review of literature in research paper

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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 August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Time to refocus for South Korean science

Nature Index 21 AUG 24

How South Korea’s science stars are finding success

How South Korea can support female research leaders

South Korean science on the global stage

What will it take to open South Korean research to the world?

How South Korea can build better gender diversity into research

The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists

News 20 AUG 24

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Regenerative Biology and Medicine, CIMR

Regenerative Biology and Medicine, including but not limited to disease immunology, ageing, biochemistry of extracellular matrix...

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Therapy, CIMR, Beijing

We're looking for outstanding scientists at all ranks interested in developing novel therapeutics in all disease areas.

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Qiushi Chair Professor

Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Zhejiang University

ZJU 100 Young Professor

Promising young scholars who can independently establish and develop a research direction.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

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

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

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

Make referring sources super easy

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and...

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and...

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• 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

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.

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

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

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

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.

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.

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 ].

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 ].

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 ].

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.

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.

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Peer Review
• Citation/Style Guides This link opens in a new window

Quick Links

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a methodical examination of the published literature on a specific topic or research question, aimed at analyzing rather than merely summarizing scholarly works relevant to your research . It includes literature that offers background on your topic and demonstrates how it aligns with your research question.

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

• To help define the focus of your research topic.
• To identify existing research in your area of interest, pinpoint gaps in the existing literature, and avoid duplicating previous research.
• To gain an understanding of past and current research as well as the current developments and controversies in your field of interest.
• To recognize and assess the strengths and weaknesses of works related to your area of interest.
• To evaluate the contributions of experts, theoretical approaches, methodologies, results, conclusions, and possible opportunities for future research.

A Literature Review is NOT

• An annotated bibliography or research paper
• A collection of broad, unrelated sources
• Everything that has been written on a particular topic
• Literature criticism or a book review.

Literature Review vs Annotated Bibliography

A literature review and an annotated bibliography are both tools used to assess and present scholarly research, but they serve different purposes and have distinct formats:

Where Can I Find a Lit Review?

The Literature Review portion of a scholarly article is usually close to the beginning. It often follows the introduction , or may be combined with the introduction. The writer may discuss his or her research question first, or may choose to explain it while surveying previous literature.

If you are lucky, there will be a section heading that includes " literature review ".  If not, look for the section of the article with the most citations or footnotes .

• Next: Steps for Conducting a Lit Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 5:23 PM
• URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/literaturereview

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 28, Issue 6
• Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-9845 Irma Klerings 1 ,
• Shannon Robalino 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-3880 Andrew Booth 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2903-6870 Camila Micaela Escobar-Liquitay 4 ,
• Isolde Sommer 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-3678 Gerald Gartlehner 1 , 5 ,
• Declan Devane 6 , 7 ,
• Siw Waffenschmidt 8
• On behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
• 1 Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation , University of Krems (Danube University Krems) , Krems , Niederösterreich , Austria
• 2 Center for Evidence-based Policy , Oregon Health & Science University , Portland , Oregon , USA
• 3 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) , The University of Sheffield , Sheffield , UK
• 4 Research Department, Associate Cochrane Centre , Instituto Universitario Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires , Buenos Aires , Argentina
• 5 RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center , RTI International , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , USA
• 6 School of Nursing & Midwifery, HRB TMRN , National University of Ireland Galway , Galway , Ireland
• 7 Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland , University of Galway , Galway , Ireland
• 8 Information Management Department , Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare , Cologne , Germany
• Correspondence to Irma Klerings, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Niederösterreich, Austria; irma.klerings{at}donau-uni.ac.at

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RR) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. In this paper, we address considerations for RR searches. We cover the main areas relevant to the search process: preparation and planning, information sources and search methods, search strategy development, quality assurance, reporting, and record management. Two options exist for abbreviating the search process: (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches and (2) reducing the size of the search result. Because screening search results is usually more resource-intensive than conducting the search, we suggest investing time upfront in planning and optimising the search to save time by reducing the literature screening workload. To achieve this goal, RR teams should work with an information specialist. They should select a small number of relevant information sources (eg, databases) and use search methods that are highly likely to identify relevant literature for their topic. Database search strategies should aim to optimise both precision and sensitivity, and quality assurance measures (peer review and validation of search strategies) should be applied to minimise errors.

• Evidence-Based Practice
• Systematic Reviews as Topic
• Information Science

Data availability statement

No data are available.

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/bmjebm-2022-112079

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

Compared with systematic reviews, rapid reviews (RR) often abbreviate or limit the literature search in some way to accelerate review production. However, RR guidance rarely specifies how to select topic-appropriate search approaches.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This paper presents an overview of considerations and recommendations for RR searching, covering the complete search process from the planning stage to record management. We also provide extensive appendices with practical examples, useful sources and a glossary of terms.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for RR literature searching: review teams should consider what search approaches best fit their RR project.

Introduction

This paper is part of a series from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG) providing methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs). 1–3 While the RRMG’s guidance 4 5 on Cochrane RR production includes brief advice on literature searching, we aim to provide in-depth recommendations for the entire search process.

Literature searching is the foundation for all reviews; therefore, it is important to understand the goals of a specific RR. The scope of RRs varies considerably (from focused questions to overviews of broad topics). 6 As with conventional systematic reviews (SRs), there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for RR literature searches. We aim to support RR teams in choosing methods that best fit their project while understanding the limitations of modified search methods. Our recommendations derive from current systematic search guidance, evidence on modified search methods and practical experience conducting RRs.

This paper presents considerations and recommendations, described briefly in table 1 . The table also includes a comparison to the SR search process based on common recommendations. 7–10 We provide supplemental materials, including a list of additional resources, further details of our recommendations, practical examples, and a glossary (explaining the terms written in italics) in online supplemental appendices A–C .

Supplemental material

• View inline

Recommendations for rapid review literature searching

Preparation and planning

Given that the results of systematic literature searches underpin a review, planning the searches is integral to the overall RR preparation. The RR search process follows the same steps as an SR search; therefore, RR teams must be familiar with the general standards of systematic searching . Templates (see online supplemental appendix B ) and reporting guidance 11 for SR searches can also be adapted to structure the RR search process.

Developing a plan for the literature search forms part of protocol development and should involve an information specialist (eg, librarian). Information specialists can assist in refining the research question, selecting appropriate search methods and resources, designing and executing search strategies, and reporting the search methods. At minimum, specialist input should include assessing information sources and methods and providing feedback on the primary database search strategy.

Two options exist for abbreviating the search process: (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches (eg, using automation tools, reusing existing search strategies, omitting planning or quality assurance steps) and (2) reducing the size of the search result (eg, limiting the number of information sources, increasing the precision of search strategies, using study design filters). Study selection (ie, screening search results) is usually more resource-intensive than searching, 12 particularly for topics with complex or broad concepts or diffuse terminology; thus, the second option may be more efficient for the entire RR. Investing time upfront in optimising search sensitivity (ie, completeness) and precision (ie, positive predictive value) can save time in the long run by reducing the screening and selection workload.

Preliminary or scoping searches are critical to this process. They inform the choice of search methods and identify potentially relevant literature. Texts identified through preliminary searching serve as known relevant records that can be used throughout the search development process (see sections on database selection, development and validation of search strategies).

In addition to planning the search itself, the review team should factor in time for quality assurance steps (eg, search strategy peer review) and the management of search results (eg, deduplication, full-text retrieval).

Information sources and methods

To optimise the balance of search sensitivity and precision, RR teams should prioritise the most relevant information sources for the topic and the type of evidence required. These can include bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE/PubMed), grey literature sources and targeted supplementary search methods. Note that this approach differs from the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards 9 where the same core set of information sources is required for every review and further supplemented by additional topic-specific and evidence-specific sources.

Choosing bibliographic databases

For many review topics, most evidence is found in peer-reviewed journal articles, making bibliographic databases the main resource of systematic searching. Limiting the number of databases searched can be a viable option in RRs, but it is important to prioritise topic-appropriate databases.

MEDLINE has been found to have high coverage for studies included in SRs 13 14 and is an appealing database choice because access is free via PubMed. However, coverage varies depending on topics and relevant study designs. 15 16 Additionally, even if all eligible studies for a topic were available in MEDLINE, search strategies will usually miss some eligible studies because search sensitivity is lower than database coverage. 13 17 This means searching MEDLINE alone is not a viable option, and additional information sources or search methods are required. Known relevant records can be used to help assess the coverage of selected databases (see also online supplemental appendix C ).

Further information sources and search techniques

Supplementary systematic search methods have three main goals, to identify (1) grey literature, (2) published literature not covered by the selected bibliographic databases and (3) database-covered literature that was not retrieved by the database searches.

When RRs search only a small number of databases, supplementary searches can be particularly important to pick up eligible studies not identified via database searching. While supplementary methods might increase the time spent on searching, they sometimes better optimise search sensitivity and precision, saving time in the long run. 18 Depending on the topic and relevant evidence, such methods can offer an alternative to adding additional specialised database searches. To decide if and what supplementary searches are helpful, it is important to evaluate what literature might be missed by the database searches and how this might affect the specific RR.

Study registries and other grey literature

Some studies indicate that the omission of grey literature searches rarely affects review conclusions. 17 19 However, the relevance of study registries and other grey literature sources is topic-dependent. 16 19–21 For example, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on newly approved drugs are typically identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. 20 For rapidly evolving topics such as COVID-19, preprints are an important source. 21 For public health interventions, various types of grey literature may be important (eg, evaluations conducted by local public health agencies). 22

Further supplementary search methods

Other supplementary techniques (eg, checking reference lists, reviewing specific websites or electronic table of contents, contacting experts) may identify additional studies not retrieved by database searches. 23 One of the most common approaches involves checking reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. This method may identify studies missed by limited database searches. 12 Another promising citation-based approach is using the ‘similar articles’ option in PubMed, although research has focused on updating existing SRs. 24 25

Considerations for RRs of RCTs

Databases and search methods to identify RCTs have been particularly well researched. 17 20 24 26 27 For this reason, it is possible to give more precise recommendations for RRs based on RCTs than for other types of review. Table 2 provides an overview of the most important considerations; additional information can be found in online supplemental appendix C .

Information sources for identification of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Search strategies

We define ‘search strategy’ as a Boolean search query in a specific database (eg, MEDLINE) using a specific interface (eg, Ovid). When several databases are searched, this query is usually developed in a primary database and interface (eg, Ovid MEDLINE) and translated to other databases.

Developing search strategies

Optimising search strategy precision while aiming for high sensitivity is critical in reducing the number of records retrieved. Preliminary searches provide crucial information to aid efficient search strategy development. Reviewing the abstracts and subject headings used in known relevant records will assist in identifying appropriate search terms. Text analysis tools can also be used to support this process, 28 29 for example, to develop ‘objectively derived’ search strategies. 30

Reusing or adapting complete search strategies (eg, from SRs identified by the preliminary searches) or selecting elements of search strategies for reuse can accelerate search strategy development. Additionally, validated search filters (eg, for study design) can be used to reduce the size of the search result without compromising the sensitivity of a search strategy. 31 However, quality assurance measures are necessary whether the search strategy is purpose-built, reused or adapted (see the ‘Quality assurance’ section.)

Database-specific and interface-specific functionalities can also be used to improve searches’ precision and reduce the search result’s size. Some options are: restricting to records where subject terms have been assigned as the major focus of an article (eg, major descriptors in MeSH), using proximity operators (ie, terms adjacent or within a set number of words), frequency operators (ie, terms have to appear a minimum number of times in an abstract) or restricting search terms to the article title. 32–34

Automated syntax translation can save time and reduce errors when translating a primary search strategy to different databases. 35 36 However, manual adjustments will usually be necessary.

The time taken to learn how to use supporting technologies (eg, text analysis, syntax translation) proficiently should not be underestimated. The time investment is most likely to pay off for frequent searchers. A later paper in this series will address supporting software for the entire review process.

Limits and restrictions

Limits and restrictions (eg, publication dates, language) are another way to reduce the number of records retrieved but should be tailored to the topic and applied with caution. For example, if most studies about an intervention were published 10 years ago, then an arbitrary cut-off of ‘the last 5 years’ will miss many relevant studies. 37 Similarly, limiting to ‘English only’ is acceptable for most cases, but early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a quarter of available research articles were written in Chinese. 38 Depending on the RR topic, certain document types (eg, conference abstracts, dissertations) might be excluded if not considered relevant to the research question.

Note also that preset limiting functions in search interfaces (eg, limit to humans) often rely on subject headings (eg, MeSH) alone. They will miss eligible studies that lack or have incomplete subject indexing. Using (validated) search filters 31 is preferable.

Updating existing reviews

One approach to RR production involves updating an existing SR. In this case, preliminary searches should be used to check if new evidence is available. If the review team decide to update the review, they should assess the original search methods and adapt these as necessary.

One option is to identify the minimum set of databases required to retrieve all the original included studies. 39 Any reused search strategies should be validated and peer-reviewed (see below) and optimised for precision and/or sensitivity.

Additionally, it is important to assess whether the topic terminology or the relevant databases have changed since the original SR search.

In some cases, designing a new search process may be more efficient than reproducing the original search.

Quality assurance and search strategy peer review

Errors in search strategies are common and can impact the sensitivity and comprehensiveness of the search result. 40 If an RR search uses a small number of information sources, such errors could affect the identification of relevant studies.

Validation of search strategies

The primary database search strategy should be validated using known relevant records (if available). This means testing if the primary search strategy retrieves eligible studies found through preliminary searching. If some known studies are not identified, the searcher assesses the reasons and decides if revisions are necessary. Even a precision-focused systematic search should identify the majority—we suggest at least 80%–90%—of known studies. This is based on benchmarks for sensitivity-precision-maximising search filters 41 and assumes that the set of known studies is representative of the whole of relevant studies.

Peer review of search strategies

Ideally, an information specialist should review the planned information sources and search methods and use the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) checklist 42 to assess the primary search strategy. Turnaround time has to be factored into the process from the outset (eg, waiting for feedback, revising the search strategy). PRESS recommends a maximum turnaround time of five working days for feedback, but in-house peer review often takes only a few hours.

If the overall RR time plan does not allow for a full peer review of the search strategy, a review team member with search experience should check the search strategy for spelling errors and correct use of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) at a minimum.

Reporting and record management

Record management requirements of RRs are largely identical to SRs and have to be factored into the time plan. Teams should develop a data management plan and review the relevant reporting standards at the project’s outset. PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) 11 is a reporting standard for SR searches that can be adapted for RRs.

Reference management software (eg, EndNote, 43 Zotero 44 ) should be used to track search results, including deduplication. Note that record management for database searches is less time-consuming than for many supplementary or grey literature searches, which often require manual entry into reference management software. 12

Additionally, software platforms for SR production (eg, Covidence, 45 EPPI-Reviewer, 46 Systematic Review Data Repository Plus 47 ) can provide a unified way to keep track of records throughout the whole review process, which can improve management and save time. These platforms and other dedicated tools (eg, SRA Deduplicator) 48 also offer automated deduplication. However, the time and cost investment necessary to appropriately use these tools have to be considered.

Decisions about search methods for an RR need to consider where time can be most usefully invested and processes accelerated. The literature search should be considered in the context of the entire review process, for example, protocol development and literature screening: Findings of preliminary searches often affect the development and refinement of the research question and the review’s eligibility criteria . In turn, they affect the number of records retrieved by the searches and therefore the time needed for literature selection.

For this reason, focusing only on reducing time spent on designing and conducting searches can be a false economy when seeking to speed up review production. While some approaches (eg, text analysis, automated syntax translation) may save time without negatively affecting search validity, others (eg, skipping quality assurance steps, using convenient information sources without considering their topic appropriateness) may harm the entire review. Information specialists can provide crucial aid concerning the appropriate design of search strategies, choice of methods and information sources.

