-task) gait variability (e.g., Kressig et al., 2005 ; Trombetti et al., 2011 ; Ferguson-Stegall et al., 2017 ) or quality of life of older adults with dementia ( Choo et al., 2020 ) viewed the strength of music–movement training to lie in dual- or multitask exercises , forcing participants to constantly focus, perceive, and respond accordingly. When exercises include both cognitive and physical tasks at the same time, it is postulated that they lead to better results compared to performing tasks separately ( Adamczyk et al., 2022 ). For this reason, researchers have found Dalcroze practice to be particularly efficient in comparison with other attention-demanding practices, such as Tai Chi. According to Trombetti et al. (2011) , the possible strength of these exercises for improving gait safety, balance, and functional capacities of older adults was related to “automated tasks, to task coordination skills development, or to both” and to improving attention and executive function (p. 530).

Other strengths of music–movement integration identified in studies on individuals with special needs, such as ASD, included multisensory activities, experiences, and learning (integrating visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile senses) and multimodal expression (e.g., Sutela et al., 2020 ). Several studies suggested that music–movement integration provided an alternative to verbal communication and interaction through embodied interaction via movement, gestures, and music, thereby promoting inclusion, especially among students for whom verbal communication was challenging (such as those with ASD) ( Sutela et al., 2020 , 2021 ). Music–movement integration also enabled the processing and expression of emotions on a bodily level, without conscious reflection and words.

Our literature review shows that older adults and individuals with SEN are the groups primarily addressed in Dalcroze-based intervention studies outside of more conventional music and arts education contexts. Each reviewed intervention study was targeted at a specific group. Accordingly, the intervention exercises and associated research concentrated on the key issues and challenges for the target group. Hence, studies among older adults addressed gait, balance, dual-tasking, active participation and rehabilitation, confidence in mobility, metamemory skills, advanced understanding of fall prevention strategies, enjoyment, and wellbeing as well as applied methods typical in geriatrics and psychology.

Two out of three interventions were carried out among older adults, which suggests that Dalcroze based activities are increasingly being used among this population. This may be due to their various researched and recognized possibilities to support physical and cognitive faculties, including balance and multi-tasking (see e.g., Schmitt and Kressig, 2008 ). Older adults’ mobility strongly correlates with quality of life while falls often restrict mobility, cause a decline in daily activities, and increase the risk of institutionalization. Therefore, preventing falls in older adults has become an important issue. High stride-to-stride variability and the inability to perform multiple tasks at the same time, such as talking while walking, have been considered potent predictors of falls ( Beauchet et al., 2003 ). Measures to reduce falls include improving balance and multitasking skills. Other challenges with older adults include their tendency to passivity, boredom, loneliness, and isolation, which necessitates looking for ways to engage older adults with different types of motivating and rewarding activities.

In studies among special needs students, the focus of the interventions was on inclusion, reductions in stereotyped and compulsive behaviors, self-regulation, learning skills, interaction and engagement; in those with dyslexia, rhythmic and metrical abilities, auditory attention, phonological awareness, and linguistic skills were of particular concern; and among brain injury patients, the concentration was on cardiovascular function, perceptual and cognitive abilities and functions, rehabilitation, and enjoyment.

Most interventions (15/18) applied Dalcroze-based exercises in interventions. The interventions included a variety of exercises in which music and movement were reciprocal: movement reflected music and supported music listening while music supported movement and motivation to participate. Three studies on those with dyslexia did not mention Dalcroze but still used rhythmic movement with music. Lakes et al. (2019) applied a novel approach designed for children with ASD, and Choo et al. (2020) used an approach designed for people with dementia for quality-of-life improvement. In addition to the abovementioned aspects—the reciprocal and positive effects of music and movement on each other, physical performance, and experience—the identified beneficial qualities of music–movement integration (RQ 4) included an inclusive learning environment; speech, language, and musical proficiency; social interaction and communication; and the integration of cognitive functions, emotions, multisensory experiences, and multimodal expression. Similar strengths of music–movement integration have been identified in other studies (e.g., Zatorre et al., 2007 ; Donnellan et al., 2012 ; Altenmüller and Scholz, 2016 ; Juntunen, 2020a , b ).

The positive findings of the reviewed studies are supported by previous research investigating practitioners’ experiences of the effectiveness of music–movement integration, focusing especially on multisensory integration and multimodality. Regarding individuals with sensory impairments, Bang (2009) argued that in children with hearing loss, music–movement integration supports the development of their movement skills, awareness of body functions, and linguistic skills, in addition to providing the enjoyment of interacting with others (see also Salmon, 2010 ). According to Pino et al. (2022) , music–movement integration, especially by integrating sound and the usage of body and space in learning, offers a wide range of opportunities for multisensory learning and facilitates participation and inclusion for students with visual disabilities (see also Coleman, 2017 ). Nelson and Hourigan (2016) , who have used multisensory methods in supporting professional musicians with dyslexia, suggested that the integration of tactile (touch), kinesthetic (body movement), aural (hearing), and visual (sight) senses can be beneficial when learning to read music.

