pubrica academy logo

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

Scientific Communication in Healthcare industry

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

importance and role of biostatistics in clinical research, biostatistics in public health, biostatistics in pharmacy, biostatistics in nursing,biostatistics in clinical trials,clinical biostatistics

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

Importance of Literature Review In Research

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

  • Scholarly books
  • Scientific papers
  • Latest studies in the field
  • Established school of thoughts
  • Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

  • Summarize into a brief account of all information
  • Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
  • Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
  • Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
  • Encapsulate
  • Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

  • It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
  • It gives the background of the research
  • Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
  • Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
  • Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
  • Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
  • Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
  • Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
  • Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

  • Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
  • It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
  • It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
  • The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
  • Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
  • Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
  • Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
  • Justifies the research and sets up the research question
  • Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
  • Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
  • Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
  • Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
  • Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
  • The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
  • Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
  • By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
  • Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
  • Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
  • Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
  • Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
  • Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
  • What do the researchers know?
  • What do they not know?
  • Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
  • What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

  • What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
  • Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
  • Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
  • The emerging trends and approaches
  • How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/documents/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

pubrica academy

Related posts.

the importance of literature review in researcher

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

the importance of literature review in researcher

PUB - Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient) for drug development

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

the importance of literature review in researcher

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

University of North Florida

  • Become Involved |
  • Give to the Library |
  • Staff Directory |
  • UNF Library
  • Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

  • Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
  • Summary of the Process
  • Additional Resources
  • Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
  • The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
  • Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

  • << Previous: Home
  • Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

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, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Literature review guide

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

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

the importance of literature review in researcher

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

University of Texas

  • University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Creative Commons License

Usc Upstate Library Home

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

  • Literature Review
  • Purpose of a Literature Review
  • Work in Progress
  • Compiling & Writing
  • Books, Articles, & Web Pages
  • Types of Literature Reviews
  • Departmental Differences
  • Citation Styles & Plagiarism
  • Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

  • Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
  • Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
  • Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
  • Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
  • Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
  • Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

  • Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
  • << Previous: Literature Review
  • Next: Searching >>
  • Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
  • URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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

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

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
  • v.35(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

Department of Dermatology, K J Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

In an era of information overload, it is important to know how to obtain the required information and also to ensure that it is reliable information. Hence, it is essential to understand how to perform a systematic literature search. This article focuses on reliable literature sources and how to make optimum use of these in dermatology and venereology.

INTRODUCTION

A thorough review of literature is not only essential for selecting research topics, but also enables the right applicability of a research project. Most importantly, a good literature search is the cornerstone of practice of evidence based medicine. Today, everything is available at the click of a mouse or at the tip of the fingertips (or the stylus). Google is often the Go-To search website, the supposed answer to all questions in the universe. However, the deluge of information available comes with its own set of problems; how much of it is actually reliable information? How much are the search results that the search string threw up actually relevant? Did we actually find what we were looking for? Lack of a systematic approach can lead to a literature review ending up as a time-consuming and at times frustrating process. Hence, whether it is for research projects, theses/dissertations, case studies/reports or mere wish to obtain information; knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to look, is of prime importance today.

Literature search

Fink has defined research literature review as a “systematic, explicit and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners.”[ 1 ]

Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) Selecting your sources (iii) Choosing search terms (iv) Running your search (v) Applying practical screening criteria (vi) Applying methodological screening criteria/quality appraisal (vii) Synthesizing the results.[ 1 ]

This article will primarily concentrate on refining techniques of literature search.

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g001.jpg

PubMed is currently the most widely used among these as it contains over 23 million citations for biomedical literature and has been made available free by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the availability of free full text articles depends on the sources. Use of options such as advanced search, medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, free full text, PubMed tutorials, and single citation matcher makes the database extremely user-friendly [ Figure 1 ]. It can also be accessed on the go through mobiles using “PubMed Mobile.” One can also create own account in NCBI to save searches and to use certain PubMed tools.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g002.jpg

PubMed home page showing location of different tools which can be used for an efficient literature search

Tips for efficient use of PubMed search:[ 2 , 3 , 4 ]

Use of field and Boolean operators

When one searches using key words, all articles containing the words show up, many of which may not be related to the topic. Hence, the use of operators while searching makes the search more specific and less cumbersome. Operators are of two types: Field operators and Boolean operators, the latter enabling us to combine more than one concept, thereby making the search highly accurate. A few key operators that can be used in PubMed are shown in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 and illustrated in Figures ​ Figures2 2 and ​ and3 3 .

Field operators used in PubMed search

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g003.jpg

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g004.jpg

PubMed search results page showing articles on donovanosis using the field operator [TIAB]; it shows all articles which have the keyword “donovanosis” in either title or abstract of the article

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g006.jpg

PubMed search using Boolean operators ‘AND’, ‘NOT’; To search for articles on treatment of lepra reaction other than steroids, after clicking the option ‘Advanced search’ on the home page, one can build the search using ‘AND’ option for treatment and ‘NOT’ option for steroids to omit articles on steroid treatment in lepra reaction

Use of medical subject headings terms

These are very specific and standardized terms used by indexers to describe every article in PubMed and are added to the record of every article. A search using MeSH will show all articles about the topic (or keywords), but will not show articles only containing these keywords (these articles may be about an entirely different topic, but still may contain your keywords in another context in any part of the article). This will make your search more specific. Within the topic, specific subheadings can be added to the search builder to refine your search [ Figure 4 ]. For example, MeSH terms for treatment are therapy and therapeutics.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g007.jpg

PubMed search using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for management of gonorrhea. Click on MeSH database ( Figure 1 ) →In the MeSH search box type gonorrhea and click search. Under the MeSH term gonorrhea, there will be a list of subheadings; therapy, prevention and control, click the relevant check boxes and add to search builder →Click on search →All articles on therapy, prevention and control of gonorrhea will be displayed. Below the subheadings, there are two options: (1) Restrict to medical subject headings (MeSH) major topic and (2) do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. These can be used to further refine the search results so that only articles which are majorly about treatment of gonorrhea will be displayed

Two additional options can be used to further refine MeSH searches. These are located below the subheadings for a MeSH term: (1) Restrict to MeSH major topic; checking this box will retrieve articles which are majorly about the search term and are therefore, more focused and (2) Do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. This option will again give you more focused articles as it excludes the lower specific terms [ Figure 4 ].