For this reason, we consider that investing time at the outset of the review to carefully choose a small number of highly appropriate search methods and optimise search sensitivity and precision likely leads to better and more manageable results.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

• Gartlehner G ,
• Nussbaumer-Streit B ,
• Nussbaumer Streit B ,
• Garritty C ,
• Tricco AC ,
• Nussbaumer-Streit B , et al
• Trivella M ,
• Hamel C , et al
• Hartling L ,
• Guise J-M ,
• Kato E , et al
• Lefebvre C ,
• Glanville J ,
• Briscoe S , et al
• Higgins JPT ,
• Lasserson T ,
• Chandler J , et al
• European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA)
• Rethlefsen ML ,
• Kirtley S ,
• Waffenschmidt S , et al
• Klerings I , et al
• Bramer WM ,
• Giustini D ,
• Halladay CW ,
• Trikalinos TA ,
• Schmid IT , et al
• Frandsen TF ,
• Eriksen MB ,
• Hammer DMG , et al
• Klerings I ,
• Wagner G , et al
• Husk K , et al
• Featherstone R ,
• Nuspl M , et al
• Knelangen M ,
• Hausner E ,
• Metzendorf M-I , et al
• Gianola S ,
• Bargeri S , et al
• Hillier-Brown FC ,
• Moore HJ , et al
• Varley-Campbell J , et al
• Sampson M ,
• de Bruijn B ,
• Urquhart C , et al
• Fitzpatrick-Lewis D , et al
• Affengruber L ,
• Waffenschmidt S ,
• Kaiser T , et al
• The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group
• Kleijnen J , et al
• Jacob C , et al
• Kaunelis D ,
• Mensinkai S , et al
• Mast F , et al
• Sanders S ,
• Carter M , et al
• Marshall IJ ,
• Marshall R ,
• Wallace BC , et al
• Fidahic M ,
• Runjic R , et al
• Hopewell S ,
• Salvador-Oliván JA ,
• Marco-Cuenca G ,
• Arquero-Avilés R
• Navarro-Ruan T ,
• Hobson N , et al
• McGowan J ,
• Salzwedel DM , et al
• Clarivate Analytics
• Corporation for Digital Scholarship
• Veritas Health Innovation Ltd
• Graziosi S ,
• Brunton J , et al
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare

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

Twitter @micaelaescb

Collaborators On behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group: Declan Devane, Gerald Gartlehner, Isolde Sommer.

Contributors IK, SR, AB, CME-L and SW contributed to the conceptualisation of this paper. IK, AB and CME-L wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. IK is responsible for the overall content.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests AB is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. In the last 36 months, he received royalties from Systematic Approaches To a Successful Literature Review (Sage 3rd edn), payment or honoraria form the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and travel support from the WHO. DD works part time for Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which are funded within the University of Ireland Galway (Ireland) by the Health Research Board (HRB) and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development (HSC R&D) Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

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.

Linked Articles

• Research methods and reporting Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit Isolde Sommer Candyce Hamel Declan Devane Anna Noel-Storr Livia Puljak Marialena Trivella Gerald Gartlehner BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 28 418-423 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112185
• Research methods and reporting Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence Gerald Gartlehner Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit Declan Devane Leila Kahwati Meera Viswanathan Valerie J King Amir Qaseem Elie Akl Holger J Schuenemann BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 29 50-54 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112111
• Research methods and reporting Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users Chantelle Garritty Andrea C Tricco Maureen Smith Danielle Pollock Chris Kamel Valerie J King BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 29 55-61 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112070

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

• Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
• Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.

The Commercial Aspects of Navigation Satellites: A Systematic Literature Review

• Open Access
• First Online: 21 August 2024

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Sofia Hassinen 3 ,
• Arto Ojala   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3276-6348 3 , 4 &
• Heidi Kuusniemi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7551-9531 5 , 6  

This paper aims to examine the state-of-the-art concerning the commercial aspects of navigation satellite systems. The objective of this systematic literature review is to gather existing literature, map the current state of knowledge, and propose new research avenues regarding the commercial aspects of navigation satellites. To achieve these goals, we conducted a systematic literature review, reviewing 32 papers on navigation satellite systems and their application for commercial usage. Based on the literature, we identify six themes and elaborate on how these themes contribute to our understanding of the topic. The research indicates a scarcity of comprehensive studies on the commercial aspects of satellite navigation-enabled location-based services. Therefore, further investigation is necessary to identify and understand the business models and ecosystems of companies operating in this industry.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• Navigation satellite systems
• Literature review

1 Introduction

Commercial space activities have been under growing interest during the last two decades (Davidian, 2021 ; George, 2019 ; Gurtuna, 2013 ). In this chapter, we focus on commercial activities within one specific sector (Davidian, 2021 )—satellite navigation systems—as these systems are increasingly integrated into daily commercial activities (OECD, 2022 ). Further, satellite navigation systems have rapidly evolved since the launch of the first location-based services (LBS) in the 1990s (Huang et al., 2018 ). The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is a key method for LBS and finds application in various industries (Manulis et al., 2021 ). That is, the commercial use of navigation services now encompasses a wide range of products and value-added services, catering to diverse purposes and industries (see e.g., Paravano et al., 2023 ).

GNSS-based services are employed at both enterprise and consumer levels. The enterprise market primarily encompasses maritime navigation, agriculture, aviation, driver advisory systems, geomatics, search and rescue, rail, critical infrastructures, among others. The consumer market mainly involves system integrators such as smartphone and automotive companies (Breeman et al., 2022 ). According to the EU Agency for the Space Programme, the most significant cumulative revenue segments in 2021–2031 are consumer solutions (61.0%), with revenues primarily generated from sensors installed in smartphones and tablets using LBS and applications. This is followed by the road and automotive sector (29.2%), where the majority of revenue comes from devices used for navigation, including emergency assistance, advanced driver-assistance systems, and fleet management applications (EU Agency for the Space Programme, 2022 ). As space-based activities are highly demanding, and technology is advancing rapidly, companies operating in this sector face several challenges related to technology, organization, and management in their pursuit of success (Xue et al., 2008 ).

The field of LBS, including the GNSS industry, has been extensively studied across various academic disciplines. However, while GNSS plays an increasingly vital role in our daily lives and has been integrated into numerous commercial products and services, there is limited academic understanding of the commercial usage and application of navigation satellites. By promoting awareness of this field from a commercial perspective, it can provide a foundation for future research on the subject and offer valuable insights for both academic research and business practices. For these reasons, it is essential to investigate the current state of research related to the commercial aspects of navigation satellites.

The objective of this systematic literature review is to compile existing literature, map the current state of knowledge, and suggest new research directions concerning the commercial issues of navigation satellites. Specifically, the aim is to find answers to the following research question: What is the current state of knowledge about the commercial aspects of navigation satellites?

Given the ongoing development of LBS and technological advancements, it is evident that this industry is in a constant state of evolution. In this chapter, our goal is to contribute to the existing literature by providing a deeper understanding of the GNSS market. This article is organized as follows: In Sect.  2 , we present the literature search process, the selection criteria for the collected data, and an overview of the data. In Sect.  3 , we disclose findings from the literature review by categorizing the articles into six themes. Section  4 discusses further research directions based on the literature review. Finally, in Sect.  5 , we conclude by presenting the contributions and acknowledging some limitations of this work.

2 Methodology

2.1 data collection.

The data collection for this systematic literature review was conducted across five databases: ABI, EBSCO, IEEE, SCOPUS, and Taylor and Francis Online. Data searches were carried out between October 2022 and January 2023. The selected keywords for the search were ‘navigation,’ ‘satellite,’ ‘GPS,’ ‘GNSS,’ ‘business,’ ‘space economy,’ and ‘commerc*.’ These keywords were chosen because they are associated with the studied phenomenon and are essential for finding relevant articles on the topic.

For the data search, specific criteria were established to guide the collection process. An initial search using the selected keywords, without additional selection criteria, yielded a total of 28,478 results from articles across the five databases. Consequently, it was crucial to carefully apply chosen criteria to identify suitable articles that could address the research questions. To achieve this goal, we focused on publications published in English in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. No restrictions were set on the publication years, allowing us to capture all relevant studies related to this research.

Using the selected terms and criteria, we identified 1,253 articles based on the abstracts. These included 292 articles from ABI Inform Complete (ProQuest), 43 from EBSCO, 13 from IEEE Xplore, 474 from SCOPUS, and 431 from Taylor and Francis Online. The abstract criteria required that they comprehensively describe the topic of this study. Additionally, duplicate publications were excluded at this stage. In total, 153 articles that met the abstract criteria were selected for full-text review.

During the full-text review, it became evident that some of the articles primarily focused on the technical aspects, with the commercial dimension being less prominent in the study. For instance, Prol et al. ( 2022 ) surveyed the potential of Low Earth orbits (LEO) for positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems, delving into technical elements while also touching on the commercial prospects of the industry's current and future market. However, this article was omitted from the literature review because it primarily focused on the technical aspects of LEO-PNT, with the commercial dimension being a minor component in relation to the overall content of the article.

Based on the full texts, a total of 32 articles were deemed suitable for inclusion in this systematic literature review. Most of the articles were obtained from Taylor and Francis Online, totaling nine articles, while EBSCO and SCOPUS each contributed eight articles. Additionally, ABI yielded five articles, and IEEE provided two articles. Figure  1 illustrates the process by which data were searched, articles were selected from the database search, and articles were ultimately included in the final analysis. In Table  1 , all 32 articles selected for this literature review are listed, presenting the authors, journals, publication year, databases from which they were retrieved, and the research themes covered in these articles.

Search process and selection criteria

2.2 Overview of the Data

The distribution of the selected studies for this literature review by year is presented in Fig.  2 . The articles were published between 2002 and 2022, with the majority in 2021 (3), 2019 (5), 2013 (5), and 2011 (3). The distribution of selected studies by year indicates that researchers have been actively studying and contributing to the understanding and advancement of this field over a significant span of time.

Distribution of the chosen articles by year

Over the years, as navigation satellite systems have become prevalent in our daily lives, they have sparked interest among researchers. Numerous studies about the industry have been conducted from various perspectives and across multiple disciplines. However, while most of the studies have focused on the technical aspects of navigation satellite systems, there also appears to be a growing interest in commercial and business-oriented research. This broad interest among different disciplines can also be observed in the various journals in which the selected articles are published. Table  2 shows the journals and the corresponding number of publications from each. The reviewed articles were published in 26 different journals. The most common journals among the publications were the Journal of Location-Based Services (4), the Journal of Spatial Science (2), Sustainability (2), and Regional Studies (2).

The articles included in this literature review employ a diverse range of research and analytical approaches. The following categories were used to distinguish the different methodologies adopted in the studies:

Qualitative research

Quantitative research

Mixed methodology (e.g., both qualitative and quantitative research)

Computational methods

Literature reviews, overviews, and mapping studies

The distribution of different methodologies is presented in Fig.  3 . Due to the nature of the topic, it is common for the studies to involve various domains of research methods. In the business-related literature, it is evident that there are methodologies that combine both business and technical principles.

Distribution of research methods

The majority of the reviewed studies employed empirical research. Quantitative research was the most widely used method, with a total of 13 studies employing this approach. Additionally, the review category, which encompassed overviews and mapping studies, consisted of ten studies. Mixed methodologies, meaning in this context the use of multiple research methodologies, such as a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative data, were employed in four studies. Additionally, four studies conducted qualitative research. Lastly, one study used a computational method, more precisely, agent-based modeling. Interestingly, five studies applied a case study approach along with the main research method.

3 Analysis and Findings

The purpose of the following subsections is to offer an overview of the existing knowledge on the topic and to present six key themes that have emerged from the literature. This will establish a foundation for the subsequent section where we will explore potential directions for future research in this area.

The research topic of commercial aspects of navigation satellite systems has generated interest for studies in various contexts and for various purposes. Given the broad nature of this industry and its engagement with various domains, the research themes are extensive. Based on the systematic literature review, six themes have emerged from the reviewed articles. Table  3 summarizes the themes and the number of publications in each theme.

LBS are an integral part of the utilization of navigation satellite systems, and it was expected that this topic would be discussed in the literature. LBS were discussed in several studies, yet four articles were categorized in this theme group, as they had a prevailing focus on LBS in their research agenda. Mobility and spatial data are also relevant topics concerning commercial aspects of navigation satellite systems, with a total of six studies focusing on these themes in their research. In total, eleven articles covered topics of collaboration, coordination, and knowledge networks while studying navigation satellite systems. The consumer and user point of view were covered by four studies. A popular theme among the studies was security, privacy, and personal information privacy, and this category included four articles. Lastly, three articles discussed navigation satellite systems from the critical infrastructures viewpoint. In the following section, the themes are introduced, and the research on each theme is elaborated.

3.1 Location-Based Services

LBS are services that comprise technologies enabling the geographic information of a mobile user's real-time location and provide personalized information for their users (Uphaus et al., 2021 ). The development and deployment of LBS have been studied by Petrova and Wang ( 2011 ) through a case study approach. The focus is on the LBS landscape and reveals that regulatory factors have been crucial for commercial success in the LBS markets, yet innovative business approaches have also played a significant role in generating customer demand. The findings suggest that economies aiming to adopt LBS should prioritize the establishment of a supportive environment that nurtures the development of services tailored to meet the specific needs and requirements of the target customer market.

A recent study by Uphaus et al. ( 2021 ) presents a comprehensive overview of the current LBS market. They investigated the existing use cases of LBS and identified the relevant players and value creation models within the market. By analyzing providers, areas of application, functions, and technologies, the study establishes a category system that helps identify success factors in well-established services based on application type, technology, business models, and other characteristics. The research highlights the promising opportunity of using location analytics to improve the user experience in current LBS implementations. Overall, the study introduces a novel framework for future market explorations in this field.

The work by Khurri and Luukkainen ( 2009 ) focuses on identifying and analyzing the necessary conditions for the development of a mobile LBS market in its phases of evolution. They found that there are favorable conditions in place to initiate the implementation of LBS. However, the authors indicate several areas that require further research, such as understanding the societal impact, value proposition, and risks related to security and privacy. Additionally, the authors state that creating sustainable business models and establishing a balanced mobile LBS ecosystem that offers equal profit opportunities for all participants is crucial for the success of the LBS market. Additionally, De Reuver et al. ( 2013 ) have conducted research on the topic of business models of LBS providers and how these will be impacted by the advantages of Galileo commercial services.

3.2 Mobility/Spatial Data

The rapid mobility of people and goods has been facilitated by the widespread availability of ubiquitous computing and LBS. The emergence of GPS and other positioning devices has further enabled the collection of real-time location data for objects moving in geographical space. As a result, vast amounts of tracking data have been generated, opening up new commercial possibilities for innovative applications built upon this movement information. Researchers from various fields, including database management, geographic information systems (GIS), visualization, data mining, and knowledge extraction, have contributed to the development of models and techniques for analyzing mobility patterns and extracting valuable insights from this data (Parent et al., 2013 ).

The survey conducted by Parent et al. ( 2013 ) delves into the fundamentals of mobility data, addressing its definitions and investigating the challenges associated with its management. The study also offers a comprehensive overview of various approaches and techniques for three critical aspects: (1) constructing trajectories from movement tracks, (2) enriching trajectories with semantic information to facilitate meaningful interpretations of movements, and (3) utilizing data mining to analyze semantic trajectories and extract insights, including behavioral patterns of moving objects. Likewise, Isaacson and Shoval ( 2006 ) conducted an examination of tracking technologies for gathering data on pedestrian spatial behavior. Their study primarily focuses on two key tracking technologies: satellite navigation systems and land-based navigation systems. In a separate study, Millonig and Gartner ( 2011 ) delved into the spatio-temporal behavior of shoppers, investigating the factors that influence their commercial behavior within specific groups. Moreover, research has explored the potential of applying Geographic Information Technologies, such as GPS, in cultural research, as demonstrated by the work of Gibson et al. ( 2010 ).

Visitor mobility plays a crucial role in supporting sustainable local economies and effective management in urban tourism destinations. When researching visitor mobility, much attention has been focused on uncovering the underlying patterns and structures of spatial visitor behavior (Sugimoto et al., 2019 ). Traditional approaches to gathering data on spatial and temporal visitor activity have posed challenges for both survey participants and researchers. However, advancements in geospatial technologies have provided alternative methods for collecting and visually presenting information about activities in specific locations. Among these technologies, GPS has emerged as a valuable tool for data collection related to commercial behavior.