Many reviewed studies concluded that the intervention would have needed more time or a longer period for stronger evidence. Indeed, longitudinal studies are required to reach desired outcomes ( Kang et al., 2016 ; Sutela et al., 2021 ) or to confirm the identified outcomes and benefits (e.g., Treviño and Álvarez-Bermúdez, 2018a , b ). Yet, it is challenging to engage participants (also personnel) for long interventions (e.g., Fischbacher et al., 2020 ). Kang et al. (2016) also reported the challenges of group-based implementation intervention in a clinical setting. Low participation (if voluntary) and small groups present challenges even in shorter interventions; however, interventions are difficult to implement with a large sample.

To our knowledge, our systematic review is the first to address music–movement integration interventions among vulnerable individuals. It is also the first review to look at the actual exercises and highlight the beneficial elements of music–movement integration identified in the studies. The first task was to present our definition of the term “vulnerable” and to map which groups of individuals meeting the definition had been addressed in previous studies. As we wanted to have a comprehensive understanding of prior research, we included all the studies that met the inclusion criteria, i.e., that addressed either individuals with SEN or older adults. This delimitation of studies can be considered both a positive choice and shortcoming of the study. Focusing on only one vulnerable group (e.g., older adults) would have made the review more concise but would not have enabled a broad scope. In future studies, focusing on one group could be considered. However, we did not know at the outset which vulnerable groups the reviewed interventions would potentially address. Indeed, it was surprising that two thirds related to older adults. It seems there is a growing need to support the health and wellbeing of older adults whose number is increasing globally ( Schmitt and Kressig, 2008 ). Another critical moment in the study was to define and formulate the inclusion criteria for music–movement integration. We decided to focus on Dalcroze-based practices following the arguments set out earlier in the text.

The main objective of our systematic review was to synthesize previous intervention studies published from January 2000–October 2022 to evaluate the effectiveness of Dalcroze-based or similar music–movement integration in a variety of contexts for vulnerable groups. Most reviewed studies (16/18) reported beneficial outcomes. The study of Kang et al. (2016) did not obtain statistically significant results, but the findings indicated improvement in the examined variables. The only intervention without any outcomes was the study by Fischbacher et al. (2020) , in which the final number of participants and adherence remained low.

The results were in line with the goals and hypotheses set for each study. However, as studies in each field had different goals, used different controlled variables, and created explanations of one or successive experiments using field-specific vocabulary, assumptions, and interpretations, it was challenging to make an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of music–movement integration. As Gallagher (2017) argued, “each science tends to develop its theoretical bases on its own particular assumptions, in its own vocabulary, and often in isolation from the insights of other sciences” (p. 22). In sum, the results reflect what has been suggested within enactivism in the cognitive sciences, that is that the body influences cognition in terms of at least three dimensions, namely “sensory-motor contingencies, affective factors, and intersubjective processes” ( Gallagher, 2017 , p. 42). The role of music can be viewed as supporting movement, enlivening the experience, and enhancing motivation. Moving with music promotes multisensory-motor integration, generates positive emotions, and enhances brain network integration ( Shanker, 2012 ).

To measure the outcomes of the interventions, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were used. The choice of measures reflected the field of each target group. Thus, among studies on older adults, for example, the measures were those relevant to and credible in geriatrics. Additionally, participants’ experiences were considered relevant in studies among older adults and students with SEN.

In this study, we highlighted the potential and effectiveness of music–movement integration among vulnerable groups. The reviewed studies suggested a variety of practical implications and applications for their findings. Indeed, as the number of older adults and people with SEN is increasing, the holistic functional and inclusive benefits of music–movement integration, which were highlighted in the reviewed studies, should be carefully considered in a variety of contexts in education, therapy, and rehabilitation. We believe that our review for its part offers knowledge and confidence to educators, therapists, and medical personnel for using music–movement integration in their work in schools, senior centers, and other institutions and practices. Yet, further studies on the effectiveness of music–movement integration designed for different vulnerable groups are needed. It is crucial to examine, for example, how the identified benefits of music–movement intervention translate into real life. In addition, we recommend that future studies carefully describe the intervention practices and exercises used in order to examine and consider the effectiveness of the exercise types in more detail. This would assist researchers and practitioners in better understanding the key factors and possibilities of music–movement integration in relation to different areas of development and the capabilities of (vulnerable) individuals.

Author contributions

M-LJ has had the main responsibility for the preparation, revision, and editing of the text. Both authors have been equally engaged in the conceptualisation, methodology, resources, data search, data analysis, and Supplementary material .

Conflict of interest

M-LJ is a member of the Scientific Committee of International Conference of Dalcroze Studies (ICDS).