Similar feature is available with Cochrane library (also called MeSH), EMBASE (known as EMTREE) and PsycINFO (Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms).

Saving your searches

Any search that one has performed can be saved by using the ‘Send to’ option and can be saved as a simple word file [ Figure 5 ]. Alternatively, the ‘Save Search’ button (just below the search box) can be used. However, it is essential to set up an NCBI account and log in to NCBI for this. One can even choose to have E-mail updates of new articles in the topic of interest.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g008.jpg

Saving PubMed searches. A simple option is to click on the dropdown box next to ‘Send to’ option and then choose among the options. It can be saved as a text or word file by choosing ‘File’ option. Another option is the “Save search” option below the search box but this will require logging into your National Center for Biotechnology Information account. This however allows you to set up alerts for E-mail updates for new articles

Single citation matcher

This is another important tool that helps to find the genuine original source of a particular research work (when few details are known about the title/author/publication date/place/journal) and cite the reference in the most correct manner [ Figure 6 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g009.jpg

Single citation matcher: Click on “Single citation matcher” on PubMed Home page. Type available details of the required reference in the boxes to get the required citation

Full text articles

In any search clicking on the link “free full text” (if present) gives you free access to the article. In some instances, though the published article may not be available free, the author manuscript may be available free of charge. Furthermore, PubMed Central articles are available free of charge.

Managing filters

Filters can be used to refine a search according to type of article required or subjects of research. One can specify the type of article required such as clinical trial, reviews, free full text; these options are available on a typical search results page. Further specialized filters are available under “manage filters:” e.g., articles confined to certain age groups (properties option), “Links” to other databases, article specific to particular journals, etc. However, one needs to have an NCBI account and log in to access this option [ Figure 7 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g010.jpg

Managing filters. Simple filters are available on the ‘search results’ page. One can choose type of article, e.g., clinical trial, reviews etc. Further options are available in the “Manage filters” option, but this requires logging into National Center for Biotechnology Information account

The Cochrane library

Although reviews are available in PubMed, for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Cochrane library is a much better resource. The Cochrane library is a collection of full length systematic reviews, which can be accessed for free in India, thanks to Indian Council of Medical Research renewing the license up to 2016, benefitting users all over India. It is immensely helpful in finding detailed high quality research work done in a particular field/topic [ Figure 8 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g011.jpg

Cochrane library is a useful resource for reliable, systematic reviews. One can choose the type of reviews required, including trials

An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a broad range of potentially useful studies. Examples: Date of publication (last 5 years only; gives you most recent updates), participants or subjects (humans above 18 years), publication language (English only) (2) methodological: To identify best available studies (for example, excluding studies not involving control group or studies with only randomized control trials).

Selecting the right quality of literature is the key to successful research literature review. The quality can be estimated by what is known as “The Evidence Pyramid.” The level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools are depicted in Figure 9 . Systematic reviews obtained from Cochrane library constitute level 1 evidence.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is IJSTD-35-85-g012.jpg

Evidence pyramid: Depicting the level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools

Thus, a systematic literature review can help not only in setting up the basis of a good research with optimal use of available information, but also in practice of evidence-based medicine.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

  • Online First
  • Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010–2023
  • Article Text
  • Article info
  • Citation Tools
  • Rapid Responses
  • Article metrics

Download PDF

  • http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6963-4106 James McGowan 1 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3650-7415 Bothaina Attal 1 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2879-4020 Isla Kuhn 1 , 2 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-3151 Lisa Hinton 3 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-4864 Tim Draycott 4 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1979-7577 Graham P Martin 1 ,
  • http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5915-0041 Mary Dixon-Woods 1
  • 1 The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care , University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK
  • 2 School of Clinical Medicine , University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK
  • 3 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
  • 4 Department of Women's Health , North Bristol NHS Trust , Westbury on Trym, Bristol , UK
  • Correspondence to Professor Mary Dixon-Woods, THIS Institute, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK; md753{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk

Background Large-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.

Aim To identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010–2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.

Methods We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.

Results We identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.

Conclusions Poor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.

  • health services research
  • healthcare quality improvement
  • health policy
  • obstetrics and gynecology
  • womens health

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Please contact the first author.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016606

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Large-scale improvement programmes are a key strategy for addressing unwarranted variations in quality and safety of care, but their impact is mixed and often limited.

Previous research suggests a number of features of improvement programmes that need to be optimised, but how well these quality criteria are routinely met remains unknown.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Many large-scale maternity improvement initiatives in the English National Health Service—including some major national programmes of the last decade—lack an evaluation report.

Where an evaluation report was available, quality and design of programmes against prespecified criteria was highly variable, often demonstrating significant weaknesses.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Poor transparency of reporting and weak evaluation in large-scale improvement programmes undermine learning and accountability; explicit attention to features of quality is necessary to improve the design, conduct and impact of large-scale programmes.