In their study, Hallo et al. ( 2012 ) explore the use of GPS technology for tracking nature-based tourists and underscore its benefits compared to traditional tracking methods. Their research revealed that GPS provides numerous advantages, including increased reliability, accuracy, and precision in data collection. By leveraging GPS technology, researchers can examine the actual movements of visitors, yielding valuable insights into visitor use patterns, as opposed to relying solely on self-reported data. In a study conducted by Sugimoto et al. ( 2019 ), researchers investigated the connection between visitor mobility and urban spatial structures through an exploratory analysis. They collected data on visitors’ movements and characteristics using surveys that combined GPS tracking technologies and questionnaires. Based on these works, it is evident that GPS technology offers several advantages that can be applied for different tourism related businesses.

3.3 Collaboration/Coordination/Knowledge Networks

Balland ( 2012 ) has made significant contributions to the literature in the GNSS industry. His highly acclaimed article explores the impact of proximity on the development of the GNSS collaboration network (Balland, 2012 ). The study's primary focus is to understand how organizations select their partners, with a specific emphasis on proximity or distance. It empirically analyzes how organizations choose their partners based on various dimensions of proximity, including geographical, cognitive, organizational, institutional, and social factors (Balland, 2012 ). Another study by Balland, conducted in collaboration with Vicente and Brossard, analyzes clusters within collaborative knowledge networks in a specific technological field. It examines the interface between clusters and networks, aiming to enhance our understanding of collaboration across different locations and cognitive domains. The research specifically investigates the Midi-Pyrenean cluster in the GNSS industry, utilizing a relational database constructed from collaborative research and development projects funded at various levels in Europe (Vicente et al., 2011 ). These collaborative networks are important for commercialization of innovations (Balland, 2012 ; Balland et al., 2013 ) Additionally, Balland et al. ( 2013 ) have studied how innovation is influenced by specific structural characteristics of knowledge networks and its impact on geographical patterns.

The topic of public–private partnerships (PPPs) has garnered interest among researchers in GNSS literature, particularly concerning the European Galileo case. Mörth ( 2009 ) has studied the relationships between the public and private spheres through an analysis of three European collaboration cases involving public and private actors. The study includes cases of the European satellite navigation program (Galileo), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the European financial market. The article examines the balance between managerial autonomy and democratic accountability in European public–private collaborations, emphasizing the importance of political control for democratic legitimacy, rather than evaluating efficiency.

In their paper, Zervos and Siegel ( 2008 ) explore the role of multi-public partnerships in the space industry in promoting commercially viable space programs, addressing market failures, and tackling transatlantic security concerns. The paper specifically focuses on the benefits and policy implications of transatlantic multi-public–private partnerships through a case study of the Galileo space-based navigation system. In another publication by Zervos and Siegel ( 2005 ), they examine the advantages of transatlantic collaboration in technology policy, particularly in publicly-funded R&D space projects like Galileo. Using an industrial organization methodology, the research investigates the negative security impacts of unilateral space projects, highlighting the importance of transatlantic coordination in technology policy to enable the space industries to benefit from cross-border strategic research partnerships (SRPs). Rouyre and Fernandez ( 2019 ) conducted a case study on Galileo to examine the challenges associated with balancing knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in collaborative innovation projects involving competitors. Additionally, de facto standardization concerning GNSS has also been studied in the literature, with a focus on GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo (Breeman et al., 2022 ).

Higgins ( 2008 ) and Hausler and Collier ( 2013 ) studied GNSS coverage and precise positioning in Australia. Both studies address the challenges and opportunities associated with establishing a comprehensive and accessible National Positioning Infrastructure in Australia. They highlight the limited coverage of high-accuracy GNSS services in Australia and identify inefficiencies and factors that have hindered nationwide access to high-accuracy positioning services, such as inefficient investment and lack of coordination. Higgins ( 2008 ) introduces a model to identify the distinct roles played by organizations involved in delivering precise positioning services. It emphasizes the importance of governance mechanisms that enable collaboration among partners, ensuring transparency regarding their respective roles and maintaining user confidence in the services provided. In their work, Hausler and Collier ( 2013 ) identify organizational business drivers and technical methodologies that have resulted in a lack of nationwide access to high-accuracy positioning services and inefficient investments in Australia. The study by Lee et al. ( 2021 ) focuses on analyzing the Korean satellite and space industry and developing strategies for its growth. The researchers utilized the SWOT-AHP method to assess the priorities of various factors and proposed detailed strategies based on their findings.

3.4 Consumer/User Point of View

Given the extensive research conducted on GNSS from various perspectives and domains, it is evident that commercial literature also explores the consumer's or user’s viewpoint in relation to the market. Furthermore, there has been an interest in examining the value proposition of GPS and other navigation satellite systems for their users, as well as analyzing their impact at a consumer level.

A paper by Kaasinen ( 2003 ) studies location-aware mobile services from the user’s point of view and has received significant attention among scholars. In her study, Kaasinen conducts a thorough analysis of user needs in location-aware services through a comprehensive approach encompassing user interviews, laboratory, and field evaluations, as well as expert evaluations. The study identifies key issues and presents user needs across five main themes: topical and comprehensive contents, seamless user interaction, personalized and user-generated contents, cohesive service entities, and privacy concerns.

Luo et al. ( 2014 ) study how mobile technologies allow marketers to target consumers based on time and location. Their work examines the effects of different combinations of mobile targeting on consumer responses to mobile promotions. Using a large-scale randomized experiment involving 12,265 mobile users, the researchers draw on contextual marketing theory to formulate hypotheses. Overall, the article emphasizes the importance of understanding the timing, location, and strategies used in mobile targeting.

A study by Wang et al. ( 2018 ) explores consumer purchase decisions regarding mobile GPS navigation apps, drawing on the value-based adoption model and innovation diffusion theory. It also examines the moderating role of perceived availability of free substitutes (PAFS) in the relationship between perceived value and purchase intention. For the study, authors’ analyzed data from 219 mobile users using the partial least squares approach. With this study, they aimed to contribute to advancing knowledge in mobile internet marketing and analyzed consumer purchase intentions in the mobile GPS navigation app context.

Navigation satellite systems have also raised interest from a marketing perspective. In their research, Cobanoglu et al. ( 2010 ) investigate how consumers perceive the possibility of using GPS devices as marketing tools, specifically in the context of services for travelers. It is based on a survey of 200 randomly-selected online consumers, gathering insights into their usage patterns and attitudes toward GPS. The findings suggest that GPS devices are indeed employed as marketing tools, but there is notable resistance among consumers toward businesses reaching out to them through GPS.

3.5 Privacy/Personal Information Privacy (PIP)/Security

When discussing locations and activities that concern individuals’ personal lives, such as their residences, workplaces, visited places, and social interactions, this information should be regarded as personal and safeguarded from being shared without authorization. Many countries around the world have established norms and laws to limit the gathering and utilization of personal data. Nevertheless, privacy regulations are unable to fully shield personal information from malicious entities, namely those intentionally seeking unauthorized access to protected data (Parent et al., 2013 ). In their study, Ng-Kruelle et al. ( 2002 ) discuss the hidden aspect of mobile commerce concerning private information, such as personal location, that must be provided for benefits like navigation support; hence, this can be perceived as a significant cost. The authors introduce the concept of the “price of convenience,” which addresses how users’ privacy is exchanged for convenience. More specifically, the study examines the decision-making process of individuals.

The topics of personal information privacy and security have been studied considerably in navigation satellite systems-related literature. The overall topic of privacy concerning individuals’ locational data has received increasing interest among researchers, and it is considered an important aspect related to the industry. A study by Conger et al. ( 2013 ) introduces a comprehensive model of personal information privacy (PIP) that goes beyond just collecting transactional data and also considers the sharing of data in interorganizational settings. This study examines how emerging technologies impact the management of PIP. It also explores various research avenues related to privacy, technologies that protect privacy, interorganizational data sharing, and the development of policies in this field. For a better understanding of the motives and traits of adversarial threats, Manulis et al. ( 2021 ) examine past instances of security threats and incidents targeting satellites. According to their analysis, ground and radio frequency communications have been the primary targets so far. Yet, with the growth of satellite constellations expected in the near future, there is a need to shift focus toward securing the space segment as well. Lubojemski ( 2019 ) contributes to the security discussion by examining the security dilemma linked to satellites. By applying concepts and theories from international relations studies, the dual-use nature of satellites provides valuable insights into understanding their influence on the international system.

3.6 Critical Infrastructures

GNSS, like GPS, is increasingly relied upon in modern infrastructures due to its positioning and timing capabilities, hence making GNSS itself a critical infrastructure. These infrastructures are essential systems that contribute to the operations of the economy, government, and businesses. Moreover, they are essential for maintaining the economical operations, societal functions, well-being, health, safety, and security of citizens and states (Bucovetchi et al., 2019 ; Dempster & Cetin, 2016 ). Fields such as finance, telecommunications, and energy distribution use GNSS as a timing source for network synchronization. However, GNSS can face issues by becoming a target of hackers, spoofing attacks, and such, as some of these networks can also be classified as critical infrastructures (Falletti et al., 2019 ).

The literature review identified three articles that considered critical infrastructures in their research and highlighted the significance of GNSS's role in the operations of critical infrastructures. Bucovetchi et al. ( 2019 ) emphasize the vital role of critical infrastructure. The study showcases a modeling exercise revealing the global air transport infrastructure’s reliance on space systems, underscoring the potential impact of disruptions and the necessity for tools to support policy and decision-making in safeguarding and designing infrastructures.

In their study, Falletti et al. ( 2019 ) discuss the dependence of critical infrastructures on GNSS and GPS for time synchronization and consider the vulnerability of their receivers to spoofing attacks. It emphasizes the need for increased awareness and potential mitigation strategies to address this vulnerability of GNSS. Similarly, Dempster and Cetin ( 2016 ) discuss the increasing reliance on GNSS, specifically GPS, in safety–critical infrastructures. It highlights the vulnerability of GNSS to radio frequency interference (RFI) from intentional (jamming) or unintentional sources, which has become a significant concern. As a result, GNSS itself is now considered critical infrastructure that requires protection and mitigation of its vulnerability to interference. In this study, Dempster and Cetin ( 2016 ) present an overview of the existing systems and a comparison of different interference geo-localization techniques based on literature.

4 Future Research Directions

Navigation satellite systems have become an intriguing subject of investigation spanning a wide range of research areas. Beyond their primary applications in technical, engineering, and aerospace sectors, navigation satellite systems have increasingly piqued the interest of the business research community. Nevertheless, there remains a substantial need for a deeper comprehension of the business and economic aspects within this domain. This is primarily because the majority of published papers have been predominantly technically oriented, with limited attention given to entrepreneurial initiatives and business prospects related to GNSS-based services. Consequently, there is ample opportunity for research that delves into these aspects through a business-oriented lens. Some avenues for further studies are presented below.

Based on the existing literature on LBS, it becomes evident that there exists a significant variance in customer requirements concerning these services (Khurri & Luukkainen, 2009 ; Uphaus et al., 2021 ). This challenge is underscored by Khurri and Luukkainen ( 2009 , p. 206), who note, “It is not clear how to develop business models that will take into account the interests of different players in the LBS value network ranging from content owners and device vendors to end-users.” In order to effectively thrive in markets with such diverse customer needs, there is a compelling necessity for a business model that can be replicated across various use cases, industries, and market segments (Winter & Szulanski, 2001 ). As such, there is a clear demand for further research to delve into the innovation and development of business models (Karami et al., 2022 ) within the context of LBS. These studies should explore how to create a versatile business model that is easily customized, while also considering the diverse demands of customers and the specific regulations of different countries.

Prior research underscores the utility of various positioning-based services in data collection and the examination of visitor mobility, encompassing their underlying patterns and structures (Hallo et al., 2012 ; Sugimoto et al., 2019 ). Leveraging such data, diverse service types have been developed, including smart-city services for municipal authorities and tracking services for consumers aiming to circumvent traffic congestion, among others. Nonetheless, a noticeable gap exists in linking the development of these services to entrepreneurial aspects that could explore how entrepreneurs innovate novel services using available positioning technologies. An equally intriguing realm lies in indoor positioning, which presents unique challenges due to the limitations of GPS within interior spaces and the need for multifaceted technology solutions (Dedes & Dempster, 2005 ). Exploring this area would expand positioning-based studies and business prospects from outdoor to indoor settings (Ojala et al., 2024 ).

We have observed that the existing literature emphasizes networking with partners and other market actors (see Balland, 2012 ; Zervos & Siegel, 2008 ). In future research endeavors, we propose a more comprehensive application of network theories to yield in-depth insights into the dynamics of networking and ecosystem initiation among diverse stakeholders in GNSS-based services. For instance, exploring the formation of both weak and strong ties, as outlined by Granovetter ( 1973 ), can shed light on how these various types of connections contribute to the creation of a successful business ecosystem (Tiwana, 2015 ). Furthermore, given the international nature of GNSS-based businesses, there is a compelling need to investigate the establishment of different types of cross-border networks (Ojala, 2009 ). This research should aim to identify the necessary actions and strategies for integrating the potential requirements of foreign partners and addressing possible bottlenecks in the market into the service (Fraccastoro et al., 2023 ).

5 Conclusions

In this chapter, we have provided a comprehensive literature review that contributes to the advancement of our understanding regarding the commercial application of navigation satellite systems. Our review indicates the main themes and key findings derived from an analysis of 32 studies within this domain. The outcomes of this systematic literature review reveal that despite its importance, business-related research on the application of navigation satellite systems remains relatively scarce. While the technical features of GNSS have attracted a lot of interest, the commercial side of this market is only emerging. However, there seems to be growing interest in business research related to GNSS. Notably, a substantial portion of the existing business literature concerning GNSS and LBS emerged in the early 2010s, indicating a pressing need for contemporary research that examines the current market dynamics of GNSS and LBS.

In light of these findings, this study provides the following contributions that future research endeavors should focus on in more detail. Firstly, especially in the LBS market, there are diverse customer needs that should be addressed by developing flexible and replicable business models. Secondly, the literature highlights different services and technologies for position-based data collection, but it does not focus on how these services are created and commercialized. Thirdly, we observed that although the industry is highly networked, these networks and how they are formed have not been studied in detail.

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this literature review. While it aims to provide an overview of the current literature concerning navigation satellite systems with a focus on commercial aspects, it is important to note that the review is based on a modest sample size of 32 publications. We also acknowledge that some publications might be missing if they are not published within the databases applied or did not include the search words employed. Furthermore, there is always a possibility of mistakes, and the authors are responsible for any potential errors. We also acknowledge that the findings and implications of this study cannot be extrapolated beyond its specific scope. However, the study provides valuable insights into the existing literature within its specified themes and offers new perspectives for further business research on this topic.

Sources marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the material of the literature review.

Google Scholar  

*Balland, P.-A. (2012). Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry. Regional Studies, 46 (6), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.529121

Article   Google Scholar  

*Balland, P.-A., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2013). Structural and Geographical Patterns of Knowledge Networks in Emerging Technological Standards: Evidence from the European GNSS Industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22 (1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2012.699773

*Breeman, M. P., Grillo, F., & Van de Kaa, G. (2022). Battles in space: De-facto Standardization of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 65 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101693

*Bucovetchi, O., Georgescu, A., Badea, D., & Stanciu, R. D. (2019). Agent-Based Modeling (ABM): Support for Emphasizing the Air Transport Infrastructure Dependence of Space Systems. Sustainability, 11 (19), 5331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195331

*Cobanoglu, C., Ciccarelli, S., Nelson, R. R., & DeMicco, F. J. (2010). Using Global Positioning Systems as a Marketing Tool: An Analysis of U.S. Consumers’ Use and Perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19 (6), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2010.493069

*Conger, S., Pratt, J. H., & Loch, K. D. (2013). Personal Information Privacy and Emerging Technologies. Information Systems Journal, 23 , 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00402.x

Davidian, K. (2021). What Makes Space Activities Commercial? Acta Astronautica, 182 , 547–558.

Dedes, G., & Dempster, A.G. (2005). Indoor GPS Positioning-Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE 62nd Vehicular Technology Conference, 1, pp. 412–415.