The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1127654/full#supplementary-material

  • ^ Another example of a multisensory process would be the integration of visual and auditory information in the perception of speech.
  • ^ Because of this, most studies of dance were excluded. However, we did not consider this to be problematic since the effectiveness of dance among vulnerable individuals has been examined in many previous literature reviews. For example, for the effectiveness of dance among individuals with ASD, see Koehne et al. (2016) and DeJesus et al. (2020) ; among older adults, see Keogh et al. (2009) and Meng et al. (2020) ; among children with disabilities, see May et al. (2021) ; and among individuals with Parkinson disease, see Earhart (2009) . For promoting health and wellbeing, see Sheppard and Broughton (2020) . Furthermore, in dance, the relationship between music and movement is different from how we perceived it in this study.
  • ^ The flow diagram is created based on the flowchart offered by Zen Flowchart ( https://www.zenflowchart.com/guides/prisma-flowchart ) and is published with permission.
  • ^ The intervention was built on the hypotheses that (1) music training improves the brain circuits shared by music and language processes; (2) the temporal and rhythmic elements of music positively affect multiple dimensions of the “temporal deficit” characteristic of certain types of dyslexia; and (3) cross-modal integration in exercises is useful ( Habib et al., 2016 , p. 1).
  • ^ As described by psychologist Mihhály Csíkszentmihályi, state of flow is reached when a person becomes fully immersed in an activity.

Abril, C. R. (2011). “Music, movement, and learning,” in The MENC handbook of research in music learning (Vol. 2): Applications , eds R. Colwell and P. R. Webster (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 92–129. doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199754397.003.0003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

* Adamczyk, J., Celka, R., Stemplewski, R., Ceynowa, K., and Maciaszek, J. (2022). Effects of Jaques-Dalcroze eurhythmics program on postural stability in elderly women. Sci. Rep. 12:7073. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11095-x

* Adamczyk, J., Celka, R., Stemplewski, R., Ceynowa, K., Kamińska, P., and Maciaszek, J. (2020). The impact of 12-week Jaques-Dalcroze eurhythmics programme on the dynamic agility in single-dual-task conditions in older women: A randomized controlled trial. BioMed. Res. Int. 2020:9080697. doi: 10.1155/2020/9080697

Altenmüller, E., and Scholz, D. (2016). Eìmile Jaques-Dalcroze as a visionary pioneer of neurologic music therapy. Approaches 8, 112–117.

Google Scholar

Bang, C. (2009). A world of sound and music: Music therapy for deaf, hearing impaired and multi-handicapped children and adolescents. Approaches 1, 93–103.

Beauchet, O., Kressig, R. W., Najafi, E., Aminian, K., Dubost, V., and Mourey, F. (2003). Age-related decline of gait control under a dual-task condition. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 51, 1187–1188. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51385.x

* Beaulieu, R., Kang, H. G., and Hino, S. (2017). An action research approach to introduce Dalcroze eurhythmics method in a community of older adults as a promising strategy for fall prevention, injury recovery and socialization. Int. J. Action Res. 13, 13–14.

Blacking, J. (1977). “Towards an anthropology of the body,” in The anthropology of the body , ed. J. Blacking (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 1–28.

Booth, A., Sutton, A., and Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

* Bouloukou, F., Marin-Diaz, V., and Jimenez-Fanjul, N. (2021). Effects of an interventional music program on learning skills of primary-school students with dyslexia. Int. J. Educ. Pract. 9, 456–467. doi: 10.18488/journal.61.2021.93.456-467

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Capdepuy, P., Polani, D., and Nehaniv, C. L. (2012). Perception–action loops of multiple agents: Informational aspects and the impact of coordination. Theory Biosci. 131, 149–159. doi: 10.1007/s12064-011-0143-y

* Choo, T., Barak, Y., and East, A. (2020). The effects of intuitive movement reembodiment on the quality of life of older adults with dementia: A pilot study. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Dement. 35:1533317519860331. doi: 10.1177/1533317519860331

Coleman, J. (2017). The use of music to promote purposeful movement in children with visual impairments. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 111, 73–77.

DeJesus, B. M., Oliveira, R. C., de Carvalho, F. O., de Jesus Mari, J., Arida, R. M., and Teixeira-Machado, L. (2020). Dance promotes positive benefits for negative symptoms in autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A systematic review. Compl. Ther. Med. 49:102299. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102299

Donnellan, A. M., Hill, D. A., and Leary, M. R. (2012). Rethinking autism: Implications of sensory and movement differences for understanding and support. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 6:124. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2012.00124

Dutoit, C.-L. (1965). Music movement therapy. Devizes: The Dalcroze Society.

Earhart, G. M. (2009). Dance as therapy for individuals with Parkinson disease. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 45, 231–238.

Elliott, D. (2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* Ferguson-Stegall, L., Vang, M., Wolfe, A. S., and Thomsen, K. (2017). A 3-month Dalcroze eurhythmics intervention may improve gait speed in community dwelling elderly participants. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 49, 2–3. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000516812.14267.f0

* Fischbacher, M., Chocano-Bedoya, P. O., Meyer, U., Bopp, I., Mattle, M., Kressig, R. W., et al. (2020). Safety and feasibility of a Dalcroze eurhythmics and a simple home exercise program among older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia: The MOVE for your MIND pilot trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 6, 1–8.