Introduction

Variations in quality and safety of healthcare have remained troubling and persistent across health systems globally. Efforts to address these challenges often take the form of large-scale improvement programmes, 1–4 including, for example, multiorganisational collaborative approaches, major initiatives commissioned by policy and professional bodies, implementation programmes and research projects. These programmes are variably effective, with often disappointing results. 5–10 Clarity is, however, now emerging on some of the key features of ‘what good looks like’ for such programmes. 4 10–13 In this article, we report a study that both identifies large-scale improvement initiatives in a clinical area experiencing major patient safety challenges, and offers a structured quality assessment of improvement programmes where an evaluation report was retrievable.

The available literature suggests that a number of features are especially important in large-scale improvement programmes. First, such programmes should be well specified and reported 14–16 to ensure shared understanding of what the programme comprises and its mechanisms. 2 10 17 A second feature of high-quality improvement programmes is that the interventions they use and their delivery should be supported by best available clinical evidence. 11 18–21 Third, high-quality programmes should recognise and meet the requirements for implementation support in participating organisations. 2 22–25 Such support needs to be sensitive to the highly heterogenous nature of local capability, which has been implicated in variable responses to improvement programmes, 2 10 16 22–24 with lower performing organisations having distinctive support needs. 11 13 25–31 Fourth, consistent with published policy objectives, 32–34 programmes should explicitly address inequalities between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. 35 Fifth, patient and public involvement (PPI) has an important role in enhancing the impact of improvement efforts. 36–42 Sixth, improvement programmes benefit from use of formal published theories, models and frameworks from implementation science to guide their work. 43 Finally, an important feature of good improvement programmes is a commitment to sound evaluation, 11 20 21 including, where possible, assessment of effectiveness, process evaluation and economic evaluation. 44–46

The extent to which large-scale improvement programmes routinely meet these seven criteria is unclear. Many programmes, including those commissioned or delivered by national-level organisations, are conducted in a context where expectations of some features (eg, programme specification) may be insufficiently explicit, and incentives for high-quality evaluation and reporting may be lacking. 14 15

English National Health Service (NHS) maternity services are an important example of where quality problems are especially prominent in public discourse 47–49 arising from high-profile organisational failures, 50–53 evidence of persistent unwarranted variation in outcomes, 54–56 rising clinical negligence claims, 49 culture and workforce challenges 57 58 and inequalities linked to socioeconomic status and ethnicity. 33 35 59–63 These challenges have not yet proved tractable, despite multiple large-scale improvement initiatives. 64 65 Maternity services are therefore an important setting in which to assess quality of large-scale improvement programmes, particularly in relation to their reporting and evaluation.

We aimed to identify large-scale improvement programmes that had been implemented in English NHS maternity services between 2010 and 2023 and, for those with an available evaluation report, to conduct a structured quality assessment based on the selected features identified above.

Our design was a review with two components: a search for large-scale improvement initiatives implemented in English NHS maternity services in the period 2010–2023 and, for those that met definitional criteria as improvement programmes and had a retrievable evaluation report, a structured quality assessment. We focused specifically on programmes that primarily addressed quality or safety of intrapartum care, which has been consistently implicated in variations in adverse clinical outcomes in maternity care. 66–68 Initiatives primarily focused on antenatal or postnatal care were therefore not in scope.

Our initial exploratory work found that the majority of maternity improvement initiatives were not research projects and had not been reported in the academic literature; relevant information was mostly available in diverse sources such as websites, policy documents and programme reports. To ensure that both our search and our assessment of programmes was nonetheless structured and systematic, our review was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews guidance 69 ( online supplemental material A ). We also completed all five steps in the Arksey and O’Malley framework, 70 although not sequentially.

Supplemental material

As our review was not intended as a full scoping review of research, we did not register the review in an online database; we did, however, produce a protocol that was used to guide the conduct of the review ( online supplemental material B ).

Eligibility criteria

We developed prospective criteria to guide the identification of eligible improvement programmes and sources of evidence.

Identification of improvement programmes

Initial scoping identified that a large number of highly heterogeneous improvement efforts had taken place in English NHS maternity services in the period we were studying. The following types of initiatives, strategies and interventions were excluded from our review: incident investigation and inspection programmes; national clinical audits and confidential enquiries (eg, the Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries - MBRRACE programme) 71 ; organisational restructuring, major system change and service transformation programmes; health technology assessments and trials of digital technologies without an existing evidence base; clinical guidelines or recommendations without an accompanying implementation programme; and single-site quality improvement projects. Additionally, programmes implemented in clinical specialties other than maternity, outside the English NHS, or implemented in full before 2010 were excluded.

Only initiatives that met our definitional criteria as improvement programmes, had an evaluation report available and focused on intrapartum care were eligible for quality assessment. For this purpose, we defined ‘improvement programmes’ as encompassing a set of planned activities applied at a scale larger than local quality improvement projects, and requiring participation of more than one organisation or clinical service (see box 1 for our full definition). 1–3 72

Definition of ‘improvement programme’

For the purpose of our study, we defined a healthcare improvement programme as a set of planned activities:

Seeking to address a known quality or safety deficit; or seeking to implement evidence-based recommendations or standards of care or practice.

Implemented at scale, that is, in two or more healthcare organisations or clinical services.

With the characteristics of an organised programme, for example, with a structured set of goals, resources, a programme team and report.

Primarily concerned with improving clinical care quality or safety including structures, processes or outcomes.