*Dempster, A. G., & Cetin, E. (2016). Interference Localization for Satellite Navigation Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104 (6), 1318–1326. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2016.2530814

*De Reuver, M., Skournetou, D., & Lohan, E. S. (2013). Impact of Galileo Commercial Service on Location-Based Service Providers: Business Model Analysis and Policy Implications. Journal of Location Based Services, 7 (2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2012.750018

EU Agency for the Space Programme. (2022). EUSPA EO and GNSS Market Report (Issue 1). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2878/94903

*Falletti, E., Margaria, D., Marucco, G., Motella, B., Nicola, M., & Pini, M. (2019). Synchronization of Critical Infrastructures Dependent upon GNSS: Current Vulnerabilities and Protection Provided by New Signals. EEE Systems Journal, 13 (3), 2118–2129. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2883752

Fraccastoro, S., Ojala, A., & Gabrielsson, M. (2023). Technical, Strategic, and Cultural Bottlenecks of Born-Global-Digital Firms . Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

George, K. W. (2019). The Economic Impacts of the Commercial Space Industry. Space Policy, 47 , 181–186.

*Gibson, C., Brennan-Horley, C., & Warren, A. (2010). Geographic Information Technologies for Cultural Research: Cultural Mapping and the Prospects of Colliding Epistemologies. Cultural Trends, 19 (4), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2010.515006

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

Gurtuna, O. (2013). Fundamentals of Space Business and Economics . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

*Hallo, J. C., Beeco, J. A., Goetcheus, C., McGee, J., McGehee, N. G., & Norman, W. C. (2012). GPS as a Method for Assessing Spatial and Temporal Use Distributions of Nature-Based Tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 51 (5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511431325

*Hausler, G., & Collier, P. (2013). National Positioning Infrastructure: Identifying and Evaluating High Accuracy GNSS Service Coverage Across Australia. Journal of Spatial Science, 58 (2), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2013.812025

*Higgins, M. B. (2008). An Organisational Model for a Unified GNSS Reference Station Network for Australia. Journal of Spatial Science, 53 (2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2008.9635151

Huang, H., Gartner, G., Krisp, J. M., Raubal, M., & Van, N. (2018). Location Based Services: Ongoing Evolution and Research Agenda. Journal of Location Based Services, 12 (2), 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2018.1508763

*Isaacson, M., & Shoval, N. (2006). Application of Tracking Technologies to the Study of Pedestrian Spatial Behavior. The Professional Geographer, 58 (2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00524.x

*Kaasinen, E. (2003). User Needs for Location-Aware Mobile Services. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7 , 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-002-0214-7

Karami, M., Baber, W. W., & Ojala, A. (2022). The Effectual Process of Business Model Innovation for Seizing Opportunities in Frontier Markets. Technovation, 117 , 102595.

*Khurri, A., & Luukkainen, S. (2009). Identification of Preconditions for an Emerging Mobile LBS Market. Journal of Location Based Services, 3 (3), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489720903362306

*Lee, J., Kim, I., Kim, H., & Kang, J. (2021). SWOT-AHP Analysis of the Korean Satellite and Space Industry: Strategy Recommendations for Development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120515

*Lubojemski, A. M. (2019). Satellites and the Security Dilemma. Astropolitics, 17 (2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2019.1641689

*Luo, X., Andrews, M., Fang, Z., & Phang, C. W. (2014). Mobile Targeting. Management Science, 60 (7), 1738–1756. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1836

*Manulis, M., Bridges, C. P., Harrison, R., Sekar, V., & Davis, A. (2021). Cyber Security in New Space. International Journal of Information Security, 20 , 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-020-00503-w

*Millonig, A., & Gartner, G. (2011). Identifying Motion and Interest Patterns of Shoppers for Developing Personalised Wayfinding Tools. Journal of Location Based Services, 5 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2010.535029

*Mörth, U. (2009). The Market Turn in EU Governance—The Emergence of Public-Private Collaboration. Governance, 22 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.01423.x

*Ng-Kruelle, G., Swatman, P. A., Rebne, D. S., & Hampe, J. F. (2002). The Price of Convenience: Privacy and Mobile Commerce. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3 , 273–285.

OECD. (2022). OECD Handbook on Measuring the Space Economy (2nd ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8bfef437-en

Ojala, A. (2009). Internationalization of Knowledge-Intensive SMEs: The Role of Network Relationships in the Entry to a Psychically Distant Market. International Business Review, 18 (1), 50–59.

Ojala, A., Fraccastoro, S., & Gabrielsson, M. (2024). Internationalization of Indoor Positioning Platform Firms: Insights from Loose Coupling Theory . Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Paravano, A., Loctelli, G., & Trucco, P. (2023). What Is Value in the New Space Economy? The End-Users’ Perspective on Satellite Data and Solutions. Acta Astronautica, 210 , 554–563.

*Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Renso, C., Andrienko, G., et al. (2013). Semantic Trajectories Modeling and Analysis. ACM Computing Surveys, 45 (4), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501654.2501656

*Petrova, K., & Wang, B. (2011). Location-Based Services Deployment and Demand: A Roadmap Model. Electronic Commerce Research, 11 , 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-010-9068-7

Prol, F. S., Morales Ferre, R., Saleem, Z., Välisuo, P., Pinell, C., Lohan, E. S., Elsanhoury, M., Elmusrati, M., Islam, S., Çelikbilek, K., Selvan, K., Yliaho, J., Rutledge, K., Ojala, A., Ferranti, L., Praks, J., Bhuiyan, M. Z. M., Kaasalainen, S., & Kuusniemi, H. (2022). Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Through Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellites: A Survey on Current Status, Challenges, and Opportunities. IEEE Access, 10 , 83971–84002.

*Rouyre, A., & Fernandez, A.-S. (2019). Managing Knowledge Sharing-Protecting Tensions in Coupled Innovation Projects Among Several Competitors. California Management Review, 62 (1), 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256198851512

*Sugimoto, K., Ota, K., & Suzuki, S. (2019). Visitor Mobility and Spatial Structure in a Local Urban Tourism Destination: GPS Tracking and Network Analysis. Sustainability, 11 (3), 919. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030919

Tiwana, A. (2015). Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26 (2), 266–281.

*Uphaus, P., Beringer, B., Siemens, K., Ehlers, A., & Rau, H. (2021). Location-Based Services—The Market: Success Factors and Emerging Trends from an Exploratory Approach. Journal of Location Based Services, 15 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2020.1868587

*Vicente, J., Balland, P. A., & Brossard, O. (2011). Getting into Networks and Clusters: Evidence from the Midi-Pyrenean Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) Collaboration Network. Regional Studies, 45 (8), 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343401003713340

*Wang, Y.-Y., Lin, H.-H., Wang, Y.-S., Shih, Y.-W., & Wang, S.-T. (2018). What Drives Users’ Intentions to Purchase a GPS Navigation App: The Moderating Role of Perceived Availability of Free Substitutes. Internet Research, 28 (1), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2016-0348

Winter, S. C., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as Strategy. Organization Science, 12 (6), 730–743.

Xue, Y., Li, Y., Guang, J., Zhang, X., & Guo, J. (2008). Small Satellite Remote Sensing and Applications—History, Current and Future. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29 (15), 4339–4372. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160801914945

*Zervos, V., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). The Importance of Co-ordination in National Technology Policy: Evidence from the Galileo Project. Prometheus, 23 (2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020500085593

*Zervos, V., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). Technology, Security, and Policy Implications of Future Transatlantic Partnerships in Space: Lessons from Galileo. Research Policy, 37 (9), 1630–1642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.06.008

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Marketing and Communication, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland

Sofia Hassinen & Arto Ojala

Graduate School of Management, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

School of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland

Heidi Kuusniemi

Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, Espoo, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arto Ojala .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

William W. Baber

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hassinen, S., Ojala, A., Kuusniemi, H. (2024). The Commercial Aspects of Navigation Satellites: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Ojala, A., Baber, W.W. (eds) Space Business. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3430-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3430-6_4

Published : 21 August 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-3429-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-3430-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2024

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

• Annette Boaz 1 ,
• Belinda Goodenough 2 ,
• Stephen Hanney 3 &
• Bryony Soper 3  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  113 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

56 Accesses

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

Conclusions

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a “dose effect” from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Peer Review reports

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. This assumption contributed to policy documents from various health organizations promoting research engagement by healthcare providers as a way of improving healthcare, for example, in the United Kingdom [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Therefore, it was believed that policy-makers who make relevant decisions, such as on the allocation of resources for health and health research systems, should have access to evidence on the validity of the assumption. In the United Kingdom, two programmes of the National Institute for Health Research (now called the National Institute for Health and Care Research) (NIHR) decided to commission reviews of the global evidence on this [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The wide-ranging brief provided for the second review, which was the original review by the authors of this present paper (published in full as Hanney et al. in 2013 [ 3 ] and more succinctly as Boaz et al. in 2015 [ 2 ]), included the additional aim of conducting a theoretically grounded synthesis to explore the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. The protocol for that study considered pertinent global literature, including on accelerating the adoption of evidence in health systems, and ways to enhance the relevance of the research conducted to the needs of health systems. The final protocol published as part of the Hanney et al. report [ 3 ] then used these ideas to identify possible mechanisms that would be worth analysing to help understand the processes that might be at work when research engagement leads to improved health. Among these was the idea that engaging in conducting research increases the ability and willingness of clinicians to use research findings from the global pool of knowledge, and here the concept of “absorptive capacity” was expected to be useful [ 3 ].

Some analyses focussed on the importance of exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare to contribute towards understanding of the benefits for healthcare performance in the context of a strong research culture. These papers were reviewed in Australia by Harding et al. in 2017 [ 4 ].

As far as we are aware, these three systematic literature reviews published in the second decade of this century provided the first analyses of the empirical evidence available to support the assumption of improved healthcare from research engagement [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Their differing scopes and approaches are summarized briefly in Table  1 .

All three of the reviews reported some evidence of a positive association between research engagement and healthcare performance, but the available evidence was not mature enough to support statements about causality [ 2 ]. Our review [ 2 , 3 ] had the widest scope of the three, reflecting the broad brief given by our NIHR funder. It included an extensive initial mapping exercise, a formal focussed review, and a wider review which drew on the earlier stages to explore, as noted above, the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare [ 3 ]. Our review identified 33 papers from 9 countries (15 from the United States), 28 of which reported positive findings [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Even our review concluded, however, that there did not appear to be a well-structured, steadily accumulating body of knowledge about the benefits associated with research engagement.

In the succeeding years, we have identified a continuing and growing interest in this general topic, therefore an updated review seemed desirable to gather more evidence about how far research engagement might lead to improved healthcare and the mechanisms involved. In addition to these general questions, our original review had identified two specific issues that could usefully be considered further. These were research networks as potentially important mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare, and whether greater amounts of research engagement would have a larger beneficial effect. Our original review also covered some aspects of a third issue (health equity) that has subsequently become increasingly important [ 2 , 3 ].

The growing development of research networks has been associated with efforts to move towards more formalized attempts to boost the role of health research systems in accelerating science and facilitating the translation of research into practice [ 2 , 3 ]. However, at the time of our original review, the evidence was still emerging and its availability was heavily skewed by the different timing of the establishment of formal research networks in different countries.

In the United States, various research networks had been set up in the second half of the last century, and most of the early papers on networks and their role came from there [ 2 ]. These networks in the United States are described in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ). They include the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Cancer Community Oncology Program (CCOP), established to encourage outreach and improve equity by bringing the advantages of clinical research to cancer patients in their own communities [ 37 ]. In the United Kingdom in contrast, national research networks were not formally created until this century, too late for any potential benefits to patient outcomes to be fully researched and reported prior to our review which started in 2011. However, even in our original review we were aware of concurrent United Kingdom work to measure those outcomes and to improve patient access to clinical research, and identified a need for further evaluations (see Hanney et al. [ 3 ], pp. 48, 83).

Subsequently, we also became increasingly aware of new studies on the effects of the developing research networks, especially in the United Kingdom, and Boaz et al. identified a promising approach in statistical analysis that could help further analysis [ 2 ]. As set out in the Glossary, there have been policy shifts and organizational changes in the United States and the United Kingdom, and there have been further ones elsewhere, which are designed to promote research networks to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice, including various efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services. There has also been an increasing emphasis, including within research networks, on the potential research contribution of healthcare professionals other than medical professionals.

Our original review had also noted a partly related second issue as worthy of further attention. This is the question of whether the association between research engagement by healthcare providers and improved healthcare outcomes increases with greater amounts of research participation. There was early evidence that it did. This came, in particular, from the 2008 paper by Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] that compared outcomes for patients with angina in hospitals in the United States having a high level of angina research activity with hospitals with low research activity, and those with no research activity. Other papers compared centres with different levels of research activity within a research network [ 23 ]. However, there was little certainty about extent and implications around this issue at that time, although it has become increasingly important with the development of the comprehensive research networks that we summarize in the Glossary. It also has theoretical implications for the exact nature of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare: in our original review we argued that further data on this effect, and on the time an institution was research active, “are needed to provide evidence of causation” (p. 12) [ 2 ].

These findings also have implications for health equity, the third unresolved issue. More outreach by research networks means more access to clinical research and its benefits for more patients. The United States CCOP has been rightly lauded for achieving this [ 37 ], but can that be squared with the emerging finding that higher levels of research participation in specific provider institutions bring greater benefit to the patients in those centres?

Reflection on these uncertainties further strengthened the argument that with all the developments since our original review, it seemed timely in 2020 to revisit this topic to explore and collate what additional understanding had been gained. While conducting the resulting update, we became aware of some more recent developments. A United Kingdom qualitative systematic review was published in 2021 that explored the impact of research activity by healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and another UK review published in 2023 focussed on research engagement by allied health professionals (AHPs) [ 39 ]. With few exceptions, the papers specifically on nursing and AHPs in these reviews were typically smaller scale than the papers included in our formal review, and/or usually did not include the quantifiable comparisons that featured in most of our included papers. Nevertheless, these reviews usefully illustrate the growing interest in the contribution of these healthcare professionals in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In addition, we identified a large-scale study from the United States by Shahian et al. [ 40 ] that was published in 2022 and examined the link between research engagement and improved healthcare performance in 5 major medical fields across 1604 Medicare-participating hospitals. A noticeable facet of the paper by Shahian et al. was their referencing of a large number of papers that we had identified either in our original review, or in the first phase of our updated review [ 40 ].

To ensure our updated review adequately reflected all such developments since May 2020, we conducted a further search in March 2024. The review presented here is based on papers identified in both phases of the updated review, the findings of which are then combined with those from our original review.

Review question

To identify studies, the primary research question used the same approach as Boaz et al. [ 2 , 3 ].

Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance?

By research engagement, we mean, as in our original review, engagement in research rather than the broader concept of engagement with research, and we are referring to participation in research by healthcare organizations and staff rather than patient participation in trials. Engagement in research is taken to mean, “a deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by healthcare staff (including conducting research and playing an active role in the whole research cycle) and organizations (including playing an active role in research networks, partnerships or collaborations)” (p. 2) [ 2 ].

The 2020 decision to complete an update of the previous review [ 2 , 3 ] was informed by a published decision framework for updating systematic reviews [ 41 ]. After completion in 2024 of the comprehensive initial phase of the updated review, including the two searches and considerable subsequent analysis, we recognized, as noted above, that while we had been conducting the review some important further papers had been published. We wanted to incorporate such papers, and so decided to conduct a further search for papers. The design of this final phase (which included a third search) was informed both by the fact that we had already identified a considerable number of papers for the updated review, and by the way new papers in this field were by now much more likely to cite earlier papers, with Shahian et al. [ 40 ] being a prime example. Therefore, we thought it was reasonable to rely to a much greater extent on checking citations to the papers already identified, as explained below.

Search strategy and information sources

Search 1 (update).

The first step in syntax development used the Medline Ovid strategy published by Boaz et al. [ 2 ].

Initial diagnostic testing indicated issues preventing code execution. Due to the syntax comprising several nested terms and Boolean operators, it was rebuilt using recommendations for “single-line” optimization for debugging complex code [ 42 ].