* Flaugnacco, E., Lopez, L., Terribili, C., Montico, M., Zoia, S., and Schön, D. (2015). Music training increases phonological awareness and reading skills in developmental dyslexia: A randomized control trial. PLoS One 10:e0138715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138715

Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 23, 691–704. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801

Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions. Rethinking the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001

Godøy, R. I. (2018). Motor constraints shaping musical experience. Music Theory Online 24. doi: 10.30535/mto.24.3.8

* Habib, M., Lardy, C., Desiles, T., Commeiras, C., Chobert, J., and Besson, M. (2016). Music and dyslexia: A new musical training method to improve reading and related disorders. Front. Psychol. 7:26. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00026

Habron, J. (2014). Through music and into music, through music and into wellbeing: Dalcroze eurhythmics as music therapy. J. Transdiscipl. Res. S. Afr. 10, 90–110.

* Hars, M., Herrmann, F. R., Fielding, R. A., Reid, K. F., Rizzoli, R., and Trombetti, A. (2014). Long-term exercise in older adults: 4-year outcomes of music-based multitask training. Calcif. Tissue Int. 95, 393–404. doi: 10.1007/s00223-014-9907-y

Hodges, D., and Gruhn, W. (2012). “Implications of neurosciences and brain research for music teaching and learning,” in Oxford handbook of music education , Vol. 1, eds G. E. McPherson and G. F. Welch (Oxford: Oxford University), 205–223. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.001.0001

Hong, Q. N., and Pluye, P. (2018). A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. J. Mixed Methods Res. 13:155868981877005. doi: 10.1177/1558689818770058

Huss, M., Verney, J. P., Fosker, T., Mead, N., and Goswami, U. (2011). Music, rhythm, rise time perception and developmental dyslexia: Perception of musical meter predicts reading and phonology. Cortex 47, 674–689. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.07.010

Jaques-Dalcroze, É (1921/1980). Rhythm, music and education. Devizes: Dalcroze Society.

Juntunen, M.-L. (2002). The practical applications of Dalcroze eurhythmics. Nordic Res. Music Educ. Yearbook 6, 75–92.

Juntunen, M.-L. (2004). Embodiment in Dalcroze eurhythmics. Ph.D. thesis. Oulu: Universitatis Ouluensis.

Juntunen, M.-L. (2016). “The Dalcroze approach: Experiencing and knowing music through the embodied exploration,” in Approaches to teaching general music: Methods, issues, and viewpoints , eds C. R. Abril and B. Gault (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 141–167. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

Juntunen, M.-L. (2020a). Embodied learning through and for collaborative multimodal composing: A case in a Finnish lower secondary music classroom. Int. J. Educ. Arts 21, 1–30. doi: 10.26209/ijea21n29

Juntunen, M.-L. (2020b). Ways to enhance embodied learning in Dalcroze-inspired music education. Int. J. Music Early Childh. 15, 39–59. doi: 10.1386/ijmec_00011_1

Juntunen, M.-L. (2022). “Movement: An integral component of general music,” in Teaching general music: Dimensions of practice , eds C. R. Abril and B. Gault (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 299–321.

* Kang, H. G., Velazquez, V., and Rosario, E. R. (2016). Dalcroze eurhythmics-based music and movement training in transitional care brain injury patients: A feasibility study. Approaches 8, 147–158.

Keogh, J. W., Kilding, A., Pidgeon, P., Ashley, L., and Gillis, D. (2009). Physical benefits of dancing for healthy older adults: A review. J. Aging Phys. Activ. 17, 479–500.

Ketefian, S. (2015). Ethical considerations in research. Focus on vulnerable groups. Invest. Educ. Enferm. 33, 164–172. doi: 10.17533/udea.iee.v33n1a19

Koehne, S., Behrends, A., Fairhurst, M. T., and Dziobek, I. (2016). Fostering social cognition through an imitation-and synchronization-based dance/movement intervention in adults with autism spectrum disorder: A controlled proof-of-concept study. Psychother. Psychosom. 85, 27–35. doi: 10.1159/000441111

Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umilta‘, M. A., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., and Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons. Science 297:846848. doi: 10.1126/science.1070311

* Kressig, R. W., Allali, G., and Beauchet, O. (2005). Long-term practice of Jaques-Dalcroze eurhythmics prevents age-related increase of gait variability under a dual task. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 53, 728–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53228_2.x

Kuran, C. H. A., Morsut, C., Kruke, B. I., Krüger, M., Segnestam, L., Orru, K., et al. (2020). Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50:101826. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101826

* Lakes, K. D., Neville, R., Vazou, S., Schuck, S. E. B., Stavropoulos, K., Krishnan, K., et al. (2019). Beyond Broadway: Analysis of qualitative characteristics of and individual responses to creatively able, a music and movement intervention for children with autism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1377. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081377

Leman, M., and Maes, P. J. (2014). The role of embodiment in the perception of music. Empirical Musicol. Rev. 9, 236–246. doi: 10.18061/emr.v9i3-4.4498

Leman, M., Maes, P. J., Nijs, L., and Van Dyck, E. (2018). “What is embodied music cognition?” in Springer handbook of systematic musicology , ed. R. Bader (Berlin: Springer), 747–760.

Lidov, D. (2005). Is language a music? Writings on musical form and signification. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Mathieu, L. (2010). Un regard actuel sur la Rythmique Jaques-Dalcroze [A contemporary view of Dalcroze eurhythmics]. Recherche Éduc. Musicale 28, 17–28.

May, T., Chan, E. S., Lindor, E., McGinley, J., Skouteris, H., Austin, D., et al. (2021). Physical, cognitive, psychological and social effects of dance in children with disabilities: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil. Rehabil. 43, 13–26. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1615139

Mays, N., Pope, C., and Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 6–20.

Meng, X., Li, G., Jia, Y., Liu, Y., Shang, B., Liu, P., et al. (2020). Effects of dance intervention on global cognition, executive function and memory of older adults: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 32, 7–19. doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01159-w

Nelson, K. P., and Hourigan, R. M. (2016). A comparative case study of learning strategies and recommendations of five professional musicians with dyslexia. Update Applic. Res. Music Educ. 35, 54–65. doi: 10.1177/8755123315581341

Pino, A., Rodríguez-Rossell, C., and Vallverdú, L. V. (2022). ‘How can I include them?’: Teaching pupils with visual impairment in the inclusive music classroom. Didacticae 12, 124–137.

Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., and Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46, 529–546. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009

Reifinger, J. L. Jr. (2019). Dyslexia in the music classroom: A review of literature. Update Applic. Res. Music Educ. 38, 9–17. doi: 10.1177/8755123319831736

Salmon, S. (2010). Listening-feeling–playing music and movement for children with hearing loss. Musicworks 15, 17–21.

Sanchini, V., Sala, R., and Gastmans, C. (2022). The concept of vulnerability in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. BMC Med. Ethics 23:84. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00819-3

Schiavio, A. (2014). Action, enaction, inter(en)action. Empirical Musicol. Rev. 9, 254–262. doi: 10.18061/emr.v9i3-4.4440

Schmitt, K., and Kressig, R. W. (2008). Mobilität und balance [Mobility and balance]. Ther. Umschau 65, 421–426. doi: 10.1024/0040-5930.65.8.421

Schröder-Butterfill, E., and Marianti, R. (2006). A framework for understanding old-age vulnerabilities. Ageing Soc. 26, 9–35. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X05004423

Seitz, J. A. (2005a). Dalcroze, the body, movement and musicality. Psychol. Music 33, 419–435.

Seitz, J. A. (2005b). The neural, evolutionary, developmental, and bodily basis of metaphor. New Ideas Psychol. 23, 74–95.

Shanker, S. G. (2012). “Emotion regulation through the ages,” in Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language , eds A. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine, and J. Zlatev (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 105–138.

Sheppard, A., and Broughton, M. C. (2020). Promoting wellbeing and health through active participation in music and dance: A systematic review. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well being 15:1732526. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2020.1732526

Sievers, B., Polansky, L., Casey, M., and Wheatley, T. (2013). Music and movement share a dynamic structure that supports universal expressions of emotion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 70–75. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209023110

Spivey, M. J., and Huette, S. (2014). “The embodiment of attention in the perception-action loop,” in The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition , ed. L. Shapiro (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 306–314.

* Sutela, K., Juntunen, M.-L., and Ojala, J. (2020). Applying music-and-movement to promote agency development in music education: A case study in a special school. Br. J. Music Educ. 37, 71–85. doi: 10.1017/S0265051719000184

* Sutela, K., Ojala, J., and Kielinen, M. (2021). Developing agency through music and movement. Res. Stud. Music Educ. 43, 195–211. doi: 10.1177/1321103X20934084

* Treviño, E. N., and Álvarez-Bermúdez, J. (2018b). Older adults and flow through music and movement. J. Nurs. Health Sci. 7, 54–60.

* Treviño, E. N., and Álvarez-Bermúdez, J. (2018a). Efficacy of Dalcroze eurhythmics in the psychological health, affectivity, social relationships, and state of flow in older adults. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Invent. 7, 23–31.

* Treviño, E. N., and Álvarez-Bermúdez, J. Á (2016). An exploratory study of flow and enjoyment in a Dalcroze eurhythmics-based intervention for seniors in Mexico. Approaches 8, 159–168.

* Treviño, E., Elizondo, J. E., and Álvarez-Bermuìdez, J. (2018). Flow state, cognition, and Dalcroze eurhythmics in older adults. Int. J. Latest Res. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 1, 8–16.

* Trombetti, A., Hars, M., Herrmann, F. R., Kressig, R. W., Ferrari, S., and Rizzoli, R. (2011). Effect of music-based multitask training on gait, balance, and fall risk in elderly people: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 171, 525–533. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.446

Zarowsky, C., Haddad, S., and Nguyen, V. K. (2013). Beyond ‘vulnerable groups’: Contexts and dynamics of vulnerability. Glob. Health Promot. 20, 3–9. doi: 10.1177/1757975912470062

Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J. L., and Penhune, V. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 547–558. doi: 10.1038/nrn2152

Articles included in the review are marked with an asterisk*.

Keywords : music-movement integration, Dalcroze, vulnerable, special needs, older adults, systematic literature review

Citation: Juntunen M-L and Sutela K (2023) The effectiveness of music–movement integration for vulnerable groups: a systematic literature review. Front. Psychol. 14:1127654. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1127654

Received: 19 December 2022; Accepted: 24 July 2023; Published: 31 August 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Juntunen and Sutela. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marja-Leena Juntunen, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

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

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

  • American Job Centers
  • Apprenticeship
  • Demonstration Grants
  • Farmworkers
  • Federal Bonding Program
  • Foreign Labor Certification
  • Indians and Native Americans
  • Job Seekers
  • Layoffs and Rapid Response
  • National Dislocated Worker Grants
  • Older Workers
  • Skills Training Grants
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance
  • Unemployment Insurance
  • Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
  • WIOA Adult Program
  • Advisories and Directives
  • Regulations
  • Labor Surplus Area
  • Performance
  • Recovery-Ready Workplace Resource Hub
  • Research and Evaluation
  • ETA News Releases
  • Updates for Workforce Professionals
  • Regional Offices
  • Freedom of Information Act

Reemployment Services Evidence: A Collection of Briefs on RESEA Components (Compendium of Issue Briefs on Literature Review Findings)

Publication info, research methodology, country, state or territory, description, other products.

In 2018, amendments to Section 306(c) of the Social Security Act (SSA) permanently authorized the Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA) program and introduced substantive changes, including formula-based funding to states and a series of requirements intended to increase the use and availability of evidence-based reemployment interventions and strategies. The Department of Labor provides funding to states to operate the RESEA program, which aims to help Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants return to work quickly and meet eligibility requirements.

The evaluation of the RESEA program includes four major components: 1) an implementation report; 2) a brief on serving UI claimants during the COVID-19 pandemic; 3) a collection of evidence briefs about RESEA program components, including selecting claimants and meeting attendance, basic career services, and individualized services; and 4) a report on options for building evidence on RESEA programs. This collection of evidence briefs aims to inform states about the status of evidence on RESEA programs and strategies. The briefs examine the evidence and gaps in three subject areas: 1) program activities that precede the in-person RESEA meeting--claimant selection, scheduling, and attendance policies; 2) impacts of basic career services; and 3) impacts of individualized career services.

Nearly all completed impact evaluations estimate the effectiveness of whole RESEA programs, not components of those programs. Findings from the evidence briefs indicate that:

Available evidence on selection criteria comes from whole-program impact studies that test for differential impacts across subgroups of claimants. While programs often select claimants with statistical models that predict the likelihood of benefit exhaustion, evidence suggests that impacts usually do not vary with the scores from those models. Prior research suggests that other UI claimant characteristics, such as the weekly benefit amount, may better predict program impact.

One impact study finds that an emphasis on clear and concise communication may improve program attendance rates, but most analyses of approaches to improve program attendance are descriptive. Scheduling and communication strategies have rarely been tested rigorously, and additional research could increase the knowledge base of the effects of self-scheduling, alternative communication channels, and non-compliance policies on attendance.

Reemployment programs for UI claimants sometimes require program participation, and mandatory participation appears to be relevant to program impacts. Few studies have isolated the effect of reemployment services from the requirement to participate and these requirements may need further study.

RESEA programs include a combination of career development and employment-related services. States may be interested in the available evidence for specific services or groups of career services. The briefs review the evidence for basic and individualized career services separately; however, previous studies generally have not isolated the effects of these types of services.

Reemployment services, particularly when evaluated separately, can be expected to have small impacts when compared to a control group. As a result, state evaluations of low-intensity components will often require large samples.

Cengage Logo-Home Page

  • Instructors
  • Institutions
  • Teaching Strategies
  • Higher Ed Trends
  • Academic Leadership
  • Affordability
  • Product Updates

Black History Month 2024: African Americans and the Arts 

A woman reads a book

The national theme for Black History Month 2024 is “ African Americans and the Arts .”  

Black History Month 2024 is a time to recognize and highlight the achievements of Black artists and creators, and the role they played in U.S. history and in shaping our country today.  

To commemorate this year’s theme, we’ve gathered powerful quotes about learning, culture and equality from five historic Black American authors, teachers and artists who made a significant impact in the Arts, education ― and the nation.  

  Making history  

“Real education means to inspire people to live more abundantly, to learn to begin with life as they find it and make it better.” – Carter G. Woodson, Author, Journalist, Historian and Educator, 1875-1950  

Known as the “Father of Black History,” Carter G. Woodson was primarily self-taught in most subjects. In 1912, he became the second Black person to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard.   

He is the author of more than 30 books, including “T he Mis-Education of the Negro. ”  

Carter G. Woodson dedicated his life to teaching Black History and incorporating the subject of Black History in schools. He co-founded what is now the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. (ASALH) . In February 1926, Woodson launched the first Negro History Week , which has since been expanded into Black History Month.  

Carter G. Woodson

Providing a platform  

“I have created nothing really beautiful, really lasting, but if I can inspire one of these youngsters to develop the talent.” – Augusta Savage, Sculptor, 1892-1962  

An acclaimed and influential sculptor of the Harlem Renaissance, Augusta Savage was a teacher and an activist who fought for African American rights in the Arts. She was one out of only four women, and the only Black woman, commissioned for the 1939 New York World’s Fair. She exhibited one of her most famous works, “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” which she named after the hymn by James Weldon Johnson, sometimes referred to as the Black National Anthem. Her sculpture is also known as “ The Harp, ” renamed by the fair’s organizers.  

Photograph of Augusta Savage

Raising a voice  

“My mother said to me ‘My child listen, whatever you do in this world no matter how good it is you will never be able to please everybody. But what one should strive for is to do the very best humanly possible.’” – Marian Anderson, American Contralto, 1897-1993  

Marian Anderson broke barriers in the opera world. In 1939, she performed at the Lincoln Memorial in front of a crowd of 75,000 after the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) denied her access to the DAR Constitution Hall because of her race. And in 1955, Marian Anderson became the first African American to perform at the Metropolitan Opera. She sang the leading role as Ulrica in Verdi’s Un Ballo in Maschera.  

previous studies in the literature

Influencing the world  

“The artist’s role is to challenge convention, to push boundaries, and to open new doors of perception.” – Henry Ossawa Tanner, Painter, 1859-1937  

Henry Ossawa Tanner is known to be the first Black artist to gain world-wide fame and acclaim. In 1877, he enrolled at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts , where he was the only Black student. In 1891, Tanner moved to Paris to escape the racism he was confronted with in America. Here, he painted two of his most recognized works, “ The Banjo Lesson” and “ The Thankful Poor of 1894. ”    

In 1923, Henry O. Tanner was awarded the Chevalier of the Legion of Honor by the French government, France’s highest honor.  

Henry Ossawa Tanner

Rising up  

“Wisdom is higher than a fool can reach.” – Phillis Wheatley, Poet, 1753-1784  

At about seven years old, Phillis Wheatley was kidnapped from her home in West Africa and sold into slavery in Boston. She started writing poetry around the age of 12 and published her first poem, “ Messrs. Hussey and Coffin ,” in Rhode Island’s Newport Mercury newspaper in 1767.   

While her poetry spread in popularity ― so did the skepticism. Some did not believe an enslaved woman could have authored the poems. She defended her work to a panel of town leaders and became the first African American woman to publish a book of poetry. The panel’s attestation was included in the preface of her book.  

Phillis Wheatley corresponded with many artists, writers and activists, including a well-known 1 774 letter to Reverand Samson Occom about freedom and equality.  

Phillis Wheatley with pen and paper

Honoring Black History Month 2024  

Art plays a powerful role in helping us learn and evolve. Not only does it introduce us to a world of diverse experiences, but it helps us form stronger connections. These are just a few of the many Black creators who shaped U.S. history ― whose expressions opened many doors and minds.  

Black History Month is observed each year in February. To continue your learning, go on a journey with Dr. Jewrell Rivers, as he guides you through Black History in higher education. Read his article, “A Brief History: Black Americans in Higher Education.”  

Related articles

Student reading a book

IMAGES

  1. Comparison of previous literature studies and this study.

    previous studies in the literature

  2. Comparison of previous literature studies and this study.

    previous studies in the literature

  3. The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing

    previous studies in the literature

  4. A summary of differences between this study and the previous literature

    previous studies in the literature

  5. 15 Literature Review Examples (2024)

    previous studies in the literature

  6. Writing the Literature Review

    previous studies in the literature

VIDEO

  1. Review of literature

  2. Part 2 Writing the Review of Literature

  3. Postcolonial Theory

  4. Effective Review of Literature

  5. Review of Related Literature vs. Review of Literature Studies: Practical Research 2

  6. What is Literature??

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write a Literature Review

    Step 1 - Search for relevant literature Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure Step 5 - Write your literature review Free lecture slides Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions Introduction Quick Run-through Step 1 & 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

  2. Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

    A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic. Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area. Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas. Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic. Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.

  3. Literature review as a research methodology: An ...

    A literature review can broadly be described as a more or less systematic way of collecting and synthesizing previous research ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003 ).

  4. How to Make a Literature Review in Research (RRL Example)

    Step 5: Demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed. In a literature review intro for an article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond to and/or confirm those ...

  5. 5. The Literature Review

    Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies. Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort. Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research. Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important]. Fink, Arlene.

  6. Literature Review Research

    The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic Help gather ideas or information Keep up to date in current trends and findings Help develop new questions A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 ...

  9. Writing a Literature Review: Connecting Past Studies with Your Research

    By Karen Sternheimer Writing a literature review demonstrates that you are familiar with previous research and theoretical concepts related to your research topic. The "literature" includes scholarly publications written by primarily by researchers in your discipline.

  10. PDF What is a Literature Review?

    literature review is an aid to gathering and synthesising that information. The pur-pose of the literature review is to draw on and critique previous studies in an orderly, precise and analytical manner. The fundamental aim of a literature review is to provide a comprehensive picture of the knowledge relating to a specific topic.

  11. Home

    A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it. provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works. helps focus one's own research topic. identifies a conceptual framework for one's own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research. suggests previously unused or ...

  12. 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 [1]. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2].

  13. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews

    Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013).

  14. How should I review previous studies?

    Answer: Reviewing previously published articles begins with a thorough literature search. You have to read journal articles, editorials, magazines, survey reports, etc. to find out what research has been done on your topic.

  15. Interpreting Research Results with Previous Studies

    Interpreting Research Results with Previous Studies December 29, 2021 Moumita Mazumdar Effective literature search is important for several reasons. Before you conduct your study, you need to identify other previous studies that addressed research questions or hypotheses that are comparable to yours.

  16. How do we write or how do we include previous studies in ...

    1 Recommendation Malik Stalbert San Bernardino Valley College ncluding previous studies in a scientific article is an important aspect of providing context and supporting your research...

  17. Postgraduate students' difficulties in writing their theses literature

    According to Fink (Citation 2005), an effective literature review is a combination of previous research studies presented in such a way that adds value to our understanding of that work. Other researchers such as Gall et al. ( Citation 2007 ) highlighted that a literature review should show how various studies related to each other.

  18. Getting started

    What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...

  19. Academic Phrases for Writing Literature Review Section of ...

    1. Previous literature The literature review shows that __ Previous research showed __ Seminal contributions have been made by __ A series of recent studies has indicated that __ Several theories have been proposed to __, some focusing on __, others on __ There has been numerous studies to investigate __

  20. 'It depends': what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies

    The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at ...

  21. How to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections

    You may refer to prior studies as you design the study, collect and/or select data and perform the analysis. If this is the case, it is important to explain clearly why you are using and drawing from previous studies and how these are relevant to your own research paper.

  22. What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

    1. Provide a foundation for current research. 2. Define key concepts and theories. 3. Demonstrate critical evaluation. 4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved. 5. Identify gaps in existing research. 6. Support your argument. Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews! What is a Literature Review?

  23. PDF Conceptualizing the Pathways of Literature Review in Research

    the researcher has developed fundamentals of the study. Synthesizing and criticizing literature enables the researcher to notice and explore gaps and shortcomings in the previous studies; and helps to justify that the present research is new and different from others. Then, the researcher should conceptualize research problems and develop ...

  24. (PDF) Previous studies methodology

    Previous studies methodology June 2022 Conference: International Scientific Conference Special Education Authors: Rana Tahan Rafael Lopes da Silva Abstract It is a successful researcher who...

  25. The Relationship between Mushroom Intake and Cognitive ...

    The previous literature suggests that regular consumption of edible mushrooms may confer neuroprotective cognitive health benefits. To further investigate the possible association between mushrooms and brain function during ageing, data from a population-based study of diet and chronic disease (EPIC-Norfolk cohort) were analysed.

  26. Your Guide to write Previous Studies in the paper

    Previous studies provide information and a basic notion about the study's subject, allowing the researcher to avoid making the same mistakes as previous researchers. Previous research saves time and effort by giving detailed information about the study's topic. Previous research is one of the factors that aid the researcher's decision-making ...

  27. Frontiers

    1 Department of Music Education, Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 2 Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; This systematic review synthesized the outcomes of previous intervention studies published from January 2000-October 2022 to evaluate the effectiveness of Dalcroze-based or similar music-movement integration among groups of ...

  28. Reemployment Services Evidence: A Collection of Briefs on RESEA

    The briefs review the evidence for basic and individualized career services separately; however, previous studies generally have not isolated the effects of these types of services. Reemployment services, particularly when evaluated separately, can be expected to have small impacts when compared to a control group.

  29. Black History Month 2024: African Americans and the Arts

    Carter G. Woodson dedicated his life to teaching Black History and incorporating the subject of Black History in schools. He co-founded what is now the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. (ASALH). In February 1926, Woodson launched the first Negro History Week, which has since been expanded into Black History Month.