Only improvement programmes where an evaluation report could be retrieved were included in our quality assessment, since exploratory work indicated it would not be possible to make reliable judgements about programme quality and reporting without such a report. We defined an ‘evaluation report’ as a published assessment of programme design, implementation or outcomes, including formative and/or summative evaluation activities. 44 We classified reports as ‘retrievable’ where they were available for full-text review following their identification in search results, or were otherwise publicly available (eg, published on organisational websites). In determining eligibility for quality assessment, evaluation reports were included without regard to where they had been published (eg, in academic or grey literature) or to the design and quality of the evaluation.

To ensure comprehensive quality assessment of programmes where an evaluation report was available, we supplemented our analysis of evaluation reports with available information from policy reports, programme reports, website entries, peer-reviewed research articles, reviews and study protocols. We excluded editorials, viewpoints, commentaries and letters, non-English language articles and sources published before 2010. Consistent with our focus on intrapartum care, we also excluded sources that primarily addressed quality or safety of care in the antenatal or postnatal periods, or that had only limited focus on intrapartum care (eg, the Getting It Right First Time - GIRFT programme).

Information sources and search strategy

Information sources.

We searched two research databases, determining that this number was both proportionate to our aims and consistent with published guidance regarding the conduct of scoping studies. 73 Database searches were performed in MEDLINE via Ovid and CINAHL via Ebsco from 1 January 2010 to 8 February 2023. These databases were chosen because of their high subject relevance to maternity care. Subject headings (eg, Medical Subject Headings) and free text search terms and synonyms were included. We did not apply restrictions to publication type. Filters were applied for ‘England’ or ‘NHS’, adapted from Ayiku et al . 74 The database searches were designed and performed by a health librarian (IK) in collaboration with JM.

A series of structured searches were performed to identify literature or other information relevant to maternity improvement programmes in Google, Google Scholar and websites of national organisations active in UK maternity quality and safety, supplemented by purposive hand searches. Online searches were based on the search strings ‘maternity safety programme’, ‘maternity quality programme’ and ‘maternity improvement programme’, and were performed independently by two researchers (JM and BA).

Search strategy

Our search strategy was based on a modified ‘PICOS’ framework:

Patient population—women receiving NHS care during the intrapartum period.

Intervention—quality and safety improvement programmes.

Comparison—not applicable.

Outcome—clinical and other outcomes related to quality and safety of maternity care.

Setting—NHS maternity services in England.

Four studies identified during preliminary scoping searches were used as ‘golden bullets’ 75 to assess and improve the sensitivity and specificity of the search strings in identifying relevant literature. 76–79 We supplemented structured searches with forward and backward citation tracking of a purposively selected sample of included studies to improve the sensitivity of the search.

The full list of information sources, search strategies for database and grey literature searches and search record templates are provided in online supplemental material C .

Eligibility screening

Bibliographic database search results were deduplicated in EndNote, imported into Rayyan 80 and screened on the basis of title and abstract. Screening of search results from non-bibliographic sources was performed onscreen by JM and BA; for each search, the first 100 (Google Search and organisational websites) and 500 (Google Scholar) search results were screened and unique sources identified by consensus. Screening of all search results and full-text sources to identify improvement programmes eligible for assessment and relevant sources of evidence was performed independently by two researchers (JM and BA); disagreements regarding the eligibility of both programmes and sources were resolved by discussion.

Data categories and charting

Data categories.

For improvement programmes eligible for quality assessment, we charted data under the seven categories in table 1 . These categories correspond to selected features of quality we had identified from the wider improvement literature, as well as identifying basic programme characteristics.

  • View inline

Data charting framework

Multi-item checklist for assessment of programme specification (modified TIDieR checklist)

Multi-item checklist for assessment of programme evaluation

Our assessment of programmes was supported by published standards in two areas. First, we supported our assessment of programme specification (category 1 in the charting framework) and implementation support (category 3) by using a modified Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, 81 which was adapted to apply to improvement programmes ( table 2 ).

Second, our assessment of programme evaluation (category 7 in the charting framework) was supported by a multi-item checklist informed by UK government guidance on programme evaluation (the ‘Magenta Book’) 44 ( table 3 ).

Charting process

The charting process was supported by a tool built in Microsoft Excel that mapped to the charting framework in table 1 ( online supplemental material D ). Consistent with scoping review methodology, 70 we developed the data items for extraction into the charting framework iteratively, modifying them as new data were identified and analysis progressed. The charting tool was piloted using a small sample (n=2) of sources and amended prior to formal charting. Two researchers (JM and BA) independently charted all data for six of the seven data categories; data relating to use of theories, models and frameworks were charted by JM. Disagreements in assessment gradings were resolved by discussion.

Appraisal of evidence and reporting of findings

Though conducting a quality assessment of eligible programmes (based on the seven features in table 1 ) was a key objective of our analysis, we did not seek to review evidence of effectiveness of programmes, nor did we aim to conduct an appraisal of the methodological quality of individual sources of evidence, as these were not goals of our study. Consistent with the norm in scoping reviews, 70 we also did not formally aggregate or synthesise evidence, instead developing summaries of the data organised by the charting framework. Key findings and themes are reported under the categories of this framework in the Results section 82 and are summarised in a series of supplemental tables.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in the design or conduct of the review.

We identified 1434 records via bibliographic databases and searches of the grey literature and other sources. From these, 93 full-text sources were retrieved and assessed for eligibility, including one evaluation report that was not initially available, but was subsequently retrieved through personal correspondence. 83 The process by which sources of evidence were identified and screened to determine their eligibility is summarised in our PRISMA diagram ( figure 1 ).

  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram (adapted from Page et al [ 109 ]). NHS, National Health Service.