Search 2 (modified)

The syntax for Search 2 was a term modification to capture papers that more explicitly indexed research networks and collaborations. Search 2 necessitated a deeper dive into the full-text content of papers. The decision to search full-text articles reflected observations that the sensitivity of Search 1 was potentially affected by the variable quality (and relevance for our review) of abstracts, a consistent challenge for reviewers [ 43 ]. As a second search also adapted published syntax, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Literature Search—Extension Checklist (PRISMA-S) reporting protocol was followed [ 44 ]. (The full text for search strategies is provided in “Search Strategy and Syntax Sensitivity”; see Additional file 2 ).

Electronic databases

Nine electronic records collections were used in Search 1: Medline (OVID and EBSCO), EMBASE, PsycInfo (OVID and EBSCO), CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Management and Information Consortium and British Nursing Institute. The mix provided parity with previous reviews and mitigated risk of missed papers by combining general and specialized databases. Different interfaces (e.g. OVID, EBSCO) for the same collection were also included to offset variations due to platform [ 45 ]. Grey literature was not searched: these collections failed to uniquely identify papers in previous reviews on this topic. Search 2 was restricted to the Medline EBSCO Full Text records, which was the collection which yielded the highest hit ratio for relevant papers (see Additional file 2 ).

Other sources

Manual and snowball searching were used in three ways. Firstly, a range of search engines (Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest Central, Scopus, the Web of Science Cited Reference Search) were used to track citations for (a) prior reviews as whole papers, (b) the individual studies within these reviews and (c) article reference lists. Secondly, key journals that published studies shortlisted in the previous reviews were hand-checked, including: Implementation Science, PLOS One, BMJ Open and BMC Health Services Research. Thirdly, topic experts suggested papers for consideration.

Search 3 (final phase)

As explained above, we subsequently conducted a further search covering May 2020–March 2024. This consisted of: a hand-search of three of the journals in which papers from the first phase of the updated review had been published (Health Research Policy and Systems, Implementation Science and Medical Care); a check of papers in the two reviews published in this period [ 38 , 39 ]; and a check of citations in this period to all the papers identified both in our original review and in the update’s initial phase.

Eligibility criteria

The following limiters were applied:

Timeframe: 1 January 2012 to 20 March 2024 (inclusive of eprint)

Population: Human (any setting)

Language: English (any country)

Paper type: Academic Journals (scholarly works). Conference papers were admitted as flags for accessible peer-reviewed works (e.g. pre-print) or key teams.

Three criteria were defined, guided by definitions from the original review [ 3 ].

Criterion A: study design

Empirical studies using method/s aligned with health services research, including clinical trials, retrospective cohort and survey methods. Studies with only patient reported outcomes (e.g. satisfaction) were excluded.

Criterion B: healthcare performance

Studies must report an outcome indexing performance assessment for a care process or healthcare improvement. The following were excluded: staff-specific reports alone, (e.g. job satisfaction or morale), policy impacts alone (no flow through to healthcare), descriptions of networks without outcomes data.

Criterion C: research engagement

Explicit demonstration of engagement in research including: agenda-setting, conducting research, participation in action research or in networks where the research involvement is noted. This criterion also allowed engagement implicitly through research network membership, even if a specific study was not recorded, but there was a comparison of healthcare between member and non-member settings. More details about examples that were in scope can be found in Hanney et al. [ 3 , p. 2].

Records management

To efficiently manage the export of the large records for the first two searches, Endnote X9 (Clarivate) was used to combine downloads from different databases and discard software detected duplicates. The endnote library was imported into Rayyan, a free multi-collaborator online screening tool [ 46 ]. Study selection procedures for Searches 1 and 2 followed the same screening/eligibility check sequence.

Screening and eligibility/quality checking

In Rayyan, titles were scanned to exclude papers that were irrelevant, did not meet criteria or were non-exact duplicates. Abstracts of retained records were then screened and classified as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe”. A third screening of “maybe” classifications forced a binary coding of “include” or “exclude”, with comment flags on issues. A final records’ sweep with the Rayyan query function checked for misclassified studies. This four-step screening process was completed by a single reviewer (BG).

Full-text for each provisionally included study was uploaded into Rayyan. The initial eligibility check was completed by three experts who were involved in article screening for Hanney et al. [ 3 ]. As a criterion check and to orient reviewers to the Rayyan platform, a practice phase used 10 randomly sampled records. The abstract was the primary source for expert reviewers, with full-text also available. After the practice task and consensus discussion of criteria, a batch of records (alphabet determined) was assigned to each expert reviewer, to rate each paper as “include”, “exclude” or “maybe” (ratings were unblinded). If the rating pair (i.e. B.G. and an expert from the original review) were both “include”, the paper was progressed to full-text appraisal. If there was disagreement, papers rated as “maybe” were reassigned to another expert reviewer for an opinion, and those rated as “exclude” by an expert reviewer were marked for discard. If consensus for a “maybe” paper could not be reached by discussion, it was progressed to a full text appraisal, conducted by a single reviewer (B.G.) using all available information sources and reviewer ratings.

A final review of all potential “includes” was jointly conducted by team members, including a few papers identified by other sources such as continued manual snowballing from key papers. The study selection procedures for Search 3 mirrored this final step, and so consisted of a review of all potential “includes” conducted jointly by team members.

Study quality was assessed using the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT v2018), on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) [ 47 ]. The MMAT accommodated all designs in the paper set. The majority of the papers have a design which fitted into the MMAT category of quantitative non-randomized. All papers scored good to high quality on the five questions in their relevant MMAT subscale. The lower end of ratings (good) was typically due to lack of information in the article, such as whether and/or how confounding factors may have been identified or managed. Quality ratings were not used to exclude papers, but formed part of the discussion about the quality and contribution of the papers.

Data extraction, coding and ethics

As Rayyan is only a screening platform, a data extraction sheet was created in Excel (v2016) for each included paper. A university research ethics committee deemed the project as not requiring formal ethical approval, due to secondary data mining on anonymized aggregated records.

A large and methodologically diverse mix of papers was identified with a range of different outcomes and outcome measures. The papers were combined through a process of critical interpretive synthesis inspired, as in our original review, by the approach outlined by Dixon-Woods et al. [ 48 ]. This involves adopting an iterative approach to refining the research question, searching the literature and defining and applying codes and categories. It enables the generation and development of theory with strong explanatory power and uses relevance as one measure of quality. Following analysis of the papers in the updated review, we collated the results from the updated review with those from our original review to create one combined set of papers for overall analysis.

Figure  1 summarizes the review literature flow. The two formal searches identified 66 901 records, with 68 further papers coming from other sources, including the March 2024 extension. From these, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal, and 62 were identified for inclusion [ 40 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ].

Flow diagram for literature search

This review updates the previous review conducted by the team [ 2 ]. Table 2 outlines the 95 papers in our combined review: the 62 additional papers in the updated review along with the 33 papers in our original review. The latter 33 papers are shown in italics in Table  2 , which includes details about the study characteristics of all 95 included papers as well as key dimensions of the findings. To complement Table  2 , brief notes on the development and scope of key United States and United Kingdom research networks/organizations discussed in the papers are provided in the “Glossary of the United States of America and United Kingdom Research Organizations and Networks Discussed in the Papers” (see Additional file 1 ).

Study characteristics

Across the 95 papers, 12 countries are either the location for the research engagement described in a single-country study, or the location from which a multi-country study was led, with one paper led from South Africa having authors from a range of African countries (and Yemen) [ 88 ]. The 12 countries are: United States (50 papers), United Kingdom (17), Canada (7), Spain (5), Germany (4), the Netherlands (3), Australia (2), Denmark (2), South Africa (2), China (1), Finland (1) and Sweden (1).

Cancer was the most common field, with 32/95 papers overall. Next came hospital care in general/multi-field/acute care with 16 papers, cardiovascular/stroke (12), substance use disorder (7), dentistry (3), mental health/psychiatry (3) and obstetrics (3).

Main findings

As presented in Table  2 , the key findings from the combined review are presented in terms of the four pairs of binary options, though inevitably some papers did not neatly fit into one category. The first categorization is in terms of the level of analysis explored in different papers; 23 papers compare clinicians, but 72 compare organizations. There is an even higher proportion in the updated review at the organizational level (50/62, 81%) than in our original review (22/33, 67%).

A total of 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 are positive/mixed meaning that there are some key negative elements in their findings, that is, important parts of the analysis where a lack of healthcare improvement is identified. Nine papers are negative, of which four are negative-mixed.

The final two pairs of binary options consider just the 86 positive papers. In total, 37/86 report improved health outcomes in terms of reduced mortality or morbidity. A higher proportion of the positive papers in the updated review (30/58, 52%) than in our original review (7/28, 25%) describe such improved health outcomes. There is a corresponding reduction from three quarters (21/28) to a half (28/58) in the proportion of papers solely describing improved processes in terms such as applying proven interventions.

Finally, in terms of the type of impact, 55/86 of the papers describe research engagement leading to a broader impact on healthcare performance. Broad impacts arise when the improved healthcare goes more widely than just being linked to clinicians or healthcare organizations implementing the findings, or processes, from their own research more rapidly/extensively than do others. When the improved healthcare is linked to the results or processes of their own research, that is categorized as specific impact, which is the case in 31/86 papers. Using these various categories, Fig.  2 outlines the findings from the combined review, alongside the findings from our original review, and the updated review. This highlights various trends in terms of the main findings.

Results from Boaz et al. systematic reviews of whether research engagement by health organizations and staff improves healthcare: analysis of original; updated; and combined reviews (and of the 86 positive papers). Green rows (top): original review; Brown rows (middle): updated review; blue rows (bottom): combined review

One further trend in terms of the type of analysis is seen in the 11/95 papers that used bibliometric analysis as an indicator of the extent, and/or quality, of research engagement compared with some measure of the healthcare performance, in terms of processes and/or outcomes [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 100 ]; 10 of these papers are in the updated review, with just 1 [ 30 ] from our original review. All these 11 papers are positive, but various types of bibliometric analysis are used. The broad categories of academic indicators applied include publication volume [ 95 , 96 ], publication “quality” (for example, as measured by citations) [ 51 ] and a combination of volume and “quality” [ 30 , 40 , 50 , 56 , 65 , 76 , 97 , 100 ]. Of the latter, five relatively small studies suggest that the association with “quality” was stronger than with volume. The bibliometric studies also illustrate the varying levels of analysis at which the included studies in the review are conducted; 4 of the 11 papers compare the academic outputs of clinicians [ 50 , 56 , 96 , 97 ] and 7 make comparisons at an organizational level [ 30 , 40 , 51 , 65 , 76 , 95 , 100 ], focussing variously on academic outputs at ward, department or hospital/trust level.

The combined review allows for a range of issues to be analysed more thoroughly than they had been in our original review. These include issues highlighted in the background such as the role of networks and the “dose effect”. These are examined in turn below, followed by consideration of how far the included studies have addressed various aspects of health equity, and finally an analysis of lessons from the overall portfolio of positive and negative studies.

The role of research networks

The full significance of papers on research networks is seen in the combined review. Using the inclusive definition developed by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], we have applied the term to various arrangements that, however loosely, give some measure of commonality to the research of multiple healthcare organizations that not only enhance science production, but also share a concern to transfer research findings into clinical practice. About half the papers in the combined review analysed research activity by clinicians or healthcare organizations who were part of research networks of various types.

In the United States, the NCI cancer research networks include the NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centres, the NCI Cooperative Groups and collaborative groups of community hospitals affiliated to the NCI’s CCOP- see the Glossary for its new name. In various ways these networks all include outreach and the engagement of community physicians in their brief; see the Glossary for more details. Their potential was recognized early in the 2005 study by Laliberte et al. [ 24 ] that looked at these networks and concluded that network membership may influence compliance with treatment guidelines, and should therefore be taken into account in predictive models of compliance.

Seven included papers illustrated various aspects of this issue by comparing the processes and outcomes for patients treated at NCI-designated (comprehensive) cancer centres with those treated elsewhere, six of these studies showed better outcomes for patients treated at NCI centres [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ], while one paper suggested that despite better processes, patient outcomes were worse at NCI centres. This paper is considered in the section on negative papers below [ 81 ]. Of the positive papers, Paulson et al. showed how the NCI designation was “associated with lower risk of postoperative death and improved long-term survival” (p. 675) [ 86 ], identified possible factors such as better adherence to guidelines, and demonstrated that the better outcomes at NCI-designated centres remained even when compared with non-NCI designated centres with a similar high volume of cases [ 86 ]. Wolfson et al. identified the requirements that underpin the positive association between high-quality research and high-quality care [ 106 ]. These included the mandate NCI centres have to “lead clinical trials, exchange ideas, disseminate findings” (p. 3892), which showed how the centres could act as part of a network. Wolfson et al. continued: “The NCI operates on the belief that a culture of discovery, scientific excellence, transdisciplinary research, and collaboration yields tangible benefits extending far beyond the generation of new knowledge” [ 106 ].

Building on Laliberte et al. [ 24 ], Carpenter et al. demonstrated an association between CCOP membership and accelerated innovation adoption but added the important codicil that it was not possible to “definitively ascertain whether there is a direct causal relationship between the two” [ 54 ].

Improved healthcare has also been associated with membership of the United States practice-based research networks (PBRNs). These networks cover family practice/primary care, dentistry, mental health and substance abuse. Like the CCOP and its affiliates, PBRNs involve practising clinicians in the community who conduct research. The combined review includes seven PBRN papers covering primary care and dentistry, all of which are positive [ 32 , 36 , 66 , 78 , 83 , 92 , 108 ] and one of which describes an international dental PBRN led from the United States that includes three Scandinavian countries [ 66 ].

A total of seven papers from another PBRN, the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Clinical Trials Network (CTN), also provided evidence of accelerated translation, identified mechanisms through which this might work, and discussed the theoretical frameworks within which those operated [ 5 , 14 , 23 , 49 , 63 , 90 , 91 ]. Thus, Ducharme et al. [ 14 ] and Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] explored Rogers’ notion of the “trialability” [ 110 ] of innovations, that is, how far an innovation may be experimented with on just a limited basis, and Abraham et al. [ 5 ] discussed the role of absorptive capacity [ 111 , 112 ], which they summarized as an organization’s ability to assess and use information [ 5 ]. Rieckmann et al. noted that although the mechanisms involved were not fully understood they appeared “to be influenced by core experiences from network participation” (p. 894) [ 91 ], and Fields et al. [ 63 ] used insights from implementation science to explore the influence of a set of organizational characteristics (including network membership) on innovation adoption [ 113 ].

In an analysis of data on 12 993 transplants conducted in 162 US centres, the 32 centres in the Bone Marrow Transplant trials network were found to have significantly better survival rates than others [ 77 ]. Marmor et al. reported that there was not an association between procedure volume and survival. Rather, they suggested, the better outcomes for those treated in centres in this network could be linked to the nature of trials that required “higher levels of national clinical collaboration and standardization of protocols”, and such collaboration was “likely to generate higher levels of innovation and excellence among clinical colleagues” (p. 92) [ 77 ].

In Germany, one team produced three papers on the improved healthcare performance of hospitals that were part of clinical trials organizations [ 13 , 34 , 94 ]. Two papers described the improved outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer if they were treated in a hospital that belonged to one of two German ovarian cancer clinical trials organizations, in effect research networks [ 13 , 34 ]. They noted that the improved outcomes were not related to patient volume, suggesting instead that possible factors may include hospitals’ participation in the study group’s quality assurance programs and team members attending regular and scientific and educational meetings [ 13 ]. In a follow-up study, the data were analysed in more detail using mediation analysis that showed not just that the research participation of a hospital contributed to superior patient survival, but also began to unpick how it happened, including through better use of surgery and chemotherapy [ 94 ].

Downing et al. noted that, following the 2006 establishment of the NIHR in the United Kingdom, the increase in research activity in networks throughout the English NHS also increased the scope for analysing the benefits of research engagement [ 58 ]. The role of NIHR networks in boosting research engagement, which is then linked to improved healthcare, also covers clinicians such as nurses and AHPs who had traditionally had limited research opportunities. Studies are now showing how they can play an important role by engaging in research because, according to Trusson et al. reporting on a research network for nurses and AHPs, people working in such roles “have opportunities to explore possible solutions to issues that they encounter in their clinical role through academic study” (p. 1) [ 101 ]. Such opportunities can also enhance their clinical skills. More broadly, Downing et al. claimed that, in relation to the NIHR’s clinical trials network, “this natural experiment, presented by the rapid expansion of trial activity across a whole national health system, is perhaps the best opportunity to address the subject though outcomes research” (p. 95) [ 58 ]. This development is discussed in the next section.

The “dose effect” of the extent of research engagement

Evidence indicating a link between the extent of research engagement and the degree of improved healthcare has been accumulating for some time. In the United States, the 1996 study by Brown and Griffiss found that the average acute length of stay (LoS) in Department of Veteran Affairs hospitals was inversely related to the size of research programmes [ 53 ]. Majumdar et al. [ 26 ] used a tertile approach to show that in-hospital mortality decreased as the rate of trial participation increased in the area of unstable angina. In the substance abuse field, early CTN studies also contributed: thus Knudsen et al. [ 23 ] noted that the adoption of buprenorphine therapy by practitioners within the trials’ network was much greater in those programmes in the network that participated in the specific buprenorphine trial than those that had not. In a 2006 study of a sexual health trial in Australia, Morton et al. [ 28 ] identified improved post-trial clinical practice by high-recruiting clinicians, but not by low-recruiting ones.

In our combined set of papers the first use of the specific term “dose effect” to describe the effects of differing amounts of research engagement occurred in Downing et al., who tested the hypothesis that for colorectal cancer (CRC) “high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all patients with CRC managed in those research-intensive hospitals” (p. 89) [ 58 ]. They found that high participation in such clinical trials was independently associated with better outcomes and that these effects were not restricted to academic centres or large institutions but were seen across all the NHS Trusts that conducted research on and treated patients with colorectal cancer. They extended their analysis to look at the effects of different levels of research participation and found that the highest levels of participation led to the highest levels of improved outcomes. However, in relation to these findings, Downing et al. were careful to say that, in the absence of the possibility of an RCT, caution was needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” (p. 89) from participation in research activity to improved healthcare [ 58 ].

Other United Kingdom database studies support the findings of Downing et al. For example, Ozdemir et al. [ 85 ] compared mortality with research funding per hospital bed in hospitals with high, medium and low levels of research funding and showed that not only was mortality lower in high-funded research hospitals than in other hospitals, but also, on average, hospitals in the middle category had a lower mortality rate than ones with the least research funding. In two studies using NIHR research study activity data from different years, Jonker and Fisher [ 68 , 69 ] showed an inverse correlation between the number of clinical trials/patient participation levels in United Kingdom hospitals and the mortality rate. Lin et al. [ 73 ] used retrospective data to examine the survival rate of the 465 patients (recruited by 60 hospitals) who had participated in an RCT in the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN). While they identified a significant association between low trial recruitment and lower survival rates, looking at the volume of patients treated in the disease area by the respective hospitals they report that “no significance was found between hospital throughput and outcomes” (p. 40) [ 73 ].

Further support for the “dose effect” concept comes from the United States and elsewhere. According to Abraham et al., in the substance abuse field “treatment programs participating in a greater number of CTN protocols had significantly higher levels of treatment quality, an association that held after controlling for key organizational characteristics” (p. 232) [ 49 ]. Similarly, Gilbert et al. [ 66 ] reported that members of a dental PBRN who fully participated in the network were more likely to move evidence-based care into everyday practice than members who only partially participated. Seaburg et al. [ 96 ] showed an association between the quantity of resident physicians’ publications and their clinical performance scores during training, and García-Romero et al. claimed that increases in the scientific output of Spanish hospitals made a significant contribution to a reduction of hospital LoS [ 65 ].

In Canada, Tsang et al. [ 103 ] conducted a pre-planned observational study nested within a clinical trial to test how well traditionally non-research active community hospitals could participate in an RCT alongside the traditional RCT sites in academic hospitals. However, while that aspect of the study did show that, in terms of adherence to trial metrics, the community hospitals could successfully participate in studies, outcomes for patients in the trial were significantly better in the traditional research hospitals, although the full reasons for this will need further exploration [ 103 ].

• Health equity

Various aspects of health equity are considered in the included papers, and some of these report attempts to improve health equity. Some population groups are particularly vulnerable. In the United States, for example, Wolfson et al. listed the following groups: “underrepresented minorities, those with low socio-economic status (SES), those with public or no insurance, and those with a significant distance to care” (p. 3886) [ 106 ]. On the basis of its long-held assumption that patient access to research active healthcare providers is beneficial, the NCI has attempted to reduce geographic inequalities in access. In a 1995 paper, Warneke et al. noted that the CCOP was established by the NCI in 1983 with the deliberate intention of spreading the benefits of the clinical research conducted in NCI centres: “The program was designed with the assumption that by participating as equals in the research process, community physicians would be more likely to accept and implement the results in their practices with non-protocol patients” (p. 336) [ 37 ].

Similar moves to encourage wider participation in clinical trials have recently been made in Canada in the nested study described above [ 103 ]. A recent analysis showing higher levels of research activity within the English healthcare system were associated with lower mortality, noted that although the NIHR CRN was established to promote research participation across England, there was still some way to go to ensure greater geographical equity [ 69 ].

Other initiatives, such as the United States minority-based CCOPs described in the Glossary, addressed racial inequalities in relation to access to research engagement and timely evidence-based healthcare. These sometimes overlap with geographic inequalities. Some of the papers on the NCI-designated cancer centres observed with concern that the proportion of certain racial/ethnic groups, including African Americans, who received treatment at these centres compared with non-NCI centres, was lower than for other racial groups [ 64 , 80 , 106 ]. Having noted that African Americans with colon cancer experienced worse outcomes than Caucasian Americans, and suggested that this was partly due to differential treatment, a study by Penn et al. found evidence that African Americans receiving treatment from CCOP providers had benefitted from a seemingly deliberate attempt to boost early access to a recently recommended innovative treatment [ 87 ]. In Australia, Young et al. [ 109 ] reported that the health services, and health research system, of the Aboriginal community work together to try to ensure health research is embedded into activities that improve health, and described a specific example in relation to ear, nose and throat surgery and speech-language pathology services.

Lessons from the overall collection of studies: positive and negative

A wide variety of papers contribute to the combined review’s overall finding that the included studies are overwhelmingly positive. As the section on the “dose effect” illustrates, throughout the time covered by the combined review, individual papers have contributed to a wider understanding that goes beyond specific issues about research networks. Many papers contribute to the analysis of both the strength of the association between research engagement and improved healthcare, and the mechanisms involved. For example, a 2019 US positive study by Fanaroff et al. [ 60 ] identified improved care and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated at research active hospitals, even after accounting for potential confounders. The authors encapsulated some of the key thinking on research engagement with their conclusion that participation in clinical trials by hospitals “may be emblematic of a culture that embraces novel therapeutics, engages both clinicians and patients, and incentivizes continuous improvement in care” (p. 191) [ 60 ].

While overall the 95 studies included in the combined review are positive, about 10% are categorized as negative. These nine negative papers also provide important insights [ 7 , 11 , 15 , 20 , 25 , 67 , 79 , 81 , 99 ]. For example, existing widespread use of one proven intervention prior to a company-sponsored clinical trial exploring physicians’ adherence to international treatment recommendations meant that the trial had no significant impact on that adherence, although it did increase use of the trial sponsor’s drug [ 7 ]; physicians adopted another trial intervention before it was proven one way or another [ 11 ]; more positively, a unique policy and regulatory environment governing the adoption of another intervention ensured that all hospitals benefitted, not just those in the trial [ 79 ]. Two teams with negative results later conducted further, more comprehensive studies with positive conclusions [ 25 , 26 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Six of the seven papers examining whether NCI-designated cancer centres provided patients with better healthcare processes and outcomes are positive [ 52 , 64 , 80 , 84 , 86 , 106 ]. However, one paper suggested that outcomes were worse in these accredited hospitals despite the better healthcare and, in seeking to explain this, drew attention to the factors considered in the accreditation processes used by different organizations and how far they accurately captured the most relevant data [ 81 ].

Our original review set out to find whether there was empirical evidence that supported the often-held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. It concluded that there was some positive evidence but that systematic analysis of the data related to this engagement was in its infancy [ 2 ]. The 62 papers in the updated review, 58 of which are positive, provide further empirical evidence to support the positive conclusions of the original review.

When the papers from both reviews are considered together, they provide a more complete dataset than previously available [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], and an updated picture of this literature in which the trends identified in our initial analyses [ 3 ] become more apparent. With more than a third of the papers in the combined review (32/95) focussing on aspects of cancer, this is the field overall in which there is the most comprehensive analysis of the link between research engagement and improved healthcare. While the individual cancer papers differ in the strength of the association identified, and most of the papers focus one or other of the main cancer sites, many of the cancer papers analyse the role of research networks – one of the main mechanisms through which it is claimed research engagement improves healthcare.

The combined review reflects policy shifts and organizational changes that occurred first in the United States and later in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and were designed to address the time lag between the production of research and its use in practice. These include the development of research networks and their associated databases over several decades (accompanied by an improved understanding of their strengths and limitations [ 54 , 64 , 77 , 106 , 108 ]) and efforts to strengthen links between academic centres and community services [ 61 , 87 ]. More recent developments, especially in the United Kingdom, encouraged further deliberate attempts to identify and explore the impacts of research engagement. Research teams were, for example, better able to study the real-world impacts of system-level mechanisms such as research networks as they became more formalized and embedded in national health and science structures [ 58 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 93 , 101 ].

Across the board, within and beyond networks, there is also further evidence about the mechanisms by which research engagement might improve healthcare, including the ones identified in our original review. The role of strong evidence-based protocols developed for RCTs, but contributing to improved healthcare more widely in research active healthcare sites, was highlighted in various studies [ 77 , 98 , 105 ]. Papers also identified the importance of providing evidence-based/guideline consistent care, which could also be linked to a culture of discovery, excellence and collaboration [ 40 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 77 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 106 ]. There were also more nuanced mechanisms at the speciality and clinician levels, such as the use of multi-disciplinary coordination of care in radiation therapy treatment [ 107 ] and practitioner skill development in substance abuse work [ 90 ]. Similar practitioner skill development was also reported among nurses and AHPs, including in the wider literature [ 31 , 38 , 39 , 62 , 70 , 101 ].

In the combined review it also became easier to see connections across this diverse literature. It was possible to identify research teams that had worked together on multiple studies and to explore the extent of cross referencing. In the United States, for example, the CTN of the drug abuse institute had been created to emulate the CCOP, and a centre was established to assess the CTN’s impact [ 114 ]. Analysis of this research network highlighted its role both in conducting research that was relevant to the “real-world” needs of clinical settings, and in enhancing evidence-adoption by healthcare organizations and staff [ 114 ]. Many of the papers from this substance abuse CTN [ 23 , 49 , 90 ] referenced each other and also cross-referenced key cancer papers [ 8 , 24 , 54 ], and there was common use of the same early sources [ 110 , 112 , 115 , 116 ]. These interactions prompted ongoing methodological development, strengthened understanding of theoretical concepts, and supported shared learning across the specialities. Additionally, themes that had been recognized in the original review, including concepts such as absorptive capacity [ 5 , 111 ], were further explored and tested in new contexts, even if the same literature was not always drawn upon [ 40 , 65 ].

In the combined review, the nature and strength of the association found between research engagement and improved health varies enormously among the 86 positive papers, even among those that describe the role of research networks. One approach that begins to identify where evidence might be strongest was noted in the original review as being the important concept of the “dose effect”, even if it was not specifically labelled as such [ 26 ]. However, the combined review can now more fully consider the concept because evidence about this greatly increased as the scope of the papers included has increased. There are many more studies where all the clinicians or organizations compared are engaged in research but to varying extents and/or with different levels of resources, for example within a trial [ 28 , 50 , 59 , 73 , 93 , 103 , 107 ] or within a network [ 23 , 33 , 49 , 51 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 85 , 95 ]. The inclusion of papers regarding differences within trials, and the emergence of the importance of the “dose effect”, have implications for both (a) how the issue of research engagement is analysed and (b) how far efforts to enhance research engagement should be concentrated or spread widely across a system.

In relation to the first of these issues, when considering how research engagement is analysed, the key question morphs somewhat: it is no longer simply whether research engagement improves healthcare performance compared with no research engagement, rather, it is whether a larger amount of research engagement improves healthcare performance by more than a smaller level of engagement (and, if so, by how much). Answers to these questions could then feed back to strengthen the evidence for a positive association between research engagement and improved healthcare performance.

In relation to the second question, about the concentration or wide distribution of research funding, analyses might have to consider the context and trade-offs in terms of benefits for improved health and health equity. The widespread distribution of research funding across the health system could maximize the number of patients who might benefit, but a more concentrated approach, with a higher dose of research engagement in a smaller number of hospitals, could maximize the benefit for patients in such centres.

Research infrastructures in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have been developed to enhance the relationship between health and health research systems, and the evidence from our combined review suggests that these changes have been positive. In both systems, but particularly in the United Kingdom, there have been deliberate attempts to fund major centres of research in leading healthcare facilities, as well as to spread research funding more widely to healthcare organizations across the country, but this impetus needs to be maintained if the full benefits of research engagement are to be realized.

Such an argument is reinforced by the conclusions of a major recent analysis of progress in the United Kingdom in engaging healthcare staff in research and building research capacity. The findings from the study suggest that many healthcare staff in the United Kingdom are interested in being involved in research, there are supportive national policies and strategies in place and there has been some important progress. However, achieving widespread involvement “will only be possible by focusing more on how healthcare organizations embed and support research activity through organizational policies which are supported by the wider research support and funding infrastructure. This is an essential part of a system-based approach to developing and supporting research engagement” (p. 356) [ 117 ]. The progress possible, and the potential benefits of trying to build a health research system embedded into a healthcare system, but also the full range of substantial challenges, have also recently been explored in a hospital and regional healthcare system in northern Queensland, Australia [ 118 , 119 ]. Studies such as these indicate that this combined review could provide timely evidence to further the challenging task of improving healthcare by boosting engagement in health research.

Strengths and limitations

The combined review contains a considerable number of papers from diverse perspectives, but the literature is drawn predominantly from the United States and the Global North, thus the conclusions may not be appropriate in different contexts, including in the Global South. This, perhaps, partly reflects the inclusion criteria of papers in English only. While the increasing use of bibliometrics as an indicator of research engagement has widened the range of positive studies available, differing claims as to the most appropriate measure of research publications challenge consistent interpretation of the data and indicate there is more work to do. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the national policy, noted in one paper, of attaching promotion and bonuses for clinicians to publish in journals with an impact factor of at least three [ 97 ] runs contrary to the internationally widely endorsed Declaration on Research Assessment [ 120 ].

The complexity of this literature (with many generic terms such as “research” and “engagement”), and the tangential approach of some papers to the broad question of whether research engagement improves performance, posed considerable challenges. It helped enormously that this time around, we were able to build on our experience in the original review. We adopted a somewhat more extensive approach to the formal search in the updated review, and we identified some papers that we had missed in the original review. We were aided by the generally greater clarity in later papers. We are now able, therefore, to present a more nuanced understanding of this field, building on our experience in the original review. In particular, we have found considerably more evidence on two topics identified as important in our original review, and on their implications for health equity: the role of research networks and consideration of how far there is a dose effect with regard to the degrees of research engagement. On both topics the combined review has strong papers showing important healthcare improvements even after considering potential confounders such as patient volume [ 8 , 13 , 26 , 40 , 58 , 73 , 77 , 84 , 85 , 86 ]. However, the failure of some papers to address such confounders [ 59 , 107 ] means some weaknesses in the overall analysis remain, and we are still not able to undertake any meta-analysis as the included literature remains very diverse.

We have now included a significant range of largely positive papers in the combined review. However, lack of resources meant we were not able to replicate our original review’s [ 2 , 3 ] structured analysis of the wider range of papers identified as making many relevant and illuminating points related to the topic, but not meeting the review’s inclusion criteria. For example, while the combined review does include some consideration of health equity issues, there were papers taken to full paper review that were not in the end included but which provide considerably more evidence [ 121 , 122 ].

Future possible work

The system-based approaches for expanding the amount of research in healthcare systems that are mentioned above continue to provide important opportunities for further work on exploring the relationship between research engagement and improved healthcare, including the implications for health equity. Likewise, improvements in the identification and collection of relevant data and developments in statistics have prompted increasingly sophisticated analyses, sometimes using approaches developed in other fields, and could continue to do so [ 65 , 90 , 94 ]. There has also been increasingly sophisticated use of bibliometrics, and there are likely to be continuing opportunities to apply such approaches to more countries. However, the warning from Downing et al. that caution is needed if attempting “to infer a causal contribution” from research participation to improved health outcomes [ 58 ], as well as frequent mention of similar disclaimers in other papers [ 8 , 40 , 54 , 59 , 69 , 74 ], is a reminder that more work is needed.

While some of our papers have claimed that the costs of research engagement are broadly covered by the associated reduced LoS [ 53 , 65 ], further research might be useful around the costs associated with research engagement and how these relate to reported benefits. Such studies could add to the existing large-scale studies showing the considerable monetary value of the health and economic gains resulting from health research [ 123 ].

The insights revealed by the negative papers, particularly in relation to the contexts in which research and research networks operate [ 99 ], could usefully be further explored. Merkow et al. [ 81 ], the one negative paper out of seven papers included on the NCI-designated centres, raises issues about the accuracy, or perhaps appropriateness, of the measurement used by various organizations to accredit cancer centres. These issues have also been explored by various teams [ 122 , 124 , 125 ] but could perhaps be worth further examination because the findings from Merkow et al. are so starkly different from those of other papers included in our review.

Finally, there are increasing opportunities, as well as a growing need, to address the limitations identified above (and also noted in the review by Chalmers et al. [ 39 ]) and go beyond the formal inclusion criteria of this review. A major area that could usefully be incorporated into an overall analysis of the field relates to the impact of the growing interest in research engagement strategies [ 126 ]. This includes the efforts to enhance research roles for healthcare professionals other than medical professionals [ 38 ], and the increasing number of organizational arrangements within health and health research systems for partnerships that seek to boost the production and use of relevant evidence [ 127 , 128 ].

Previous reviews [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] have investigated the association between research engagement and improvements in healthcare performance. This study updates and extends the most comprehensive of these reviews [ 2 , 3 ], and combines its findings with those from that original review to produce a more substantial pool of studies, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of potential mechanisms, the combined review highlights the important role played by research networks and further identifies the various ways the research engagement facilitated by them operates to improve healthcare. The review also draws together a set of papers which consider how far there is a research engagement “dose effect”. Given the difficulty of conducting randomized controlled trials of large-scale research engagement initiatives, studies of the dose effect offer another approach to understanding the potential contribution and complexities of research engagement, including the implications for health equity. This review provides further evidence of the important contribution played by systems-level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Allied health professionals

Clinical research network

Clinical trials network

Community Clinical Oncology Program

Length of stay

Mixed-methods appraisal tool

National Cancer Institute

National Health Service

National Institute for Health (and Care) Research

Practice-based research network

Research and development

Randomized controlled trials

Clarke M, Loudon K. Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner’s or institution’s participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials. 2011;12:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-16 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5: e009415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415 .

Hanney S, Boaz A, Jones T, Soper B. Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2013;1:8. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr01080 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J, Taylor NF. Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15180 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Rothrauff TC, Roman PM. The adoption of alcohol pharmacotherapies in the clinical trials network: the influence of research network participation. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38:275–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.01.003 .

Adler MW. Changes in local clinical practice following an experiment in medical care: evaluation of evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32:143–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.32.2.143 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Andersen M, Kragstrup J, Sondergaard J. How conducting a clinical trial affects physicians’ guideline adherence and drug preferences. JAMA. 2006;295:2759–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.23.2759 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carpenter WR, Reeder-Hayes K, Bainbridge J, Meyer A-M, Amos KD, Weiner BJ, et al. The role of organizational affiliations and research networks in the diffusion of breast cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2011;49:172–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182028ff2 .

Chaney EF, Rubenstein LV, Liu C-F, Yano EM, Bolkan C, Lee M, et al. Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: a cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign. Implement Sci. 2011;6:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-121 .

Chen AY, Schrag N, Hao Y, Flanders WD, Kepner J, Stewart A, et al. Changes in treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer 1985–2001. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135:831–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.07.012 .

Clark WF, Garg AX, Blake PG, Rock GA, Heidenheim AP, Sackett DL. Effect of awareness of a randomized controlled trial on use of experimental therapy. JAMA. 2003;290:1351–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.10.1351 .

Das D, Ishaq S, Harrison R, Kosuri K, Harper E, Decaestecker J, et al. Management of Barrett’s esophagus in the UK: overtreated and underbiopsied but improved by the introduction of a national randomised trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1079–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01790.x .

du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J, for the Organkommission OVAR. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:183–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15202.x .

Ducharme LJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM, Johnson JA. Innovation adoption in substance abuse treatment: exposure, trialability, and the clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32:321–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.05.021 .

Goldberg HI, Neighbor WE, Hirsch IB, Cheadle AD, Ramsey SD, Gore E. Evidence-based management: using serial firm trials to improve diabetes care quality. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:155–66.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hall C, Sigford B, Sayer N. Practice changes associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Family Care Collaborative. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(Suppl. 1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1125-3 .

Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, Blanchette C, Deschenes L. Variations in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in Quebec between 1988 and 1994. CMAJ. 1999;161:951–5.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Janni W, Kiechle M, Sommer H, Rack B, Gauger K, Heinrigs M, et al. Study participation improves treatment strategies and individual patient care in participating centers. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:3661–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(05)80107-9 .

Jha P, Deboer D, Sykora K, Naylor CD. Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:1335–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00018-6 .

Jones B, Ratzer E, Clark J, Zeren F, Haun W. Does peer-reviewed publication change the habits of surgeons? Am J Surg. 2000;180:566–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00495-5 .

Karjalainen S, Palva I. Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ. 1989;299:1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6707.1069 .

Kizer JR, Cannon CP, McCabe CH, Mueller HS, Schweiger MJ, Davis VG, et al. Trends in the use of pharmacotherapies for acute myocardial infarction among physicians who design and/or implement randomized trials vs physicians in routine clinical practice: the MILIS-TIMI experience. Am Heart J. 1999;137:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70462-x .

Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Johnson JA, Roman PM. Buprenorphine adoption in the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.12.004 .

Laliberte L, Fennell ML, Papandonatos G. The relationship of membership in research networks to compliance with treatment guidelines for early-stage breast cancer. Med Care. 2005;43:471–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160416.66188.f5 .

Majumdar SR, Chang W-C, Armstrong PW. Do the investigative sites that take part in a positive clinical trial translate that evidence into practice? Am J Med. 2002;113:140–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01166-X .

Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Chen AY, Gibler WB, Armstrong PW. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:657–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2007.124 .

Meineche-Schmidt V, Hvenegaard A, Juhl HH. Participation in a clinical trial influences the future management of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:1117–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x .

Morton AN, Bradshaw CS, Fairley CK. Changes in the diagnosis and management of bacterial vaginosis following clinical research. Sex Health. 2006;3:183–5. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH06024 .

Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Garcia-Fernandez FP, Lopez-Medina IM, Lopez-Ortega J. Pressure ulcer care in Spain: nurses’ knowledge and clinical practice. J Adv Nurs. 2007;58:327–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04236.x .

Pons J, Sais C, Illa C, Méndez R, Suñen E, Casas M, et al. Is there an association between the quality of hospitals’ research and their quality of care? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15:204–9. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009125 .

Puoane T, Sanders D, Ashworth A, Chopra M, Strasser S, McCoy D. Improving the hospital management of malnourished children by participatory research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh002 .

Rhyne R, Sussman AL, Fernald D, Weller N, Daniels E, Williams RL, et al. Reports of persistent change in the clinical encounter following research participation: a report from the primary care multiethnic network (PRIME Net). J Am Board Fam Med. 2011;24:496–502. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.100295 .

Rich AL, Tata LJ, Free CM, Stanley RA, Peake MD, Baldwin DR, et al. How do patient and hospital features influence outcomes in small-cell lung cancer in England? Br J Cancer. 2011;105:746–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.310 .

Rochon J, du Bois A. Clinical research in epithelial ovarian cancer and patients’ outcome. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(Suppl. 7):vii16–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr421 .

Salbach NM, Guilcher SJ, Jaglal SB, Davis DA. Determinants of research use in clinical decision making among physical therapists providing services post-stroke: a cross-sectional study. Implement Sci. 2010;5:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-77 .

Siegel RM, Bien J, Lichtenstein P, Davis J, Khoury JC, Knight JE, et al. A safety-net antibiotic prescription for otitis media: the effects of a PBRN study on patients and practitioners. Clin Pediatr. 2006;45:518–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922806290567 .

Warnecke R, Johnson T, Kaluzny A, Ford L. The community clinical oncology program: its effect on clinical practice. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:336–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Newington L, Wells M, Adonis A, Bolton L, Bolton Saghdaoui L, et al. A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:400. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y .

Chalmers S, Hill J, Connell L, Ackerley S, Kulkarni A, Roddam H. The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:766. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09555-9 .

Shahian DM, McCloskey D, Liu X, Schneider E, Cheng D, Mort EA. The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality. Health Serv Res. 2022;57(3):587–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13947 .

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl EA, Bayene J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354: i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Bramer WM, De Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:531–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 .

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 .

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Sys Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00785.x .

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. User guide. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf . Accessed 7 July 2024.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 .

Abraham AJ, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. The relationship between clinical trial network protocol involvement and quality of substance use disorder treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46:232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.021 .

Alotaibi NM, Ibrahim GM, Wang J, Guha D, Mamdani M, Schweizer TA, et al. Neurosurgeon academic impact is associated with clinical outcomes after clipping of ruptured intracranial aneurysms. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181521 .

Bennett WO, Bird JH, Burrows SA, Counter PR, Reddy VM. Does academic output correlate with better mortality rates in NHS trusts in England? Public Health. 2012;126(Suppl 1):S40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.021 .

Birkmeyer NJ, Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Hillner BE, Birkmeyer JD. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer. 2005;103(3):435–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20785 .

Brown A, Griffiss M. Effect of integrated research programs on health care systems and costs. Mil Med. 1996;161:691–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/161.11.691 .

Carpenter WR, Meyer AM, Wu Y, Qaqish B, Sanoff HK, Goldberg RM, et al. Translating research into practice: the role of provider-based research networks in the diffusion of an evidence-based colon cancer treatment innovation. Med Care. 2012;50:737–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824ebe13 .

Corrigan MH, Glass HE. Physician participation in clinical studies and subsequent prescribing of new drugs. Pharm Ther. 2005;30(1):60–6.

Google Scholar  

de Arriba-Enriquez J, Sanz-Casado E, Vieta E, Rapado-Castro M, Arango C. Quality of care in psychiatry is related to research activity. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(1): e53. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.16 .

de Lange TS, Roos C, Bloemenkamp KW, Bolte AC, Duvekot JJ, Franssen MT, et al. Impact of a randomized trial on maintenance tocolysis on length of hospital admission of women with threatened preterm labor in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.12.003 .

Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut. 2017;66:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311308 .

Eaton BR, Pugh SL, Bradley JD, Masters G, Kavadi VS, Narayan S, et al. Institutional enrollment and survival among NSCLC patients receiving chemoradiation: NRG oncology radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 0617. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9): djw034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw034 .

Fanaroff AC, Vora AN, Chen AY, Mathews R, Udell JA, Roe MT, et al. Hospital participation in clinical trials for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Am Heart J. 2019;214:184–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2019.05.011 .

Farquhar DR, Masood MM, Lenze NR, Sheth S, Patel SN, Lumley C, et al. Academic affiliation and surgical volume predict survival in head and neck cancer patients receiving surgery. Laryngoscope. 2021;131:E479–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28744 .

Fernández-Domínguez JC, De Pedro-Gómez JE, Jiménez-López R, Romero-Franco N, Bays Moneo AB, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca Á, et al. Physiotherapists’ evidence-based practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: a cross-sectional normative study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(6): e0269460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269460 .

Fields D, Knudsen HK, Roman PM. Implementation of network for the improvement of addiction treatment (NIATx) processes in substance use disorder treatment centers. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;43:354–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9466-7 .

Fong ZV, Chang DC, Hur C, et al. Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: an analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2020;220(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.03.035 .

García-Romero A, Escribano Á, Tribó JA. The impact of health research on length of stay in Spanish public hospitals. Res Policy. 2017;46:591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.006 .

Gilbert GH, Gordan VV, Funkhouser EM, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Qvist V, et al. Caries treatment in a dental practice-based research network: movement toward stated evidence-based treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41:143–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12008 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. NHS Trusts’ clinical research activity and overall CQC performance—Is there a correlation? Public Health. 2015;129:1491–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ. The correlation between National Health Service trusts’ clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Public Health. 2018;157:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.022 .

Jonker L, Fisher SJ, Badgett RG. Relationship between staff thriving, through engagement and research activity, and hospital-related outcome measures: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Healthc Qual Res. 2021;36(3):128–35.

Kirby K, Brandling J, Robinson M, Thomas M, Voss S, Benger J. The experiences of EMS providers taking part in a large randomised trial of airway management during out of hospital cardiac arrest, and the impact on their views and practice. Results of a survey and telephone interviews. Resuscitation. 2020;149:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.01.034 .

Kirwan CC, Al Sarakbi W, Loncaster J, Chan HY, Thompson AM, Wishart GC. Tumour bed clip localisation for targeted breast radiotherapy: compliance is proportional to trial-related research activity: tumour bed clip localisation in breast radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:158–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.11.016 .

Levan JM, Brion LP, Wrage LA, Gantz MG, Wyckoff MH, Sánchez PJ, et al. Change in practice after the surfactant, positive pressure and oxygenation randomised trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99:F386–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306057 .

Lin DJ, McConkey CC, Nankivell P, Dunn J, Mehanna H. The impact of institutional clinical trial recruitment versus hospital volume on survival outcomes of patients with head and neck cancer: an analysis of the PET-NECK trial outcomes, UKCRN portfolio, and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. Oral Oncol. 2018;85:40–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08.006 .

Litjens RJ, Oude Rengerink K, Danhof NA, Kruitwagen RF, Mol BW. Does recruitment for multicenter clinical trials improve dissemination and timely implementation of their results? A survey study from the Netherlands. Clin Trials. 2013;10:915–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513504150 .

Ljunggren M, Weibull CE, Rosander E, et al. Hospital factors and metastatic surgery in colorectal cancer patients, a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:907. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10005-8 .

Manes E, Tchetchik A, Tobol Y, Durst R, Chodick G. An empirical investigation of “physician congestion” in US University Hospitals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050761 .

Marmor S, Begun J, Abraham J, et al. The impact of center accreditation on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.219 .

McBride R, Leroux B, Lindblad A, Williams OD, Lehmann M, Rindal DB, et al. Measuring the impact of practice-based research networks on member dentists in the Collaboration on Networked Dental and Oral Health Research, CONDOR. J Dent. 2013;41:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.005 .

McCarthy FH, Groeneveld PW, Kobrin D, Mcdermott KM, Wirtalla C, Desai ND. Effect of clinical trial experience on transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8: e002234. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002234 .

McDaniels-Davidson C, Feng CH, Martinez ME, Canchola AJ, Gomez SL, Nodora JN, et al. Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute—Designated cancer centers. Cancer. 2022;128:3479–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34404 .

Merkow RP, Chung JW, Paruch JL, Bentrem DJ. Center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1091–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000542 .

Meyer AM, Reeder-Hayes KE, Liu H, Wheeler SB, Penn D, Weiner BJ, et al. Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks. Med Care. 2013;51:812–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829c8ca4 .

Mold JW, Aspy CB, Smith PD, Zink T, Knox L, Lipman PD, et al. Leveraging practice-based research networks to accelerate implementation and diffusion of chronic kidney disease guidelines in primary care practices: a prospective cohort study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0169-x .

Murimwa GZ, Karalis JD, Meier J, et al. Hospital designations and their impact on guideline-concordant care and survival in pancreatic cancer. Do they matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30:4377–87. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13308-7 .

Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, Poloniecki JD, Hinchliffe RJ, Thompson MM, et al. Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0118253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118253 .

Paulson EC, Mitra N, Sonnad S, Armstrong K, Wirtalla C, Kelz RR, et al. National cancer institute designation predicts improved outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:675–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187a757 .

Penn DC, Chang Y, Meyer AM, Defilippo Mack C, Sanoff HK, Stitzenberg KB, et al. Provider-based research networks may improve early access to innovative colon cancer treatment for African Americans treated in the community. Cancer. 2015;121:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29028 .

Prendergast EA, Perkins S, Engel ME, Cupido B, Francis V, Joachim A, et al. Participation in research improves overall patient management: insights from the global rheumatic heart disease registry (REMEDY). Cardiovasc J Afr. 2018;29:98–105. https://doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2017-054 .

Rai A, Nastoupil LJ, Williams JN, Lipscomb J, Ward KC, Howard DH, et al. Patterns of use and survival outcomes of positron emission tomography for initial staging in elderly follicular lymphoma patients. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58:1570–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2016.1253836 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Bride BE. Implementation of motivational interviewing in substance use disorder treatment: research network participation and organizational compatibility. J Addict Med. 2016;10:402–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000251 .

Rieckmann TR, Abraham AJ, Kovas AE, Mcfarland BH, Roman PM. Impact of research network participation on the adoption of buprenorphine for substance abuse treatment. Addict Behav. 2014;39:889–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.016 .

Rindal DB, Flottemesch TJ, Durand EU, Godlevsky OV, Schmidt AM, Gilbert GH. Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN. Implement Sci. 2014;9:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0177-x .

Robinson TG, Wang X, Durham AC, Ford GA, Liao J, Littlewood S, et al. The National Institute for Health Research Hyperacute Stroke Research Centres and the ENCHANTED trial: the impact of enhanced research infrastructure on trial metrics and patient outcomes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0417-2 .

Rochon J, Du Bois A, Lange T. Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-9 .

Salge TO, Vera A. Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: evidence from English public acute care. Health Care Manag Rev. 2009;34:54–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80 .

Seaburg LA, Wang AT, West CP, Reed DA, Halvorsen AJ, Engstler G, et al. Associations between resident physicians’ publications and clinical performance during residency training. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0543-2 .

Shen M, Liang X, Li L, Wu Y, Yang Y, Zingg R. The association of attending physicians’ publications and patients’ readmission rates: evidence from tertiary hospitals in china using a retrospective data analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159760 .

Siracuse JJ, Goodney PP, Menard MT, Rosenfield K, Van Over M, Hamza T, et al. Participation in a chronic limb threatening ischemia randomized trial is inversely correlated with regional amputation rate in limb threatening ischemia patients. Ann Surg. 2021;274(4):621–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005058 .

Tan HJ, Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Smith AB, Wheeler SB, Carpenter WR, et al. Provider-based research networks and diffusion of surgical technologies among patients with early-stage kidney cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:836–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29144 .

Tchetchik A, Grinstein A, Manes E, Shapira D, Durst R. From research to practice: which research strategy contributes more to clinical excellence? Comparing high-volume versus high-quality biomedical research. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0129259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129259 .

Trusson D, Rowley E, Bramley L. A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e030595. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030595 .

Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Kirby AM, Locke I, Venables K, Yarnold JR, et al. Clinical impact of IMPORT HIGH trial (CRUK/06/003) on breast radiotherapy practices in the United Kingdom. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20150453. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150453 .

Tsang JLY, Binnie A, Duan EH, Johnstone J, Heels-Ansdell D, Reeve B. Academic and community ICUs participating in a critical care randomized trial: a comparison of patient characteristics and trial metrics. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4(11): e0794. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000794 .

Van Der Tuuk K, Koopmans CM, Groen H, Mol BW, Van Pampus MG. Impact of the HYPITAT trial on doctors’ behaviour and prevalence of eclampsia in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2011;118:1658–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03138.x .

Venables K, Tsang Y, Ciurlionis L, Coles CE, Yarnold JR. Does participation in clinical trials influence the implementation of new techniques? A look at changing techniques in breast radiotherapy in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24:e100–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2012.06.010 .

Wolfson JA, Sun CL, Wyatt LP, Hurria A, Bhatia S. Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: results from a population-based study. Cancer. 2015;121(21):3885–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29576 .

Wuthrick EJ, Zhang Q, Machtay M, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tan PF, Fortin A, et al. Institutional clinical trial accrual volume and survival of patients with head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(2):156–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5218 .

Yawn BP, Pace W, Dietrich A, Bertram S, Kurland M, Graham D, et al. Practice benefit from participating in a practice-based research network study of postpartum depression: a national research network (NRN) report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23:455–64. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090246 .

Young C, Gunasekera H, Kong K, Purcell A, Muthayya S, Vincent F, et al. A case study of enhanced clinical care enabled by Aboriginal health research: the Hearing, EAr health and Language Services (HEALS) project. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12586 .

Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.

Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q. 1990;35(1):128–52.

Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev. 2002;27:185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 .

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 .

Roman PM, Abraham AJ, Rothrauff TC, Knudsen HK. A longitudinal study of organizational formation, innovation adoption, and dissemination activities within the national drug abuse treatment clinical trials network. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;38(Suppl 1):S44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.12.008 .

Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, et al. Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program. Cancer. 2010;116:4440–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25248 .

Fennell M, Warneke R. The diffusion of medical innovations: an applied network analysis: environment, development, and public policy and social services. Boston: Springer; 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5436-9 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Peckham S, Eida T, Hashem F, Kendall S. Research engagement and research capacity building: a priority for healthcare organisations in the UK. J Health Organ Manag. 2023;37(3):343–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2021-0436 .

Edelman A, Brown A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. Evaluating research investment and impact at a regional Australian hospital and health service: a programme theory and conceptual framework. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0542-y .

Brown A, Edelman A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. “We’re not providing the best care if we are not on the cutting edge of research”: a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian hospital and health service. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):3000–11. https://doi.org/10.34172/IJHPM.2022.6529 .

San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/ . Accessed 18 Apr 2024.

Ailawadhi S, Advani P, Yang D, Ghosh R, Swaika A, et al. Impact of access to NCI- and NCCN-designated cancer centers on outcomes for multiple myeloma patients: a SEER registry analysis. Cancer. 2016;122:618–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29771 .

Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Diaz A, Moris D, Abbas A, Dillhoff M, et al. Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Am J Surg. 2021;222(3):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.01.015 .

Grant J, Buxton MJ. Economic returns to medical research funding. BMJ Open. 2018;8: e022131. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022131 .

Schlick CJ, Yang AD. Is there value in cancer center accreditation? Am J Surg. 2023;220(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.05.001 .

Hussein M, Pavlova M, Ghalwash M, Groot W. The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1057.

Yoong SL, Bolsewicz K, Reilly K, et al. Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08887-2 .

Soper B, Yaqub O, Hinrichs S, Marjanovich S, Drabble S, Hanney S, et al. CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613499903 .

Kislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implement Sci. 2018;13:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Teresa Jones for her expert advice on the search strategy. The review was completed as partial fulfilment of Belinda Goodenough’s Masters dissertation at King’s College London. In the original full report for our first review [ 3 ], we gratefully acknowledged the valuable help we had received from our expert advisory group. The members included two patient representatives who were consulted at various stages throughout the project, especially around the necessity of having our systematic review focus on the complexities of benefits from research engagement by healthcare organizations and staff, while separate reviews and analyses focussed on the benefits of PPI in health research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 20 Kingsway, London, United Kingdom

Annette Boaz

The Sax Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Belinda Goodenough

Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Stephen Hanney & Bryony Soper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in planning the study. B.G. conducted the searches, with all authors involved in screening and analysis. B.G. produced an initial draft of the paper. The final version of the paper was produced collaboratively by all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Goodenough, B., Hanney, S. et al. If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 113 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

Download citation

Received : 14 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical trials
• Healthcare organizations
• Patient outcomes
• Processes of care
• Research engagement
• Systematic review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Strengthening akis for sustainable agricultural features: insights and innovations from the european union: a literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. data collection procedure, 2.2. identification criteria, 2.3. screening and selection criteria, 2.4. eligibility and inclusion criteria.

• The studies that were carried out or considered the 28 countries in the European Union (including the United Kingdom until 2019 and excluding Romania).
• Studies published in the English Language.
• Studies that were published within the past 11 years (the review covers the period from 2014 to 2024, a period in which the two previous Programming Periods of the Common Agricultural Policy were implemented).
• Studies covering the inclusion of a transparent description of the process of data acquisition and interpretation.
• Studies covering a primary or secondary class investigation on the subject matter.
• Studies showcasing the effects of AKISs and FASs on agricultural knowledge advancement.
• Studies published in a non-English language.
• Studies carried out outside the EU.
• Studies with unclear methodology of data collection and analysis.
• Studies lacking author names and affiliation.
• Studies not covering both the main issues of this review (i.e., AKIS and FAS).

4. Discussion

4.1. akis and fas in the foreground through the new cap, 4.2. improving the effectiveness of an akis, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kuiper, D.; Roling, N.G. Proceedings of the European Seminar on Knowledge Management and Information Technology ; Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 8–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermans, F.; Geerling-Eiff, F.; Potters, J.; Klerkx, L. Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments—Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 88 , 76–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Union Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (EU SCAR). Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition—A Reflection Paper ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Labarthe, P.; Beck, M. CAP and Advisory Services: From Farm Advisory Systems to Innovation Support. EuroChoices 2022 , 21 , 5–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiraly, G.; Vago, S.; Bull, E.; Van der Cruyssen, L.; Arbour, T.; Spanoghe, P.; Van Dijk, L. Information behaviour of farmers, foresters, and advisors in the context of digitalisation in the EU. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2023 , 125 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J. Are advisory services “fit for purpose” to support sustainable soil management? An assessment of advice in Europe. Soil Use Manag. 2019 , 35 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laurent, C.; Nguyen, G.; Triboulet, P.; Ansaloni, M.; Bechtet, N.; Labarthe, P. Institutional continuity and hidden changes in farm advisory services provision: Evidence from farmers’ microAKIS observations in France. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2021 , 28 , 601–624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madureira, L.; Labarthe, P.; Marues, C.S.; Santos, G. Exploring micro AKIS: Farmer-centric evidence on the role of advice in agricultural innovation in Europe. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2022 , 28 , 549–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amerani, E.; Michailidis, A. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in a Changing Environment in Greece. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Hellenic Association of Agricultural Economists, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2–3 November 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiljunen, J.; Jaakkola, D. AKIS and Advisory Services in Finland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Charatsari, C.; Michailidis, A.; Francescone, M.; De Rosa, M.; Aidonis, D.; Bartoli, L.; La Rocca, G.; Camanzi, L.; Lioutas, E.D. Do Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Have the Dynamic Capabilities to Guide the Digital Transition of Short Food Supply Chains? Information 2024 , 15 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masi, M.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y.; Adinolfi, F. The long way to innovation adoption: Insights from precision agriculture. Agric. Food Econ. 2022 , 10 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nordlund, I.; Norrby, T. AKIS and advisory services in Sweden. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Sturel, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in France. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Enfedaque Diaz, L.; Jimenez Gonzalez, A.; Pures Pato, M.A. AKIS and advisory services in Spain. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Almeida, R.; Viveiros, F. AKIS and Advisory Services in Portugal. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Birke, F.; Bae, S.; Schober Gerster-Bentaya, M.; Knierim, A.; Asensio, P.; Kolbeck, M.; Ketelhodt, C. AKIS and Advisory Services in Germany. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Jelakovic, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Croatia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Stankovic, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Serbia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Hrovatic, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovenia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Bachev, H. Governance of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Bulgaria. SSRN Electron. J. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Cyprus. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Kernecker, M.; Erdle, K.; Kraus, T.; Borges, F.; Wurbs, A. Smart farming technology innovations—Insights and reflections from the German Smart-AKIS hub. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 90–91 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Pappa, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Greece. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Coquil, X.; Cerf, M.; Auricoste, C.; Joannon, A.; Barcellini, F.; Cayre, P.; Chizallet, M.; Dedieu, B.; Hostiou, N.; Hellec, F.; et al. Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018 , 38 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lybaert, C.; Debruyne, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Belgium. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dortmans, E.; Van Geel, D.; Van der Velde, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Netherlands. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Gaborne, J.A.; Varga, Z.; Ver, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Hungary. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• de Foliveira, M.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Ferreira, S.; Teixeira, M.; Damαsio, H.; Ferreira, A.D.; Gonηalves, J.M. Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirra, L.; Caputo, N.; Gandolfi, F.; Menna, C. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Campania Region: The challenges facing the first implementation of experimental model. J. Agric. Policy 2020 , 3 , 35–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; Sturla, V.; D’Oronzio, M.A.; Proietti, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Italy. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Todorova, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Bulgaria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dzelme, A.; Zurins, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Latvia. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Matuseviciute, E.; Petraitis, R.; Sakickiene, A.; Titiskyte, L.; Urbanaviciene, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Lithuania. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Zimmer, S.; Stoll, E.; Leimbrock-Rosch, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Luxembourg. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Giagnocavo, C.; de Cara-Garcνa, M.; Gonzαlez, M.; Juan, M.; Marνn-Guirao, J.I.; Mehrabi, S.; Rodrνguez, E.; van der Blom, J.; Crisol-Martνnez, E. Reconnecting Farmers with Nature through Agroecological Transitions: Interacting Niches and Experimentation and the Role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klitgaard, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Denmark. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2019. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; D’Oronzio MA Proietti, P.; Sturla, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Malta. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Boenning, K.; Caggiano, M.; Cristσvγo, A.; Dirimanova, V.; Koehnen, T.; Labarthe, P.; Prager, K. The AKIS Concept and its Relevance in Selected EU Member States. Outlook Agric. 2015 , 44 , 29–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Terziev, V.; Arabska, E. Enhancing Competitiveness and Sustainability of Agri-Food Sector through Market-Oriented Technology Development in Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the III International Scientific Congress Agricultural Machinery, Varna, Bulgaria, 22–25 June 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. AKIS and Advisory Services in Czech Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Kasdorferova, Z.; Palus, H.; Kadlecikova MSvikruhova, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovak Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Boczek, K.; Ambryszewska, K.; Dabrowski, J.; Ulicka, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Poland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J.; Black, J.E.; Chivers, C.-A.; Aznar-Sαnchez, J.A.; Elsen, A.; Frac, M.; Lσpez-Felices, B.; Mayer-Gruner, P.; Skaalsveen, K.; et al. Do Agricultural Advisory Services in Europe Have the Capacity to Support the Transition to Healthy Soils? Land 2022 , 11 , 599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herzog, F.; Neubauer, E. AKIS and Advisory Services in Austria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Banninger, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Switzerland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Maher, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Ireland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Dunne, A.; Markey, A.; Kinsella, J. Examining the reach of public and private agricultural advisory services and farmers’ perceptions of their quality: The case of county Laois in Ireland. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2019 , 25 , 401–414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knuth, U.; Knierim, A. How to strengthen the link between advisors and research in a privatized advisory system?—The case of Brandenburg, Germany. In Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium, Berlin, Germany, 1–4 April 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. The role of the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information in the Czech Agricultural Knowledge Information System. Rural Areas Dev. 2018 , 15 , 49–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klerkx, L.; Straete, E.P.; Kvam, G.T.; Ystad, E.; Harstad RM, B. Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: Case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017 , 23 , 213–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamsalu, H. AKIS and Advisory Services in Estonia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Kania, J.; Zmija, J. Changes in Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems: Case Study of Poland. Visegrad J. Bioeconomy 2016 , 5 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xieyang, C.; Tongsheng, l. Diffusion of Agricultural Technology Innovation: Research Progress of Innovation Diffusion in Chinese Agricultural Science and Technology Praks. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 15008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios G, Kanakaris S, Moulogianni C, Bournaris T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios, Georgios, Spyridon Kanakaris, Christina Moulogianni, and Thomas Bournaris. 2024. "Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals