literature review and framework

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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 September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

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

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

752 Accesses

1 Citations

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

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

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

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys 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 explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

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 collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses 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 than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon 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 identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

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

Published on 30.8.2024 in Vol 11 (2024)

Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Technologies in the United States: Systematic Literature Review and Framework Synthesis

Authors of this article:

• Julianna Catania 1 , MPH   ; 
• Steph Beaver 1 , MChem   ; 
• Rakshitha S Kamath 1 , MS, MSL   ; 
• Emma Worthington 2 , MPH   ; 
• Minyi Lu 3 , PhD   ; 
• Hema Gandhi 3 , PhD   ; 
• Heidi C Waters 3 , PhD   ; 
• Daniel C Malone 4 , PhD  

1 Costello Medical, Boston, MA, United States

2 Costello Medical, Cambridge, United Kingdom

3 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization Inc, Princeton, NJ, United States

4 Department of Pharmacotherapy, Skaggs College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States

Corresponding Author:

Daniel C Malone, PhD

Department of Pharmacotherapy

Skaggs College of Pharmacy

University of Utah

30 S 2000 East

Salt Lake City, UT, 84112

United States

Phone: 1 801 581 6257

Email: [email protected]

Background: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) have the potential to enhance mental health care delivery. However, there is little information on how DMHTs are evaluated and what factors influence their use.

Objective: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand how DMHTs are valued in the United States from user, payer, and employer perspectives.

Methods: Articles published after 2017 were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database, and digital and mental health congresses. Each article was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers to identify US studies reporting on factors considered in the evaluation of DMHTs targeting mental health, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative and Cohort Studies Checklists. Studies were coded and indexed using the American Psychiatric Association’s Mental Health App Evaluation Framework to extract and synthesize relevant information, and novel themes were added iteratively as identified.

Results: Of the 4353 articles screened, data from 26 unique studies from patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives were included. Engagement style was the most reported theme (23/26, 88%), with users valuing DMHT usability, particularly alignment with therapeutic goals through features including anxiety management tools. Key barriers to DMHT use included limited internet access, poor technical literacy, and privacy concerns. Novel findings included the discreetness of DMHTs to avoid stigma.

Conclusions: Usability, cost, accessibility, technical considerations, and alignment with therapeutic goals are important to users, although DMHT valuation varies across individuals. DMHT apps should be developed and selected with specific user needs in mind.

Introduction

Digital health comprises a broad range of technologies, including mobile health, health information technology, wearable devices, and personalized medicine, which serve as tools to enhance health care delivery. Recently, several digital mental health (MH) therapeutics, a category of digital MH technologies (DMHTs), have received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to prevent, manage, or treat a medical disorder or disease based on evidence from superiority trials and compliance with technical guidelines [ 1 , 2 ]. However, most DMHTs, particularly apps, fall outside FDA jurisdiction because they are not intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease and because they are “low risk” in that they would not cause harm in the event of malfunction [ 3 ]. Due to this lack of regulatory framework, few DMHTs are supported by published efficacy studies. One study found that only 16% of MH apps recommended by college counseling centers were supported by efficacy studies published in peer-reviewed journals [ 4 ].

Nonetheless, many health care providers (HCPs) use MH apps in clinical practice. Up to 83% of behavioral health providers in a small study covering the Greater Boston area reported using apps as part of their clinical care, particularly mindfulness apps for patient anxiety management [ 5 ]. As many DMHTs are currently widely used in clinical practice without undergoing any formal assessment for quality or relevance, understanding how DMHTs should be assessed based on factors impacting their value from the perspective of key stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, providers, payers, and employers, could improve the selection of DMHTs for use by patients, thereby increasing care quality and outcomes for those seeking MH support.

To address identified gaps, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using a published framework to synthesize emerging themes from mixed methods evidence in order to understand how digital health solutions, encompassing both digital therapeutics and direct-to-consumer digital health technologies, are valued, with a focus on MH disorders, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States.

The SLR was performed in accordance with a prespecified protocol and reported in line with the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [ 6 , 7 ]. The protocol was not registered.

Search Strategy

Electronic databases, encompassing MEDLINE (including MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Daily, and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print); Embase; the Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials); PsycINFO; and the Health Technology Assessment Database, were selected in alignment with this SLR’s target indications and were searched on June 17, 2022. The search terms included combinations of free-text and Medical Subject Heading or Emtree terms related to indications of interest, DMHTs, and relevant outcomes or assessment types (eg, technology assessments and cost; Tables S1-S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Searches were limited to studies performed in the United States and to those published from 2017 onward.

Manual hand searches of gray literature, namely, the bibliographies of relevant SLRs identified from the electronic database searches and key conference proceedings (2019-2022), were performed to identify additional studies of relevance (Table S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The FDA website was also searched to identify factors involved in the FDA’s appraisal of relevant MH apps, which could supplement the factors identified in this SLR (Table S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Study Selection

Studies were included in the SLR if they met prespecified criteria defined using the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework, which is appropriate for mixed methods research questions. Eligible studies were published in the English language, were set in the United States, and reported quantitative or qualitative outcomes relating to the factors considered in the evaluation of DMHTs. Only studies published in 2017 or later were included because of the rapidly evolving research area. Eligible studies reported on MH, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, ASD, or ADHD from user, payer, or employer perspectives (Table S8 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). While the primary focus of the SLR was MH, neurological conditions were also of interest because their pathologies, symptoms, and treatment strategies can overlap with those of mental illnesses. Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, ASD, and ADHD were selected because they are highly researched and represent diverse types of neurological conditions.

The titles and abstracts of records were assessed for inclusion against these eligibility criteria by 2 independent reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus, with arbitration by a third reviewer if necessary. Full texts of potentially relevant articles were acquired and screened using the same methodology.

Study Prioritization

Due to the large volume of the evidence identified, additional eligibility criteria were applied to prioritize primary research on theoretical DMHT valuation factors. In line with the thematic framework synthesis objective, theoretical valuation factors were defined as user or DMHT attributes that impact interaction with or perception of DMHTs; therefore, studies that reported only efficacy outcomes, such as mental illness symptom improvement, were deprioritized for full-text review. Secondary research was also deprioritized for full-text review. Studies that reviewed a select app against a framework and studies that reported only the outcomes specific to a select app were deprioritized for data extraction. For example, a study reporting the usability of a specific app’s features would have been deprioritized, while a study reporting what types of features increase MH app usability in general would not.

Data Extraction

All relevant data were extracted into a prespecified Microsoft Excel grid, and a quality assessment was performed for each study. Studies that reported only qualitative data were assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Studies Checklist. Studies that reported only quantitative data were evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Cohort Study Checklist, and studies reporting both qualitative and quantitative data were evaluated with both checklists [ 8 ]. Data extractions and quality assessments were performed by a single individual for each study, with the information verified by a second independent individual. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, with arbitration by a third individual if necessary.

Framework Synthesis

A framework synthesis approach was undertaken to synthesize qualitative and quantitative data identified from the SLR. In line with the “best fit” framework synthesis approach, data were indexed deductively against an existing framework where possible, and novel themes were added inductively as needed [ 9 , 10 ]. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Mental Health App Evaluation framework was considered the most appropriate framework to address the research objectives of this SLR because its key valuation themes were developed using psychiatrist and patient input, are broadly shared by other evaluation frameworks, are widely acknowledged in the literature, and have been described as durable and adaptable [ 11 - 13 ].

The APA model follows a hierarchical and chronological order whereby the evaluator moves through the framework using prompting questions (eg, “Does the app work offline?”). For this SLR, these questions were either thematically grouped into subthemes or left as prompting questions, as appropriate. The framework was therefore ultimately adapted into 3 levels: themes, subthemes, and more granular valuation criteria. It should be emphasized that this SLR did not aim to formally develop an updated framework to be used in practice by HCPs and their patients but rather was used to form a theoretical basis for understanding DMHT valuation factors, for which novel themes were expected to emerge.

A data-based convergent approach was used to synthesize quantitative and qualitative data [ 14 ]. Data were initially indexed deductively against the prespecified themes within the data collection instrument and then further synthesized within Docear [ 15 ], a mind-map software used to organize and connect data and concepts. Indexing was performed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second independent reviewer. New themes and subthemes that emerged from the literature through inductive coding were added post hoc to the thematic framework, with all extracted data then considered against both the prespecified and novel themes. The evidence identified for each theme was synthesized narratively, taking into consideration the context and design of each study.

Included Studies

A total of 4974 records were retrieved from the electronic databases. Of the 3374 (67.83%) unique records identified following deduplication across the databases, 2891 (85.68%) were excluded based on the eligibility criteria, and an additional 456 (13.52%) were deprioritized because they were not directly related to the topic of interest for this SLR. Excluded and deprioritized full texts are listed in Tables S9 and S10 in Multimedia Appendix 1 , respectively. Therefore, 27 (0.54%) articles were included from the electronic database searches. In addition, 1 article reporting on the same study as an already-included conference abstract was identified during supporting targeted searches and included as a supplementary record, resulting in a total of 28 articles reporting on 26 unique studies (Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). No relevant FDA appraisals were identified in the supplementary search.

Of the 26 included studies, 8 (31%) were quantitative, 12 (46%) were qualitative, and 6 (23%) used a mixed methods approach. While 5 (19%) studies assessed prospective cohorts, 22 (85%) used a cross-sectional approach, including 1 (4%) study that contained both a prospective cohort and a cross-sectional cohort ( Table 1 ). All studies (26/26, 100%) investigated a user perspective, with none specifically investigating payer or employer perspectives. Only 1 (4%) study, which examined ingestible sensor pills and smart pill dispensers to track adherence, investigated a DMHT that was not an app [ 16 ].

a Only information relevant to this systematic literature review is reported in this table.

b MDD: major depressive disorder.

c BD: bipolar disorder.

d OCD: obsessive-compulsive disorder.

e MH: mental health.

f General users are participants who were not necessarily diagnosed with indications of interest.

g ASD: autism spectrum disorder.

h HCP: Health care provider.

i mHealth: mobile health.

j PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder.

k VA: Veterans Affairs.

l ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

m PHQ-9: Personal Health Questionnaire-9.

n GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7.

o DMHT: digital mental health technology.

Most frequently, studies focused on indications for mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders (15/26, 58%), with other indications of focus including ADHD (2/26, 8%), ASD (1/26, 4%), and epilepsy (1/26, 4%). No relevant studies focused on Alzheimer disease were identified.

A total of 8 (31%) studies assessed the perspectives toward DMHTs of general population participants who were not necessarily diagnosed with relevant conditions [ 19 , 28 , 29 , 33 - 37 ]. Of these populations, several were identified as having an increased risk of MH conditions, such as patients with cancer [ 28 ], college students [ 29 , 34 ], deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals [ 19 ], and people who were unemployed or furloughed during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 33 ]. In addition, 1 (4%) study included a mix of patients who were above and below the referral criteria for psychotherapy for depression [ 37 ].

Thematic Analysis

Evidence was identified for all 5 themes included in the APA framework: engagement style (23/26, 88%), background and accessibility (16/26, 62%), privacy and security (13/26, 50%), therapeutic goal (12/26, 46%), and clinical foundation (8/26, 31%; Table 2 ). Five novel criteria were identified and added to the framework post hoc, 1 each under engagement style (forgetting or feeling unmotivated to use DMHTs) and privacy and security (personal image and stigma) and 3 under background and accessibility (willingness to pay, insurance restrictions, and cost savings compared with professional care).

a Novel findings that emerged from this systematic literature review.

b These subthemes and criteria were included in the American Psychiatric Association’s framework but were not reported on by studies included in this systematic literature review.

c HCP: health care provider.

Theme 1: Engagement Style

Engagement style was the most reported theme, with evidence identified from 23 (88%) of the 26 studies. Engagement style encompasses how and why users do or do not interact with DMHTs. The long-term usability subtheme was reported by 96% (22/23) of studies, short-term usability by 12 (52%) studies, and customizability by 7 (30%) studies. Findings from short- and long-term usability subthemes were highly interconnected.

A total of 4 studies reported that ease of use promoted short-term DMHT engagement. In the study by Schueller et al [ 35 ], 89.6% of a general population of smartphone users reported ease of use for MH apps as “important” or “very important,” and users qualitatively reported dislike of “overwhelming,” difficult-to-navigate apps. In addition, users valued apps that were “simplistic” [ 34 ], fit into their daily schedules, and were available when needed (eg, during acute symptom experiences) [ 5 , 25 ]. Select supporting qualitative data are presented in Table 3 .

a ASD: autism spectrum disorder.

b MH: mental health.

c ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

d BD: bipolar disorder.

e Novel criteria identified by this systematic literature review.

f CHA: Cambridge Health Alliance.

g EMR: electronic medical record.

h HCP: health care provider.

Users valued DMHT features that aligned with their needs and priorities, as reflected by findings within the long-term usability subtheme. Across 9 studies, quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrated high interest in anxiety management features such as relaxation tools, breathing exercises, and mindfulness or meditation activities, and 10 studies identified interest in mood, symptom, or sleep tracking ( Tables 3 and 4 ). While most studies (24/26, 92%) focused on MH, patients with epilepsy also reported high interest in features to record seizure dates and types [ 17 ]. Importantly, users in 2 studies emphasized the need for developers to tailor DMHTs to the needs and priorities of the target population ( Table 3 ) [ 28 , 31 ]. Relatedly, mixed attitudes were reported toward positive affirmations and words of encouragement, with many users expressing interest but others emphasizing the value of a human component to DMHTs or cautioning against blanket encouragement and automated messages that could feel insincere [ 19 , 25 , 31 ].

a A 5-point Likert scale (0-4) was used.

b Not available.

c A 5-point Likert scale (1-5) was used.

d MH: mental health.

e DMHT: digital mental health technology.

f MDD: major depressive disorder.

g PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder.

Both patients and caregivers expressed interest in psychoeducational content that aligned with their needs and priorities. When surveyed, >60% of veterans with anxiety or major depressive disorder (MDD), patients with epilepsy, young adults with psychosis, and essential and furloughed workers during the COVID-19 pandemic expressed interest in relevant psychoeducational content [ 17 , 22 , 32 , 33 ]. In contrast, only 4% of college students in another study reported using an MH app for information about MH, although an MH diagnosis was not required for study participation [ 29 ].

Caregivers of young adults with psychosis, caregivers of children with ADHD, and spouses and partners of people with bipolar disorder (BD) were all interested in information related to caring for the individual with the given disorder, such as information on psychological and pharmacological treatments, symptoms and symptom changes, and the MH system [ 21 , 24 , 26 ]. Comparatively smaller, but still notable, proportions of caregivers of patients with psychosis were interested in caregiver-focused information; for instance, 62% to 69% were interested in relaxation exercises, stress and mood management, and community events for caregivers, while 85% to 90% were interested in the aforementioned patient-focused information [ 21 ].

Information delivery–style preference was captured under the short-term usability subtheme. One study in young adults with psychosis and another study with their caregivers revealed that delivering information in a variety of formats was important; when presented with nonmutually exclusive options, >50% of both populations were interested in text content, video content, audio content, and discussion boards [ 21 , 22 ].

Social interaction promoted long-term engagement. Qualitatively, 3 studies found that users valued learning about similar experiences from others via social media–like features, which normalized their experiences and could provide new symptom management strategies ( Table 3 ) [ 28 , 31 , 36 ]. Similarly, 67% of both young adults with psychosis and deaf or hard-of-hearing survey participants (N=9) reported interest in peer support via chat features [ 19 , 22 ]. However, a comparatively smaller proportion of veterans with anxiety or MDD (48.3% of the full cohort and 51.3% of the smartphone user subgroup) were interested in peer support [ 32 ].

Overall, users endorsed social features to support their MH. In the study by Casarez et al [ 24 ], spouses and partners of people with BD likewise desired features to communicate with other caregivers and also emphasized that DMHTs could facilitate conversation and understanding with patients, a sentiment echoed by peer support specialists by Storm et al [ 38 ] ( Table 3 ). However, one oncology HCP cautioned that similar to support groups, “very strict guidelines of what is said” should be implemented to manage potential risks from shared social media–like content, although little additional context was provided [ 28 ].

Spouses and partners of people with BD also suggested both in-app information on accessing professional resources and direct counseling for the patient at times when other support might be inaccessible [ 24 ]. More than half of all workers, employed or unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likewise endorsed links to resources, counseling, and crisis support as DMHT features, and 81.6% of young adults with psychosis endorsed a feature to communicate with professional experts [ 22 , 33 ]. Importantly, compared with patients attending public clinics, patients attending private psychiatric clinics expressed a higher comfort level for in-app communication with HCPs, suggesting demographic differences in the valuation of access to professional support through DMHTs [ 39 ].

A total of 9 studies reported an interest in DMHT reminders and notifications. Across 3 studies, >70% of patients or caregivers were interested in appointment reminders [ 17 , 21 , 22 ]. In addition, 73% and 68% of patients with epilepsy reported interest in reminders for medication refills and adherence, respectively [ 17 ]. Beyond apps, caregivers of patients with MDD, BD, and schizophrenia preferred an ingestible pill sensor that tracked medication adherence, physical activity, mood, and rest 9.79 (95% CI 4.81-19.9), 7.47 (95% CI 3.81-14.65), and 6.71 (95% CI 3.29-13.69) times more than a nondigital pill organizer, respectively [ 16 ]. Qualitatively, patients and caregivers also appreciated reminders, especially if reasonably timed or delivered via text messages [ 27 , 31 ].

Short-term DMHT engagement was also supported by games and graphics, which could communicate information in an accessible way [ 24 ], provide tools for stress management [ 17 , 33 ], and be used therapeutically with children [ 20 , 30 ]. However, some HCPs and caregivers expressed concerns that graphics and games may be distracting for certain children ( Table 3 ) [ 20 ].

In a novel finding, 3 studies reported forgetfulness or lack of motivation as an influence on DMHT engagement. In some cases, disuse was related to stress, other MH symptoms, or poor technical literacy ( Table 3 ) [ 5 , 25 , 31 ]. In contrast, “forgetting to use” DMHTs and “lack of motivation” were perceived as relatively small barriers to use in the study by Stiles-Shields et al [ 37 ].

The third subtheme under engagement style was customizability, which was generally valued by users; 70.9% of a general population of smartphone users noted customization was an important factor [ 35 ]. Similarly, 9.4% of all surveyed veterans and 10.9% of those with smartphones reported disliking a prior DMHT due to a lack of personalization [ 32 ]. Users specifically wanted to be able to opt out of irrelevant features, customize audiovisual and design elements, add personal notes to tracked mood data, and provide ongoing feedback to facilitate personalization [ 20 , 24 , 28 , 31 , 34 ].

Theme 2: Background and Accessibility

A total of 16 (62%) studies reported findings related to DMHT background and accessibility, which considers the developer of the DMHT, as well as functionality and accessibility. Of these, 12 (75%) studies reported on the technical considerations subtheme, 9 (56%) on costs, and 2 (13%) on stability.

Under technical considerations, 9 studies assessed diverse accessibility concerns. Broadly, Storm et al [ 38 ] emphasized that DMHTs should be developed in consideration of patients’ social, cognitive, and environmental needs to avoid overwhelming users. Specifically, 2 studies reported language as a barrier. Deaf or hard-of-hearing participants recommended visual content presentation, such as videos and icons, alongside text and American Sign Language translations where possible [ 19 ]. Similarly, when discussing English-only apps, 1 provider stated as follows: “language is a barrier for some [patients]” [ 5 ]. Mobility issues related to MH symptoms or other conditions and technical literacy, such as difficulties remembering passwords and navigating smartphones or apps, created accessibility barriers as well ( Table 3 ) [ 5 , 25 , 27 , 28 ]. Additional concerns included apps that restricted use based on geographic location [ 19 ], user difficulty in finding relevant, useful apps [ 32 ], and limited mobile device memory for downloading apps [ 5 , 19 ].

Offline functionality, reported by 6 studies, was also captured under the technical considerations subtheme. A majority (5/9, 56%) of participants included in the study by Borghouts et al [ 19 ] expressed concern about their mobile data plans when using their devices. Correspondingly, “availability of Wi-Fi” was noted as a top barrier to the use of apps for depression by Stiles-Shields et al [ 37 ], and several veterans in another study reported that home Wi-Fi connectivity facilitated app use by eliminating cellular data fees [ 25 , 37 ]. Quotes from patients and HCPs echoed the concern about apps without offline functionality ( Table 3 ) [ 23 , 30 ].

Data fees were also captured under the costs subtheme, with hidden or additional costs described as a barrier to app use by 2 studies [ 26 , 37 ]. Parents of children with ADHD reported that difficulty paying phone bills could result in their phones being shut off, limiting DMHT use; one MH clinic administrator stated as follows: “We often encounter parents’ phones being shut off because they haven’t paid their bill...If the app were free or low cost, I imagine it could be very helpful” [ 26 ]. In addition to hidden costs, this quote identifies up-front app costs as a barrier. Quantitatively, more than half of a general population of surveyed college students expressed that cost was a top concern for the use of MH apps [ 34 ]. Qualitative findings from 2 additional studies likewise identified cost as a barrier to DMHT use [ 25 , 27 ].

Three novel cost attributes were identified by this SLR: willingness to pay, insurance restrictions, and cost savings compared with professional care. Four studies, 3 of which focused on apps, explored willingness to pay for DMHTs from a user perspective. Willingness to pay varied based on user preference; some surveyed college students and smartphone users among general populations valued free apps due to financial restrictions or uncertainty around app effectiveness, although 1 student commented that the quality of free trials might be inferior [ 34 , 35 ]. Some smartphone users also voiced a limit on how much they would be willing to spend for an app subscription ( Table 3 ) [ 35 ]. Forma et al [ 16 ] found that caregivers were willing to pay US $255.04 (95% CI US $123.21-US $386.86) more per month for a pill with an ingestible sensor that tracked medication adherence, physical activity, and rest and could connect to an app that also collected self-reported mood data. Moreover, the caregivers were willing to pay US $124.50 (95% CI US $48.18-US $200.81) more per month for an app-connected pill organizer alone than for a nondigital pill organizer [ 16 ]. In contrast, some veterans expressed total disinterest in paid apps, with 1 user citing poor technical literacy (“don’t have the knowledge”) in addition to cost as affecting willingness to pay [ 25 ].

In another novel finding, a speech-language pathologist working with children with ASD preferred a single app including multiple features over separate apps for particular features due to insurance restrictions: “I agree that teaching Apps should be an in-App feature versus their own app because sometimes insurance doesn’t allow us to open the iPads purchased through insurance” [ 20 ]. Although no further detail was provided for this finding, it suggests that there may be restrictions on the use of other apps on devices purchased under insurance, which may have implications for DMHT use in formal care settings due to the lack of financial support.

In a third novel cost-related finding, a small number of participants from a general population of students (3.6%) in one study preferred using an MH app to seeing an MH professional due to cost savings [ 29 ].

A total of 13% (2/16) of studies reported on the subtheme of app stability and technical difficulties, with crashes and poor display quality decreasing DMHT value [ 35 , 37 ]. Participants in the study by Schueller et al [ 35 ] reported that technical difficulties were often an issue for apps developed by medical institutions, which might be effective and safe but less usable than apps from other developers.

Theme 3: Privacy and Security

A total of 13 (50%) out of 26 studies reported findings related to the privacy and security theme, which covered the use and protection of user data by DMHTs. Subthemes were reported relatively equally: data collection and storage (5/13, 38%), personal health information (PHI; 5/13, 38%), privacy policies (4/13, 31%), general privacy (3/13, 23%), and security measures (3/13, 23%).

Quantitative and qualitative findings on general privacy (ie, evidence not categorized under any specific subtheme), the data collection and storage subtheme, and the privacy policies subtheme revealed heterogeneous concerns ( Table 3 ). A total of 74% of a general population of college students reported privacy as a top concern for MH apps, although further details on the specific area of concern were unclear [ 34 ]. In the study by Stiles-Shields et al [ 37 ], participants were highly concerned with data access but less so with general privacy. Echoing the concerns about data collection and storage, 59.1% of veterans with anxiety or MDD in 1 study were concerned about in-app PHI protection [ 32 ]; however, a qualitative study in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use disorder, or MDD reported that a relatively small number of participants expressed privacy concerns. In the latter study, reasons for the concerns included distrust in Veterans Affairs, belief that digital data are inherently not confidential, and fear of phone hacking [ 25 ]. From an HCP perspective, none of the surveyed behavioral health HCPs agreed with the statement “My patients are concerned about data security,” despite multiple patients within the same study reporting privacy concerns [ 5 ].

Still, privacy policies were important overall, with 70.5% of smartphone MH app users rating having a privacy policy as “very important” or “important” [ 35 ]. Melcher et al [ 34 ] found that although users valued data protection, some reported a lack of awareness about data privacy, and others were concerned about obscure privacy policies and PHI use. As noted in the data collection and storage subtheme, veteran concerns about government use of PHI were heterogeneous [ 25 ].

A novel valuation factor not included in the APA framework related to user concern with PHI privacy and security regarding MH diagnoses and MH app use is a desire to upkeep their personal image or avoid stigma ( Table 3 ) [ 5 , 25 , 29 , 40 ]. For instance, 21.1% of a general college student population preferred MH app use to seeing an MH professional due to anonymity or reduced stigma [ 29 ]. One participant in a study of Veterans Affairs health service users described access to professional care via MH apps as convenient because they could avoid disclosing their use of MH services to explain leaving work early for an appointment [ 25 ].

In line with the overarching concern about PHI privacy and security, users valued app security measures. Schueller et al [ 35 ] reported that 74.2% of users rated data encryption as “important” or “very important.” Users in another study perceived the level of privacy protection as the highest for apps using a combination of a generic app name (ie, not reflecting the indicated MH disorder); easily hidden modules; and secure, user-authenticated web portals for making module changes [ 40 ]. Behavioral health clinic staff echoed the importance of discreet MH app names ( Table 3 ) [ 30 ].

Theme 4: Therapeutic Goal

There were 12 (46%) studies that reported on the factors relating to the integration of DMHTs with users’ therapeutic goals. The clinical actionability and therapeutic alliance subthemes were reported by 83% (10/12) and 58% (7/12) of studies, respectively.

A total of 9 studies reported the value of clinically actionable insights from apps where the users could acquire and practice new skills to make positive changes in their lives ( Table 3 ). For instance, patient and caregiver app users reported interests in “daily tips,” “new ideas,” and “solutions or recommendations” for symptom management [ 26 , 27 , 36 ]. Furthermore, an app that could serve as a resource for multiple management strategies was preferable [ 26 , 28 , 31 ]. Quantitatively, 4% of patients receiving acute treatment in a partial hospitalization program for MH conditions, including mood and psychotic disorders, reported that the primary purpose of their DMHT use was therapy skills practice [ 18 ]. HCPs similarly appreciated that DMHTs could facilitate patients practicing skills outside of formal treatment sessions [ 5 ]. In particular, clinicians from a youth behavioral health clinic noted that DMHTs might be especially beneficial for young users because they could be conveniently and discreetly incorporated into their daily lives [ 30 ].

Users valued easy data sharing with clinicians, particularly for mood- or symptom-tracking features, which could improve communication and the accuracy of symptom reporting during clinical visits [ 5 , 25 - 27 , 34 , 36 ]. For instance, 53% of a general college student population believed that the potential to share information with their clinician was “one of the top benefits” of using DMHTs [ 34 ]. In addition, many HCPs reported active use or interest in the use of DMHTs in clinical practice to facilitate asynchronous communication and increase patient engagement with treatments outside of formal appointments; however, some preferred traditional care strategies for their personalization and flexibility ( Table 3 ) [ 5 , 26 , 30 ].

Theme 5: Clinical Foundation

A total of 8 (31%) studies reported findings related to the clinical foundation of DMHTs, that is, their utility and appropriateness for patients. Clinical validity was the most reported subtheme, with evidence identified from 6 (75%) studies; 2 (25%) studies reported on the user feedback subtheme and 2 (25%) on the impressions of use subtheme, which captured users’ perceptions of app content as accurate and relevant.

Across subthemes, users valued evidence of DMHT benefit or efficacy from various sources. A total of 71.8% of surveyed veterans said that they would use a DMHT if they “saw proof that it worked” for their MH conditions [ 32 ]. Similarly, among the 811 general population participants surveyed, 69.5% ranked direct research evidence as “important” or “very important” for DMHT, and 66.8% ranked indirect research evidence the same [ 35 ]. Qualitative data identified recommendations from HCPs or academic institutions, as well as evidence of DMHT benefit from publications or research studies, as specific sources for clinically valid evidence of benefits ( Table 3 ) [ 27 , 34 , 35 ].

In addition to academic and professional support, the user feedback subtheme captured user interest in whether DMHTs were beneficial for peers or recommended by other trusted individuals. Patients with depression reported that other users’ experiences influenced their app use, with one user wanting to know “...if other people had success using it” [ 27 ]. Quantitatively, user ratings and user reviews were ranked as “important” or “very important” factors in DMHT use by 59.4% and 58.7% of the general population participants, respectively [ 35 ].

Quality Assessment

The risk of bias was overall moderate. Of the 14 studies including quantitative components, only 1 (7%) used relevant validated outcome measurement instruments [ 33 ]; all others used custom questionnaires. Of the 18 studies with qualitative components, 4 (22%) were at risk of selection bias due to participants being exclusively recruited using web-based postings and research registries [ 33 - 35 , 37 ], and only 1 (6%) considered the relationship between researcher and participant when interpreting the results [ 36 ]. Full quality assessments for qualitative and quantitative study components can be found in Tables S11 and S12 in Multimedia Appendix 1 , respectively.

Principal Findings

This SLR aimed to identify and synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on how DMHTs are valued by users, payers, and employers in the United States. Evidence from users with or without diagnosed relevant disorders, caregivers, and HCPs was captured across a wide range of demographics. No study reported evaluating an app from a payer or employer perspective. Furthermore, all but one included study focused on mobile apps.

No relevant appraisals of DMHTs were identified from the FDA website searches; however, 8 relevant FDA approval labels or notifications for MH apps or guidance documents for industry and FDA staff were identified. The content of these materials overlapped with some valuation factors identified in this SLR, including evidence of clinical efficacy and safety, app maintenance, and privacy and security.

Engagement style, although not covered by the FDA materials, was the most reported theme by the studies included in this SLR and was found to overlap heavily with other themes. Engagement may be a key consideration for app developers, as app user retention can be low: 1 study showed that >90% of users had abandoned free MH apps within 30 days of installation [ 41 ]. Engagement is also a key clinical concern in terms of DMHT efficacy; one meta-analysis of 25 studies showed that increased use of DMHT modules was significantly associated with positive outcomes regardless of the target MH condition [ 42 ]. The findings of this SLR may therefore be informative to both DMHT designers and HCPs who integrate DMHTs into clinical care by providing insight on DMHT valuation and thus how use and benefit can be improved. For instance, users valued DMHTs that were easy to use and aligned with their needs and priorities, particularly through features that supported their therapeutic goals. In addition, content presented through multiple delivery modes, such as both text and visuals, promoted engagement as well as accessibility.

However, engagement and feature preference varied across populations. For instance, DMHT valuation was affected by technical literacy, which may relate to user demographics; in this SLR, veterans repeatedly emphasized technical literacy as a barrier to DMHT use [ 25 ]. Similarly, offline functionality may be more important for some users. Although 85% of the total United States population owns smartphones, only 59% of Medicare beneficiaries have access to a smartphone with a wireless plan. Moreover, beneficiaries who are older, less educated, disabled, or Black or Hispanic have even lower digital access [ 43 , 44 ]. These findings emphasize the importance of customizability and suggest that app development and selection in the clinical setting should consider the demographics of the target population, particularly in relation to ease of use and offline functionality.

Background and accessibility findings also identified up-front and hidden costs as barriers to DMHT use, with the willingness to pay varying among individuals. This has important implications for app development, considering that many MH apps currently on the market are direct-to-consumer sales and require out-of-pocket payment. App developers often take this approach as it does not require the accumulation of formal evidence of clinical benefit for FDA approval [ 45 ], but it may present a financial barrier to use for consumers.

Privacy and security, reported by 13 (50%) out of 26 studies, was a prevalent theme, with users primarily concerned with data and PHI security within apps. This finding reflects wider research; a 2019 review of 116 depression-related apps retrieved from iTunes and Google Play stores in 2017 found that only 4% of the identified apps had acceptable transparency in privacy and security, with many completely lacking a privacy policy [ 46 ]. Similarly, 39% of MH apps recommended by college counseling centers had no privacy policy, and of those with a policy, 88% collected user data, and 49% shared that data with third parties [ 4 ]. Most evidence identified in this SLR under this theme, as well as findings previously published in the wider literature, focuses on these remote privacy risks. However, local privacy concerns are also important to users. In particular, inconspicuous naming and the ability to hide sensitive modules within MH apps were rated as highly important by both patients and HCPs to maintain user privacy. Users emphasized a desire to avoid the stigma associated with mental illness, which was also reflected by the findings in the engagement style theme: more young adults with psychosis were more interested in in-app messaging with other patients in psychosis recovery (67.1%) than a provider and family member together (47.3%) or their personal support network (59.8%) [ 22 ]. Similarly, youths were interested in apps that could be used discreetly in school or other public settings to avoid potential MH stigma. This is a key, novel finding of this SLR, considering that many app or DMHT components on the market are named after their target disorder.

The use of DMHTs to achieve therapeutic goals was discussed from patient, caregiver, and HCP perspectives, all of which valued DMHTs that had evidence of efficacy, presented clinically actionable information, and facilitated patient-clinician relationships. Of the 5 studies that explored how HCPs value DMHTs in clinical practice, 2 (40%) were restricted to the oncology or ASD settings and were not readily generalizable to wider MH settings [ 20 , 28 ]. In other studies, providers reported interest in using DMHTs to facilitate asynchronous communication with patients and their caregivers, promote patient skill practice, and improve care for children through the use of games and visuals [ 26 , 30 ]. However, while HCPs overall believed that DMHTs improved care, some believed that their clinical training allowed for care personalization beyond what DMHTs could provide. Feature customizability and receipt of input from HCPs and users during app development and testing may be a way to mitigate these concerns, as well as concerns about safety and efficacy, as many available apps do not appropriately address user health concerns [ 47 ].

Findings additionally suggested that training and resources on DMHTs would be beneficial to ensure that HCPs were equipped to integrate DMHTs into their practices [ 5 ]. Collaboration between DMHT specialists and HCPs, along with a shift from randomized controlled trials to effectiveness-implementation hybrid trials, may be a way to streamline the integration of DMHTs into clinical care and provide more training and resources for HCPs [ 30 , 48 ].

This review followed a prespecified protocol and used systematic methods in line with the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines [ 49 ] to conduct an exhaustive search of the literature, identifying evidence relevant to the review objectives from multiple databases and supplementary sources. The framework synthesis approach allowed for the inclusion and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data, providing a detailed picture of not only what DMHT features users value but why they value them, especially in areas where valuation varies across patient demographics. In addition, the APA framework is a robust model created with patient and HCP input that incorporates key valuation themes broadly shared by other frameworks and widely acknowledged in the literature [ 11 - 13 ].

Limitations

Methodological limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this SLR. Only publications in English and in United States populations were included. As perceptions of value are influenced by factors including cultures, laws, and health care settings, the findings of this SLR should not be generalized to other countries. For instance, trust in HCPs and rates of longstanding relationships between patients and primary care providers are lower in the United States than in many European nations [ 50 , 51 ], which could impact the type of support users want from DMHTs (ie, engagement style) or interest in DMHT integration with therapeutic goals.

In addition to the prespecified eligibility criteria, deprioritization strategies were implemented due to the large volume of the identified evidence, and this may have resulted in missing relevant articles. In particular, the deprioritization of secondary research and opinion pieces likely led to the exclusion of relevant discussion around payer perspectives and reimbursement, for which no evidence was included in this SLR. Furthermore, although unlikely, there may have been reporting biases in the included studies due to missing results, which this SLR was not able to assess.

This SLR identified no evidence for 3 subthemes included in the APA framework: business model (background and accessibility), which covers DMHT funding sources and potential sources of conflict, medical claims (background and accessibility), which examines whether DMHTs claim to be medical and the trustworthiness of their creators, and data ownership, access, and export (therapeutic goal), which includes sharing data with eHealth records or wellness devices (eg, Apple HealthKit [Apple Inc], Fitbit [Google LLC]). The valuation of these subthemes should be evaluated in future research.

Conclusions

In summary, app usability, cost, accessibility and other technical considerations, and alignment with therapeutic goals were the most reported valuation factors identified by this SLR. Many studies also reported user preference for apps that incorporated privacy and security features that provided protection from stigma. However, individual DMHTs and their features are valued differently across individuals based on demographics and personal preferences. MH apps should be developed and selected with these specific user needs in mind. Feature customizability and input from users and HCPs during development may improve app usability and clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Max Lee, Costello Medical, US, for medical writing and editorial assistance based on the authors’ input and direction.

Conflicts of Interest

DCM is a consultant for Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization (OPDC) Inc for this project and has received consulting funds from Pear Therapeutics, Sanofi, Avidity, Sarepta, Novartis, and BioMarin. ML, HG, and HCW are employees of OPDC. JC, SB, RSK, and EW are employees of Costello Medical. This research was funded by OPDC.

Electronic database and supplementary search terms, systematic literature review eligibility criteria, publications excluded or deprioritized at full-text review, quality assessments of included studies, and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of the identified publications.

PRISMA checklist.