Following full-text eligibility screening, we found 38 improvement initiatives (reported across 50 sources) that could not be included in the quality assessment. These initiatives are documented, together with exclusion reasons, in online supplemental material E . Of these, 14 initiatives—including most major initiatives in English maternity services that were implemented during the time period under study, such as the NHS England’s Maternity and Neonatal Safety Improvement Programme and the Maternity Safety Support Programme—lacked a retrievable evaluation report. A further 13 initiatives did not meet our definitional criteria as improvement programmes (eg, because they did not report implementation in two or more clinical services). We also excluded nine initiatives that focused primarily on antenatal or postnatal care from the quality assessment, since our scope was limited to intrapartum care. Two other initiatives that had not been implemented in the relevant setting or time period were also excluded at this stage.

We identified 15 initiatives implemented in maternity services in England between 2010 and 2023 that had a principal focus on intrapartum care, met our definitional criteria as improvement programmes and had a retrievable evaluation report. These 15 initiatives were included in the structured quality assessment and were reported across 43 sources of evidence. Of these sources, grey literature constituted the majority (24). Peer-reviewed academic journal articles constituted 19 sources, with nine taking the form of original research articles reporting findings of evaluations. 30 76–79 84–87 Other article types included study protocols (n=5), 88–92 quality improvement reports (n=3) 93–95 and review articles (n=2). 96 97

We report the findings of our quality assessment of the 15 programmes organised around the seven features of ‘what good looks like’ below, with additional data in online supplemental material F .

Feature 1: quality of programme specification

Reporting of the basic characteristics of the programmes included in our quality assessment was reasonable ( online supplemental material F: table 1 ). For example, it was possible to identify the clinical setting, target recipients, programme type and source of funding for all 15 programmes. Information on the scale of the programme was available for 14 of the 15 programmes, and on time period of implementation for 13 programmes.

Beyond these basic characteristics, completeness of programme description varied markedly between programmes and was generally of low quality ( online supplemental material F: table 2 ). No programme described all 10 items of the modified TIDieR checklist in full. Five of the included programmes provided no description for half of the checklist items. Two programmes (Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle and Prevention of cerebral palsy in pre-term Labour - PReCePT) provided full description of six checklist items, while three programmes (Maternity Incentive Scheme, Maternity Safety Training Fund and the Safer Births Project) did not describe any checklist item in full.

Completeness of description also varied between checklist items. Goals (described in full for 11 programmes) were generally well described, as were mechanisms of action and theories of change (described in full for eight programmes). In contrast, frequency, duration and time period of local implementation, local tailoring and modifications, processes for assessing or maintaining fidelity and outcome of fidelity assessment were described poorly. For example, no programmes offered a full description of frequency, duration and time period of local implementation or of local tailoring and modifications, and only three programmes offered any level of description for the latter item. Items relating to fidelity were particularly poorly described; only two programmes (Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle and PReCePT) offered any level of description of a fidelity assessment outcome. Only the Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle provided a full description of both the processes and outcome of fidelity assessment.

Feature 2: use of evidence-based interventions

Programmes varied in the extent to which they explicitly based their improvement interventions on evidence. Of the 15 programmes we assessed, only eight reported that their interventions were developed with explicit reference to published evidence ( online supplemental material F: tables 3 and 4 ). Of these, most (n=6) based their interventions on recommendations from national clinical guidance or quality standards, for example, those published by Royal Colleges and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Two programmes (PReCePT and Perinatal Excellence to reduce injury in preterm birth - PERIPrem) cited a range of studies in support of their interventions, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. 79 95 98 99 The remaining seven programmes did not cite the evidence base for interventions used, if any.

Feature 3: description of implementation support for services

Completeness of description of the implementation support available to clinical services (final column, online supplemental material F: table 2 ) was poor. Only three programmes (Obstetric anal sphincter injury Care Bundle - OASI-CB, PReCePT and PERIPrem) were judged to have described implementation support and activities in full. Whether or not implementation support had been provided was unclear for seven programmes, as no level of description was offered.

We did not identify any programme report that described customisation of implementation support for challenged services. The PReCePT programme did offer enhanced implementation support to a subset of participating services, though the authors did not report whether this was targeted specifically at challenged services. 100 Recruitment to the Labour Ward Leadership programme was partially informed by Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection reports, with ‘Trusts with identified problems’ given priority. 83 Two programmes 91 100 101 accounted for variation in local service contexts in their evaluation methods by using, among other criteria, CQC inspection ratings to inform sampling of study participants. The interim evaluation of the Maternity Incentive Scheme 102 stated that additional support was provided to Trusts that were not in compliance with all 10 incentivised actions to enable them to ‘achieve full compliance’, but we did not find evidence that this support was targeted to support challenged services. In contrast, NHS trusts in ‘special measures’ and those in receipt of support from national regulators were specifically excluded from participating in the Each Baby Counts Learn & Support programme. 103 An incidental finding was the potential for programmes to exacerbate inequalities of resourcing between services, as noted by a PERIPrem report (parentheses added):

In Trusts where there was a pre-existing QI (quality improvement) culture and a desire to embed new practice and change, implementation was easier. Those with active hospital QI teams were able to access additional support and training for the project. 104

Feature 4: commitment to reducing inequalities

Although we identified several evaluation reports that adjusted for socioeconomic status, ethnicity or levels of deprivation in their analysis, 78 79 84 95 100 101 105 we did not find any examples among the 15 programmes we assessed that identified the reduction of health or care inequalities as an explicit goal ( online supplemental material F: table 4 ).

Feature 5: patient and public involvement

Of the 15 programmes we assessed, only seven made explicit use of PPI practices. These included five that demonstrated comprehensive attention to involvement at all stages of the programme (including design, development, implementation, evaluation and dissemination). The remaining eight programmes did not mention of the role of patients or the public ( online supplemental material F: table 4 ).

Feature 6: use of formal published theories, models or frameworks

A minority (n=6) of assessed programmes made explicit use of formal published theories, models or frameworks from implementation science to guide programme implementation or evaluation ( online supplemental material F: tables 4 and 5 ). 106 We identified 12 documented examples of use of theories, models or frameworks from four of Nilsen’s proposed five categories, 107 including implementation theories (n=6), classic theories (n=2), determinant frameworks (n=2) and evaluation frameworks (n=2).

Feature 7: programme evaluation

Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope, design and conduct of evaluation ( online supplemental material F: table 6 ). Evidence of a prospective evaluation plan (eg, in the form of a published protocol) was identified for seven of the 15 programmes, and four programmes conducted a pilot that informed programme development or implementation.

The evaluations we assessed were dominated by weak designs, often relying on post hoc methods of data collection, such as self-report questionnaires and staff surveys. Of the 19 peer-reviewed research articles identified (which collectively reported on nine programmes), five 76–79 84 reported evaluations of effectiveness, but only two studies reported on cost-effectiveness. 78 79 Only three evaluation reports 76 84 100 (including one preprint 100 ) employed a randomised design. Three evaluations employed quasiexperimental approaches. 78 79 92 Only four articles reported findings from process evaluations, implementation research or qualitative studies. 30 85–87

Large-scale improvement programmes have been a key strategy for addressing quality deficits in healthcare globally, but the programmes assessed in our review of one exemplar clinical area often fell short on key features of quality. Though a large number of improvement initiatives have been undertaken in a 13-year period in maternity services, a particularly challenged clinical specialty in the English NHS, many—including a large number of major national programmes of the last decade—did not meet a basic requirement of a retrievable evaluation report. This represents a major threat to learning and accountability. Among programmes with a focus on intrapartum care that offered some form of evaluation report and could be assessed, there was considerable variability and very often evident flaws in transparency and quality of programme specification, use of evidence-based interventions, implementation support, PPI, use of formal published theories, models and frameworks, and evaluation. Notably, no programme that we quality assessed had explicitly set reduction of inequality as a goal. Our findings are unlikely to be unique to maternity settings or to the English NHS. These findings, and the methods used to generate them, are likely to be of relevance to many other clinical areas targeted by large-scale improvement programmes in healthcare settings internationally.

A first step in improving the quality of improvement programmes is to ensure that they are sufficiently well specified to permit identification of their components and the mechanisms through which they work, not least so that they can be scaled with fidelity if shown to be effective, 10 14 108 and modified or abandoned if not effective. Programmes included in our quality assessment demonstrated highly variable completeness of programme description, with some demonstrating weaknesses across several items of a modified TIDieR checklist. 81 We also identified an important lack of transparency in reporting relating to the implementation support available to participating services, despite its recognised role in effective improvement, 25 29 including in maternity care. 30 100 Crucially, despite recurrent reported organisational degradations in NHS maternity services, we were unable to identify any examples of adaptation of implementation specifically to account for the context of challenged services, with one programme actively excluding challenged units. 103 The extent to which programmes explicitly grounded their interventions in evidence or drew on theories, models or frameworks from implementation science 43 to guide implementation and evaluation was also highly variable, with many examples of poor reporting practice.

Second, a commitment to evaluation and public reporting of all findings should be seen as fundamental to high-quality commissioning of large-scale improvement programmes in healthcare. Many (14) of the initiatives we identified—including some of the high-profile national maternity programmes of the last decade—lacked a retrievable evaluation report. In these cases, it is not possible to determine whether the programmes worked (made a difference to outcomes) and should be scaled, to assess whether these programmes represent a good use of resources, or to identify how programme design or implementation might have been improved. Even where evaluation reports were available, they often demonstrated substantial weaknesses. Future programme design and delivery should be organised to facilitate the use of rigorous evaluation designs that allow reliable assessments to be made about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, as well as what works, what doesn’t and why across diverse clinical settings. 44

Third, despite repeated policy commitments to improve equity, 32 34 our findings add to concerns about inequalities in NHS maternity care. 33 35 59 We found no examples of improvement programmes included in our quality assessment that identified the reduction of health and care inequalities as an explicit goal. Indeed, there was some evidence of programme design having potential to contribute to widening inequalities between high-performing and low-performing services, which is likely to impede efforts aimed at improving equity. 33 Finally, despite the emphasis placed by national policy on including those who use maternity services in the design and delivery of improvement programmes, 41 42 PPI appeared to be lacking in over half of the programmes we assessed. Improving the impact of large-scale improvement efforts on the quality and safety of care in future will likely require these gaps between these enshrined policy objectives and programme design to be closed.

Strengths and limitations

Our adaptation of the principles of scoping review methodology was successful in addressing our aims, given that most programmes we identified were not research projects and therefore unsuitable for full scoping or systematic review designs. The design of our search strategy was improved by specialist librarian input, by pilot testing the search strings to test their capacity to identify relevant literature, by selecting databases with relevant scope and by supplementing our structured searches with extensive hand searches. We sought to lend rigour to the charting process by requiring that assessment decisions be agreed by two researchers, by pilot testing the data charting tool to improve its reliability and by basing our assessment criteria, where possible, on published standards relating to programme specification 81 and evaluation. 44

Our selection of the TIDieR checklist 81 —developed to improve published descriptions of healthcare interventions, including complex interventions—on which to base our assessments of reporting was appropriate given the sociotechnical nature of improvement programmes. Our modified checklist is likely to be valuable in future studies to enable better description of features specific to improvement programmes. Relatedly, our definition of ‘improvement programme’ offers clarity to those engaged in programme commissioning, design and evaluation regarding specific aspects of these interventions that distinguish them from other types of improvement intervention in healthcare.

We acknowledge several limitations. It is possible that relevant sources of evidence relevant to eligible programmes were missed by our search strategy. The list of quality features we identified was necessarily selective and may not be comprehensive. It remains possible that researcher-related factors may have biased our assessments in some non-transparent way. Practical considerations meant our search was limited to programmes implemented in England since 2010, meaning that potentially important learning from programmes implemented elsewhere in the UK and prior to 2010 was excluded. Restriction of scope to intrapartum care may have excluded some programmes with different characteristics of quality and reporting.

Conclusions

Transparent reporting and high-quality evaluation are critical to learning and accountability in healthcare systems facing persistent quality of care challenges. This review of large-scale maternity improvement programmes in the English NHS since 2010 has identified widespread poor practice in programme design, transparency of reporting and evaluation. These findings are both cause for concern and unlikely to be unique to this clinical setting. Our study suggests important targets for improving the design, delivery, evaluation and reporting of large-scale programmes in healthcare to maximise their impact on quality and safety, ensure accountability, including for how resources are used, and better aggregate learning to improve care for patients.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

  • Ovretveit J ,
  • Gustafson D
  • Burnett S ,
  • Parand A , et al
  • Ovretveit J
  • Dixon-Woods M ,
  • McNicol S ,
  • Stephens T ,
  • Martin G , et al
  • Tyrrell PJ ,
  • Rudd AG , et al
  • Richardson A ,
  • Hibbert P , et al
  • Benning A ,
  • Suokas A , et al
  • Nwulu U , et al
  • Lenguerrand E ,
  • Siassakos D , et al
  • Dixon-Woods M
  • Brandrud AS ,
  • Hjortdahl P , et al
  • Vindrola-Padros C ,
  • Hill M , et al
  • Skivington K ,
  • Matthews L ,
  • Simpson SA , et al
  • Duncan MD , et al
  • Shojania KG ,
  • Grimshaw JM
  • Bolshakova M ,
  • Turner BJ , et al
  • Marshall M ,
  • Pronovost P ,
  • Ozieranski P ,
  • McNicol S , et al
  • Tarrant C , et al
  • Stephens TJ ,
  • Pearse RM , et al
  • Greenhalgh T ,
  • Macfarlane F , et al
  • Kaplan HC ,
  • Dritz MC , et al
  • Howarth E ,
  • Moore G , et al
  • Redwood S ,
  • Pithara-McKeown C ,
  • Stone T , et al
  • Barbosa EC , et al
  • NHS England
  • Care Quality Commission
  • Jardine J ,
  • Gurol-Urganci I , et al
  • Jackson C ,
  • Shaw S , et al
  • Whitaker GP , et al
  • Langley J ,
  • Wolstenholme D ,
  • Williams O , et al
  • Donetto S ,
  • Finlay T , et al
  • Mockford C ,
  • Staniszewska S ,
  • Griffiths F , et al
  • Eccles MP ,
  • HM Treasury
  • Portela MC ,
  • Pronovost PJ ,
  • Woodcock T , et al
  • Goldmann D , et al
  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
  • House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee
  • Liberati E , et al
  • Proudlove NC ,
  • Walshe K , et al
  • Carroll F , et al
  • Patel R , et al
  • Birthrights
  • House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Department of Health, Safer Maternity Care
  • NHS Litigation Authority
  • NHS Resolution
  • Tricco AC ,
  • Zarin W , et al
  • Felker BK ,
  • Patel A , et al
  • Batalden PB
  • Godfrey C ,
  • McInerney P , et al
  • Hudson T , et al
  • Zwakman M ,
  • Verberne LM ,
  • Kars MC , et al
  • Ismail KMK ,
  • Macdonald SE , et al
  • Vinayakarao L ,
  • Pathak S , et al
  • Widdows K ,
  • Roberts SA ,
  • Camacho EM , et al
  • Edwards HB ,
  • Redaniel MT ,
  • Sillero-Rejon C , et al
  • Ouzzani M ,
  • Hammady H ,
  • Fedorowicz Z , et al
  • Hoffmann TC ,
  • Glasziou PP ,
  • Boutron I , et al
  • NHS England (Avoiding Term Admissions into Neonatal units programme), Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
  • Gurol-Urganci I ,
  • Bidwell P ,
  • Sevdalis N , et al
  • Roberts SA , et al
  • Sevdalis N ,
  • Silverton L , et al
  • Macdonald S , et al
  • Edwards H ,
  • Opmeer B , et al
  • O’Brien S ,
  • Jordan S , et al
  • Burhouse A ,
  • Ray S , et al
  • Edwards K ,
  • Glover Williams A ,
  • McBain H , et al
  • Robertson L ,
  • Prosser-Snelling E , et al
  • Jurczuk M ,
  • West of England Academic Health Science Network (AHSN)
  • Sillero-Rejon C
  • Grimwood T ,
  • Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
  • Williams AG , et al
  • Roberts S ,
  • Camacho E , et al
  • Renwick S ,
  • Draycott T , et al
  • McKenzie JE ,
  • Bossuyt PM , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

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

  • Data supplement 1
  • Data supplement 2
  • Data supplement 3
  • Data supplement 4
  • Data supplement 5
  • Data supplement 6

Twitter @jgmcgowan, @ilk21, @LisaHinton4, @graham_p_martin, @MaryDixonWoods

Contributors MD-W is the guarantor of the study. Conceptualisation: JM, MD-W. Data curation: JM, BA. Formal analysis: JM, BA. Funding acquisition: JM, MD-W. Investigation: JM, BA, IK. Methodology: JM, BA, IK, LH, TD, GPM, MD-W. Project administration: JM, IK. Resources: JM, IK, MD-W. Software: JM, IK. Supervision: GPM, MD-W. Validation: LH, TD, GPM, MD-W. Visualisation: JM. Writing—original draft: JM, MDW. Writing—review and editing: all authors.

Funding The Health Foundation's grant to THIS Institute.

Competing interests TJD: Research and Innovation lead for PROMPT Maternity Foundation and has a part-time appointment at NHS Resolution where he leads on a Safety Action within the Maternity Incentive Scheme.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Read the full text or download the PDF:

IMAGES

  1. The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing

    the importance of literature review in researcher

  2. The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing

    the importance of literature review in researcher

  3. PPT

    the importance of literature review in researcher

  4. The Role and Importance of Literature Review in Research

    the importance of literature review in researcher

  5. 10 importance of literature review in research

    the importance of literature review in researcher

  6. The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing by

    the importance of literature review in researcher

VIDEO

  1. Importance of literature review in research 2024

  2. Effective Review of Literature

  3. Introduction Systematic Literature Review-Various frameworks Bibliometric Analysis

  4. literature importance 📚📓📓#literature #books #history #voice

  5. 3_session2 Importance of literature review, types of literature review, Reference management tool

  6. Lecture 11: Basics of Literature Review

COMMENTS

  1. Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

    The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions. Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.

  2. Conducting a Literature Review: Why Do A Literature Review?

    Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed. You identify: core research in the field experts in the subject area methodology you may want to use (or avoid)

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

    In addition, a literature review is an excellent way of synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in which more research is needed, which is a critical component of creating theoretical frameworks and building conceptual models.

  4. What is the purpose of a literature review?

    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

  5. Conducting a Literature Review

    Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review. Assessment of the current state of research on a topic. This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review.

  6. The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education

    The literature review helps any researcher "join the conversation" by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met.

  7. Writing a Literature Review

    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 ...

  8. How to Write a Literature Review

    Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.

  9. Writing a literature review

    Conducting a literature review is essential for developing a research idea, to consolidate what is already known about a subject and to enable you to identify any knowledge gaps and how your research could contribute to further understanding.

  10. Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

  11. Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide

    Example: Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework: 10.1177/08948453211037398 ; Systematic review: "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139).

  12. What is a literature review?

    A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations.

  13. Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature

    A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

  14. Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks

    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. ... 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 ...

  15. Writing an effective literature review

    Mapping the gap. The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown—what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the 'knowledge deficit'—thus establishing the need for your research study [].In an earlier Writer's Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was ...

  16. Literature Review in Research Writing

    Why are literature reviews important? Research on research? If you find this idea rather peculiar, know that nowadays, with the huge amount of information produced daily all around the world, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep up to date with all of it. In addition to the sheer amount of research, there is also its origin.

  17. The Importance of Literature Review in Research Writing

    A literature review helps you create a sense of rapport with your audience or readers so they can trust that you have done your homework. As a result, they can give you credit for your due diligence: you have done your fact-finding and fact-checking mission, one of the initial steps of any research writing.

  18. Getting started

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

  19. 5. The 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 ...

  20. Purpose of a Literature Review

    The purpose of a literature review is to: Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic; Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers; Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research

  21. How to Undertake an Impactful Literature Review: Understanding Review

    Important aspects of a systematic literature review (SLR) include a structured method for conducting the study and significant transparency of the approaches used for summarizing the literature (Hiebl, 2023).The inspection of existing scientific literature is a valuable tool for (a) developing best practices and (b) resolving issues or controversies over a single study (Gupta et al., 2018).

  22. Importance and Issues of Literature Review in Research

    Importance and Issues of Literature Review in Research November 2020 DOI: Conference: 'Tackle a literature review' under the series 'Publish or Perish' organised by Mysore University...

  23. Understanding the importance of a literature review in research

    When conducting research, a literature review plays a crucial role as it provides an overview of the existing literature related to a specific topic. Its main objective is to identify the gaps in the current knowledge and provide direction for future research.

  24. Academic Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Systematic Literature Review and

    Research on the entrepreneurship ecosystem, based on different data and scales, limits the acceptance of a single definition. This conceptual limitation and the still recent research and higher education institutions have come to be seen as ecosystems associated with entrepreneurship. The aim of this study is to contribute to the field of knowledge, identify current and emerging thematic areas ...

  25. The Importance of Mathematical Representation Ability ...

    The Importance of Mathematical Representation Ability for Elementary School Students: A Literature Review and Its Implications August 2023 DOI: 10.24235/sicee.v1i0.14579

  26. Citizens' perspectives on relocating care: a scoping review

    Data extraction. A spreadsheet was created to categorise the information that contributed to answering the research questions. The information extracted from the articles was structured according to the type of relocation, including: relocating from the hospital to the GP, to care at home, to self-care, or to eHealth, and relocating from the GP to self-care, to care at home, or to eHealth. The ...

  27. Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

    Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) ... An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a ...

  28. Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review

    Methods We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on ...

  29. Remote Sensing Applications in Almond Orchards: A Comprehensive ...

    Almond cultivation is of great socio-economic importance worldwide. With the demand for almonds steadily increasing due to their nutritional value and versatility, optimizing the management of almond orchards becomes crucial to promote sustainable agriculture and ensure food security. The present systematic literature review, conducted according to the PRISMA protocol, is devoted to the ...