• Content of premarket submissions for device software functions: guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Jun 14, 2023. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/153781/download [accessed 2024-07-19]
• Patel NA, Butte AJ. Characteristics and challenges of the clinical pipeline of digital therapeutics. NPJ Digit Med. Dec 11, 2020;3(1):159. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Policy for device software functions and mobile medical applications: guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/80958/download [accessed 2023-01-06]
• Melcher J, Torous J. Smartphone apps for college mental health: a concern for privacy and quality of current offerings. Psychiatr Serv. Nov 01, 2020;71(11):1114-1119. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoffman L, Benedetto E, Huang H, Grossman E, Kaluma D, Mann Z, et al. Augmenting mental health in primary care: a 1-year study of deploying smartphone apps in a multi-site primary care/behavioral health integration program. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:94. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 27, 2012;12(1):181. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. Jul 21, 2009;339(jul21 1):b2535. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• CASP critical appraisal checklists. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. URL: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ [accessed 2022-01-06]
• Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. Mar 16, 2011;11(1):29. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. Mar 13, 2013;13(1):37. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kolasa K, Kozinski G. How to value digital health interventions? a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 23, 2020;17(6):2119. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lagan S, Aquino P, Emerson MR, Fortuna K, Walker R, Torous J. Actionable health app evaluation: translating expert frameworks into objective metrics. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:100. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lagan S, Emerson MR, King D, Matwin S, Chan SR, Proctor S, et al. Mental health app evaluation: updating the American Psychiatric Association's framework through a stakeholder-engaged workshop. Psychiatr Serv. Sep 01, 2021;72(9):1095-1098. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. Mar 23, 2017;6(1):61. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beel J, Gipp B, Langer S, Genzmehr M. Docear: an academic literature suite for searching, organizing and creating academic literature. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries. 2011. Presented at: JCDL '11; June 13-17, 2011:565-566; Ottawa, ON. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1998076.1998188 [ CrossRef ]
• Forma F, Chiu K, Shafrin J, Boskovic DH, Veeranki SP. Are caregivers ready for digital? caregiver preferences for health technology tools to monitor medication adherence among patients with serious mental illness. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221084472. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Afra P, Bruggers CS, Sweney M, Fagatele L, Alavi F, Greenwald M, et al. Mobile software as a medical device (SaMD) for the treatment of epilepsy: development of digital therapeutics comprising behavioral and music-based interventions for neurological disorders. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:171. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beard C, Silverman AL, Forgeard M, Wilmer MT, Torous J, Björgvinsson T. Smartphone, social media, and mental health app use in an acute transdiagnostic psychiatric sample. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jun 07, 2019;7(6):e13364. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Borghouts J, Neary M, Palomares K, de Leon C, Schueller SM, Schneider M, et al. Understanding the potential of mental health apps to address mental health needs of the deaf and hard of hearing community: mixed methods study. JMIR Hum Factors. Apr 11, 2022;9(2):e35641. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Boster JB, McCarthy JW. Designing augmentative and alternative communication applications: the results of focus groups with speech-language pathologists and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. May 10, 2018;13(4):353-365. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buck B, Chander A, Monroe-DeVita M, Cheng SC, Stiles B, Ben-Zeev D. Mobile health for caregivers of young adults with early psychosis: a survey study examining user preferences. Psychiatr Serv. Aug 01, 2021;72(8):955-959. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buck B, Chander A, Tauscher J, Nguyen T, Monroe-DeVita M, Ben-Zeev D. mHealth for young adults with early psychosis: user preferences and their relationship to attitudes about treatment-seeking. J Technol Behav Sci. 2021;6(4):667-676. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carpenter-Song E, Noel VA, Acquilano SC, Drake RE. Real-world technology use among people with mental illnesses: qualitative study. JMIR Ment Health. Nov 23, 2018;5(4):e10652. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Casarez RL, Barlow E, Iyengar SM, Soares JC, Meyer TD. Understanding the role of m-health to improve well-being in spouses of patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. May 01, 2019;250:391-396. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Connolly SL, Miller CJ, Koenig CJ, Zamora KA, Wright PB, Stanley RL, et al. Veterans' attitudes toward smartphone app use for mental health care: qualitative study of rurality and age differences. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Aug 22, 2018;6(8):e10748. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cummings JR, Gaydos LM, Mensa-Kwao A, Song M, Blake SC. Perspectives on caregiver-focused mHealth technologies to improve mental health treatment for low-income youth with ADHD. J Technol Behav Sci. Mar 9, 2019;4(1):6-16. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dinkel D, Harsh Caspari J, Fok L, Notice M, Johnson DJ, Watanabe-Galloway S, et al. A qualitative exploration of the feasibility of incorporating depression apps into integrated primary care clinics. Transl Behav Med. Sep 15, 2021;11(9):1708-1716. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Huberty J, Bhuiyan N, Neher T, Joeman L, Mesa R, Larkey L. Leveraging a consumer-based product to develop a cancer-specific mobile meditation app: prototype development study. JMIR Form Res. Jan 14, 2022;6(1):e32458. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kern A, Hong V, Song J, Lipson SK, Eisenberg D. Mental health apps in a college setting: openness, usage, and attitudes. Mhealth. Jun 2018;4:20. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Knapp AA, Cohen K, Nicholas J, Mohr DC, Carlo AD, Skerl JJ, et al. Integration of digital tools into community mental health care settings that serve young people: focus group study. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 19, 2021;8(8):e27379. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kornfield R, Meyerhoff J, Studd H, Bhattacharjee A, Williams JJ, Reddy MC, et al. Meeting users where they are: user-centered design of an automated text messaging tool to support the mental health of young adults. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2022. Presented at: CHI '22; April 29-May 5 2022:1-6; New Orleans, LA. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3502046
• Lipschitz J, Miller CJ, Hogan TP, Burdick KE, Lippin-Foster R, Simon SR, et al. Adoption of mobile apps for depression and anxiety: cross-sectional survey study on patient interest and barriers to engagement. JMIR Ment Health. Jan 25, 2019;6(1):e11334. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mata-Greve F, Johnson M, Pullmann MD, Friedman EC, Griffith Fillipo I, Comtois KA, et al. Mental health and the perceived usability of digital mental health tools among essential workers and people unemployed due to COVID-19: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 05, 2021;8(8):e28360. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Melcher J, Camacho E, Lagan S, Torous J. College student engagement with mental health apps: analysis of barriers to sustained use. J Am Coll Health. Oct 13, 2022;70(6):1819-1825. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schueller SM, Neary M, O'Loughlin K, Adkins EC. Discovery of and interest in health apps among those with mental health needs: survey and focus group study. J Med Internet Res. Jun 11, 2018;20(6):e10141. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schueller SM, Neary M, Lai J, Epstein DA. Understanding people's use of and perspectives on mood-tracking apps: interview study. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 11, 2021;8(8):e29368. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Stiles-Shields C, Montague E, Lattie EG, Kwasny MJ, Mohr DC. What might get in the way: barriers to the use of apps for depression. Digit Health. Jun 08, 2017;3:2055207617713827. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Storm M, Venegas M, Gocinski A, Myers A, Brooks J, Fortuna KL. Stakeholders' perspectives on partnering to inform the software development lifecycle of smartphone applications for people with serious mental illness: enhancing the software development lifecycle through stakeholder engagement. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference. 2021. Presented at: GHTC '21; October 19-23, 2021:195-199; Seattle, WA. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9612444 [ CrossRef ]
• Torous J, Wisniewski H, Liu G, Keshavan M. Mental health mobile phone app usage, concerns, and benefits among psychiatric outpatients: comparative survey study. JMIR Ment Health. Nov 16, 2018;5(4):e11715. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhou L, Parmanto B. User preferences for privacy protection methods in mobile health apps: a mixed-methods study. Int J Telerehabil. Dec 08, 2020;12(2):13-26. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baumel A, Muench F, Edan S, Kane JM. Objective user engagement with mental health apps: systematic search and panel-based usage analysis. J Med Internet Res. Sep 25, 2019;21(9):e14567. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gan DZ, McGillivray L, Han J, Christensen H, Torok M. Effect of engagement with digital interventions on mental health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Digit Health. 2021;3:764079. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center. 2021. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Roberts ET, Mehrotra A. Assessment of disparities in digital access among Medicare beneficiaries and implications for telemedicine. JAMA Intern Med. Oct 01, 2020;180(10):1386-1389. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Powell AC, Torous JB, Firth J, Kaufman KR. Generating value with mental health apps. BJPsych Open. Feb 05, 2020;6(2):e16. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• O'Loughlin K, Neary M, Adkins EC, Schueller SM. Reviewing the data security and privacy policies of mobile apps for depression. Internet Interv. Mar 2019;15:110-115. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Akbar S, Coiera E, Magrabi F. Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Feb 01, 2020;27(2):330-340. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. Mar 2012;50(3):217-226. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Gumas ED, Lewis C, Horstman C, Gunja MZ. Finger on the pulse: the state of primary care in the U.S. and nine other countries. The Commonwealth Fund. URL: https:/​/www.​commonwealthfund.org/​publications/​issue-briefs/​2024/​mar/​finger-on-pulse-primary-care-us-nine-countries [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Huang EC, Pu C, Chou YJ, Huang N. Public trust in physicians-health care commodification as a possible deteriorating factor: cross-sectional analysis of 23 countries. Inquiry. Mar 05, 2018;55:46958018759174. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by J Torous; submitted 15.02.24; peer-reviewed by A Mathieu-Fritz, K Stawarz; comments to author 05.05.24; revised version received 20.06.24; accepted 21.06.24; published 30.08.24.

©Julianna Catania, Steph Beaver, Rakshitha S Kamath, Emma Worthington, Minyi Lu, Hema Gandhi, Heidi C Waters, Daniel C Malone. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 30.08.2024.

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effective teacher professional development for school-based mental health promotion: a review of the literature.

1. Introduction

1.1. teachers’ role in smhp, 1.2. teacher preparation for smhp, 1.3. capacity building is critical for implementation, 1.4. effective teacher pd for smhp, 1.5. purpose of current review.

• What are the components of high-quality teacher PD for SMHP that lead to effective implementation of innovations?
• What is the evidence base for these components?

2. Materials and Methods

3.1. training, 3.1.1. interactive, 3.1.2. staff input, 3.2. technical assistance, 3.2.1. goals, 3.2.2. approach, 3.2.3. activities, 3.3. pd delivery considerations, 3.3.1. online vs. in-person format, 3.3.2. dosage, 3.3.3. expertise of the provider.

4. Discussion

4.1. future directions: research to practice, 4.2. future directions: practice to research, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data Summary and Trends Report 2011–2021. 2023. Available online: www.cdc.gov/yrbs (accessed on 20 October 2023).
• Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). Protecting Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory ; US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenberg, M.T.; Domitrovich, C.; Bumbarger, B. The Prevention of Mental Disorders in School-Aged Children: Current State of the Field. Prev. Treat. 2001 , 4 , 1–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swain-Bradway, J.; Johnson, J.; Eber, L.; Barret, S.; Weist, M.D. Interconnecting School Mental Health and School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. In School Mental Health: Global Challenges and Opportunities ; Kutcher, S., Wei, Y., Weist, M.D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 282–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak, J.A.; Weissberg, R.P.; Dymnicki, A.B.; Taylor, R.D.; Schellinger, K.B. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011 , 82 , 405–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoagwood, K.E.; Olin, S.S.; Kerker, B.D.; Kratochwill, T.R.; Crowe, M.; Saka, N. Empirically based school interventions targeted at academic and mental health functioning. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 2007 , 15 , 65–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rones, M.; Hoagwood, K. School-based mental health services: A research review. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2000 , 3 , 223–241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weare, K.; Nind, M. Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools: What does the evidence say? Health Promot. Int. 2011 , 26 , i29–i69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaufman, S.E.R.; Hulleman, C.S. SEL in Elementary School Settings: Identifying Mechanisms that Matter. In The Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning ; Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P., Gullotta, T.P., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 151–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen, D.L.; Blase, K.A.; Naoom, S.F.; Wallace, F. Core implementation components. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2009 , 19 , 531–540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flaspohler, P.D.; Duffy, J.; Wandersman, A.; Stillman, L.; Maras, M.A. Unpacking prevention capacity: An intersection of research-to-practice models and community-centered models. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008 , 41 , 182–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lyon, A.R.; Bruns, E.J. From evidence to impact: Joining our best school mental health practices with our best implementation strategies. Sch. Ment. Health 2019 , 11 , 106–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flaspohler, P.D.; Anderson-Butcher, D.; Paternite, C.E.; Weist, M.; Wandersman, A. Community science and expanded school mental health: Bridging the research-to-practice gap to promote child well-being and academic success. Educ. Child Psychol. 2006 , 23 , 27–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.; Frey, A.J.; Herman, K.; Reinke, W. Motivational interviewing as a framework to guide school-based coaching. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2014 , 7 , 225–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owens, J.S.; Lyon, A.R.; Brandt, N.E.; Warner, C.M.; Nadeem, E.; Spiel, C.; Wagner, M. Implementation science in school mental health: Key constructs in a developing research agenda. Sch. Ment. Health 2014 , 6 , 99–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Weist, M.D. Fulfilling the promise of school-based mental health: Moving toward a Public Mental Health Promotion approach. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2005 , 33 , 735–741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ScHARR Public Health Collaborating Centre. Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Universal Interventions Which Aim to Promote Emotional and Social Wellbeing in Secondary Schools ; The University of Sheffield: Sheffield, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franklin, C.G.S.; Kim, J.S.; Ryan, T.N.; Kelly, M.S.; Montgomery, K.L. Teacher involvement in school mental health interventions: A systematic review. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2012 , 34 , 973–982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, S.S.; Weiss, B. Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2005 , 33 , 665–679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baskin, T.W.; Slaten, C.D.; Sorenson, C.; Glover-Russell, J.; Merson, D.N. Does youth psychotherapy improve academically related outcomes? A meta-analysis. J. Couns. Psychol. 2010 , 57 , 290–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Domitrovich, C.E.; Bradshaw, C.P.; Poduska, J.M.; Hoagwood, K.; Buckley, J.A.; Olin, S.; Romanelli, L.H.; Leaf, P.J.; Greenberg, M.T.; Ialongo, N.S. Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2008 , 1 , 6–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gottfredson, D.C.; Gottfredson, G.D. Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 2002 , 39 , 3–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ball, A.; Anderson-Butcher, D. Understanding Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Support Systems in Relation to Teachers’ Stress. Child. Sch. 2014 , 36 , 221–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ransford, C.R.; Greenberg, M.T.; Domitrovich, C.E.; Small, M.; Jacobson, L. The role of teachers’ psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2009 , 38 , 510–532. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koller, J.R.; Bertel, J.M. Responding to Today’s Mental Health Needs of Children, Families and Schools: Revisiting the Preservice Training and Preparation of School-Based Personnel. Educ. Treat. Child. 2006 , 29 , 197–217. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899882 (accessed on 2 August 2019).
• Brown, E.L.; Phillippo, K.L.; Weston, K.; Rodger, S. United States and Canada pre-service teacher certification standards for student mental health: A comparative case study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019 , 80 , 71–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ball, A.; Iachini, A.L.; Bohnenkamp, J.H.; Togno, N.M.; Brown, E.L.; Hoffman, J.A.; George, M.W. School mental health content in state in-service K-12 teaching standards in the United States. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2016 , 60 , 312–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• State, T.M.; Kern, L.; Starosta, K.M.; Mukherjee, A.D. Elementary Pre-service Teacher Preparation in the Area of Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems. Sch. Ment. Health 2011 , 3 , 13–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrews, A.; McCabe, M.; Wideman-Johnston, T. Mental health issues in the schools: Are educators prepared? J. Ment. Health Train. Educ. Pract. 2014 , 9 , 261–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moon, J.; Williford, A.; Mendenhall, A. Educators’ perceptions of youth mental health: Implications for training and the promotion of mental health services in schools. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017 , 73 , 384–391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roeser, R.W.; Midgley, C. Teachers’ views of issues involving students’ mental health. Elem. Sch. J. 1997 , 98 , 115–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Walter, H.J.; Gouze, K.; Lim, K.G. Teachers’ beliefs about mental health needs in inner city elementary schools. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2006 , 45 , 61–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kidger, J.; Gunnell, D.; Biddle, L.; Campbell, R.; Donovan, J. Part and parcel of teaching? Secondary school staff’s views on supporting student emotional health and well-being. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2010 , 36 , 919–935. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Phillippo, K.L.; Kelly, M.S. On the Fault Line: A Qualitative Exploration of High School Teachers’ Involvement with Student Mental Health Issues. Sch. Ment. Health 2014 , 6 , 184–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chinman, M.; Hannah, G.; Wandersman, A.; Ebener, P.; Hunter, S.B.; Imm, P.; Sheldon, J. Developing a community science research agenda for building community capacity for effective preventive interventions. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2005 , 35 , 143–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dalton, J.H.; Elias, M.J.; Wandersman, A. Prevention and Promotion: Implementing Programs. In Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities , 2nd ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 360–397. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franks, R.P.; Schroeder, J. Implementation Science: Defining the New Frontier. In Applying Implementation Science in Early Childhood Programs and Systems ; Halle, T., Metz, A., Martinez-Beck, I., Eds.; Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013; pp. 5–19. Available online: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc10&NEWS=N&AN=2013-17206-000 (accessed on 25 July 2019).
• Wandersman, A.; Duffy, J.; Flaspohler, P.; Noonan, R.; Lubell, K.; Stillman, L.; Blachman, M.; Dunville, R.; Saul, J. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for dissemination and implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008 , 41 , 171–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chinman, M.; Hunter, S.B.; Ebener, P.; Paddock, S.M.; Stillman, L.; Imm, P.; Wandersman, A. Illustration of the Prevention Support System. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008 , 41 , 206–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greenberg, M.T.; Weissberg, R.P.; Brien, M.U.O.; Zins, J.E.; Fredericks, L.; Resnik, H.; Elias, M.J. Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. Am. Psychol. 2003 , 58 , 466–474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forman, S.G.; Olin, S.S.; Hoagwood, K.E.; Crowe, M.; Saka, N. Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. Sch. Ment. Health 2009 , 1 , 26–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darling-Hammond, L.; Hyler, M.E.; Gardner, M. Effective Teacher Professional Development ; Learning Policy Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak, J.A.; DuPre, E.P. Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008 , 41 , 327–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blank, R.K.; de las Alas, N. Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Gains in Student Achievement ; Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wei, R.C.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Andree, A.; Richardson, N.; Orphanos, S. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad ; National Staff Development Council: Dallas, TX, USA, 2009. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504168 (accessed on 21 August 2019).
• Bayar, A. The components of effective professional development activities in terms of teachers’ perspective. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 2014 , 6 , 319–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borko, H. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educ. Res. 2004 , 33 , 3–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Penuel, W.R.; Fishman, B.J.; Yamaguchi, R.; Gallagher, L.P. What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2007 , 44 , 921–958. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katz, J.; Wandersman, A. Technical assistance to enhance prevention capacity: A research synthesis of the evidence base. Prev. Sci. 2016 , 17 , 417–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weiss, C.A. Evaluation , 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chafouleas, S.M.; Johnson, A.H.; Overstreet, S.; Santos, N.M. Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed service delivery in schools. Sch. Ment. Health 2016 , 8 , 144–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elias, M.J. From Model Implementation to Sustainability: A Multisite Study of Pathways to Excellence in Social-Emotional Learning and Related School Programs. In Sustaining Professional Learning Communities ; Blankstein, A.M., Houston, P.D., Cole, R.W., Eds.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 59–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eppler-Wolff, N.; Martin, A.; Homayoonfar, S. The School-Based Mental Health Collaboration (SBMHC): A multi-level university-school partnership. J. Infant Child Adolesc. Psychother. 2019 , 18 , 13–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemmeter, M.L.; Snyder, P.; Fox, L. Using the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) to support implementation of social–emotional teaching practices. Sch. Ment. Health 2018 , 10 , 202–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Becker, K.D.; Darney, D.; Domitrovich, C.; Keperling, J.P.; Ialongo, N.S. Supporting universal prevention programs: A two-phased coaching model. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2013 , 16 , 213–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hough, D.L. Characteristics of effective professional development: An examination of the Developmental Designs character education classroom management approach in middle grades schools. Middle Grades Res. J. 2011 , 6 , 129–143. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=66179257&site=ehost-live (accessed on 11 July 2019).
• Kutcher, S.; Wei, Y.; McLuckie, A.; Bullock, L. Educator mental health literacy: A programme evaluation of the teacher training education on the mental health & high school curriculum guide. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2013 , 6 , 83–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edgar, S.N. Introducing social emotional learning to music education professional development. Update Appl. Res. Music Educ. 2013 , 31 , 28–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamre, B.K.; Downer, J.T.; Jamil, F.M.; Pianta, R.C. Enhancing Teachers’ Intentional use of Effective Interactions with Children: Designing and Testing Professional Development Interventions. In Handbook of Early Childhood Education ; Pianta, R.C., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 507–532. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pas, E.T.; Bradshaw, C.P.; Cash, A.H. Coaching Classroom-Based Preventive Interventions. In Handbook of School Mental Health: Research, Training, Practice, and Policy , 2nd ed.; Weist, M.D., Lever, N.A., Bradshaw, C.P., Owens, J.S., Eds.; Springer Science: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 255–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva, D.Y.; Gimbert, B.G. Character education and teacher inquiry: A promising partnership for enhancing children’s classrooms. Int. J. Soc. Educ. 2001 , 16 , 18–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, K.D.; Bohnenkamp, J.; Domitrovich, C.; Keperling, J.P.; Ialongo, N.S. Online training for teachers delivering evidence-based preventive interventions. Sch. Ment. Health 2014 , 6 , 225–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cappella, E.; Jackson, D.R.; Bilal, C.; Hamre, B.K.; Soulé, C. Bridging mental health and education in urban elementary schools: Participatory research to inform intervention development. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2011 , 40 , 486–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cunningham, C.E.; Barwick, M.; Short, K.; Chen, Y.; Rimas, H.; Ratcliffe, J.; Mielko, S. Modeling the mental health practice change preferences of educators: A discrete-choice conjoint experiment. Sch. Ment. Health 2014 , 6 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berkowitz, M.W. What works in values education. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2011 , 50 , 153–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vetter, J.B. A Leadership Team Approach to Sustaining Social and Emotional Learning. In Sustaining Professional Learning Communities ; Blankstein, A.M., Houston, P.D., Cole, R.W., Eds.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 97–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Domitrovich, C.E.; Moore, J.E.; Thompson, R.A.; CASEL Preschool to Elementary School Social and Emotional Learning Assessment Workgroup. Interventions that Promote Social-Emotional Learning in Young Children. In Handbook of Early Childhood Education ; Pianta, R.C., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 393–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erchul, W.P. Put me in, coach: Observations on selected studies implementing supportive interventions to teachers. Sch. Ment. Health 2015 , 7 , 74–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibson, J.E.; Stephan, S.; Brandt, N.E.; Lever, N.A. Supporting Teachers Through Consultation and Training in Mental Health. In Handbook of School Mental Health: Research, Training, Practice, and Policy , 2nd ed.; Weist, M.D., Lever, N.A., Bradshaw, C.P., Owens, J.S., Eds.; Springer Science: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 269–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pas, E.T.; Bradshaw, C.P.; Becker, K.D.; Domitrovich, C.; Berg, J.; Musci, R.; Ialongo, N.S. Identifying patterns of coaching to support the implementation of the good behavior game: The role of teacher characteristics. Sch. Ment. Health 2015 , 7 , 61–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schultz, B.K.; Arora, P.; Mautone, J.A. Consultation and coaching to increase the uptake of evidence-based practices: Introduction to the special issue. Sch. Ment. Health 2015 , 7 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Livet, M.; Yannayon, M.; Sheppard, K.; Kocher, K.; Upright, J.; McMillen, J. Exploring provider use of a digital implementation support system for school mental health: A pilot study. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2018 , 45 , 362–380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sutherland, K.S.; Conroy, M.A.; Vo, A.; Ladwig, C. Implementation Integrity of Practice-Based Coaching: Preliminary Results from the BEST in CLASS Efficacy Trial. Sch. Ment. Health 2015 , 7 , 21–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bradshaw, C.P.; Pas, E.T.; Goldweber, A.; Rosenberg, M.S.; Leaf, P.J. Integrating school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports with tier 2 coaching to student support teams: The PBISplus model. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2012 , 5 , 177–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamre, B.K.; Pianta, R.C.; Mashburn, A.J.; Downer, J.T. Promoting young children’s social competence through the preschool PATHS curriculum and MyTeachingPartner professional development resources. Early Educ. Dev. 2012 , 23 , 809–832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wanless, S.B.; Patton, C.L.; Rimm-Kaufman, S.E.; Deutsch, N.L. Setting-level influences on implementation of the responsive classroom approach. Prev. Sci. 2013 , 14 , 40–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ashworth, E.; Demkowicz, O.; Lendrum, A.; Frearson, K. Coaching models of school-based prevention and promotion programmes: A qualitative exploration of UK teachers’ perceptions. Sch. Ment. Health 2018 , 10 , 287–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owens, J.S.; Coles, E.K.; Evans, S.W.; Himawan, L.K.; Girio-Herrera, E.; Holdaway, A.S.; Zoromski, A.K.; Schamberg, T.; Schulte, A.C. Using multi-component consultation to increase the integrity with which teachers implement behavioral classroom interventions: A pilot study. Sch. Ment. Health 2017 , 9 , 218–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frey, A.J.; Lee, J.; Small, J.W.; Seeley, J.R.; Walker, H.M.; Feil, E.G. The motivational interviewing navigation guide: A process for enhancing teachers’ motivation to adopt and implement school-based interventions. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2013 , 6 , 158–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steed, E.A.; Durand, V.M. Optimistic teaching: Improving the capacity for teachers to reduce young children’s challenging behavior. Sch. Ment. Health 2013 , 5 , 15–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reinke, W.M.; Herman, K.C.; Darney, D.; Pitchford, J.; Becker, K.; Domitrovich, C.; Ialongo, N. Using the Classroom Check-Up model to support implementation of PATHS to PAX. Adv. Sch. Ment. Health Promot. 2012 , 5 , 220–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scaccia, J.P.; Cook, S.B.; Lamont, A.; Wandersman, A.; Castellow, J.; Katz, J.; Beidas, R.S. A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC 2 . J. Community Psychol. 2015 , 43 , 484–501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Dinnen, H.L.; Litvitskiy, N.S.; Flaspohler, P.D. Effective Teacher Professional Development for School-Based Mental Health Promotion: A Review of the Literature. Behav. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090780

Dinnen HL, Litvitskiy NS, Flaspohler PD. Effective Teacher Professional Development for School-Based Mental Health Promotion: A Review of the Literature. Behavioral Sciences . 2024; 14(9):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090780

Dinnen, Hannah L., Nicole S. Litvitskiy, and Paul D. Flaspohler. 2024. "Effective Teacher Professional Development for School-Based Mental Health Promotion: A Review of the Literature" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090780

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals