literature review relevance of

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

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

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

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

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

Find this useful?

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

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

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

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

Define Key Concepts and Theories

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

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

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

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

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

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

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

Support Your Argument

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

Literature Review Editing Services 

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

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

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

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• 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

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

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 Collection 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: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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.

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: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

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: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without....

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Research Process

Literature Review in Research Writing

• 4 minute read
• 422.7K views

Table of Contents

Research on research? If you find this idea rather peculiar, know that nowadays, with the huge amount of information produced daily all around the world, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep up to date with all of it. In addition to the sheer amount of research, there is also its origin. We are witnessing the economic and intellectual emergence of countries like China, Brazil, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates, for example, that are producing scholarly literature in their own languages. So, apart from the effort of gathering information, there must also be translators prepared to unify all of it in a single language to be the object of the literature survey. At Elsevier, our team of translators is ready to support researchers by delivering high-quality scientific translations , in several languages, to serve their research – no matter the topic.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a study – or, more accurately, a survey – involving scholarly material, with the aim to discuss published information about a specific topic or research question. Therefore, to write a literature review, it is compulsory that you are a real expert in the object of study. The results and findings will be published and made available to the public, namely scientists working in the same area of research.

How to Write a Literature Review

First of all, don’t forget that writing a literature review is a great responsibility. It’s a document that is expected to be highly reliable, especially concerning its sources and findings. You have to feel intellectually comfortable in the area of study and highly proficient in the target language; misconceptions and errors do not have a place in a document as important as a literature review. In fact, you might want to consider text editing services, like those offered at Elsevier, to make sure your literature is following the highest standards of text quality. You want to make sure your literature review is memorable by its novelty and quality rather than language errors.

Writing a literature review requires expertise but also organization. We cannot teach you about your topic of research, but we can provide a few steps to guide you through conducting a literature review:

• Choose your topic or research question: It should not be too comprehensive or too limited. You have to complete your task within a feasible time frame.
• Set the scope: Define boundaries concerning the number of sources, time frame to be covered, geographical area, etc.
• Decide which databases you will use for your searches: In order to search the best viable sources for your literature review, use highly regarded, comprehensive databases to get a big picture of the literature related to your topic.
• Search, search, and search: Now you’ll start to investigate the research on your topic. It’s critical that you keep track of all the sources. Start by looking at research abstracts in detail to see if their respective studies relate to or are useful for your own work. Next, search for bibliographies and references that can help you broaden your list of resources. Choose the most relevant literature and remember to keep notes of their bibliographic references to be used later on.
• Review all the literature, appraising carefully it’s content: After reading the study’s abstract, pay attention to the rest of the content of the articles you deem the “most relevant.” Identify methodologies, the most important questions they address, if they are well-designed and executed, and if they are cited enough, etc.

If it’s the first time you’ve published a literature review, note that it is important to follow a special structure. Just like in a thesis, for example, it is expected that you have an introduction – giving the general idea of the central topic and organizational pattern – a body – which contains the actual discussion of the sources – and finally the conclusion or recommendations – where you bring forward whatever you have drawn from the reviewed literature. The conclusion may even suggest there are no agreeable findings and that the discussion should be continued.

Why are literature reviews important?

Literature reviews constantly feed new research, that constantly feeds literature reviews…and we could go on and on. The fact is, one acts like a force over the other and this is what makes science, as a global discipline, constantly develop and evolve. As a scientist, writing a literature review can be very beneficial to your career, and set you apart from the expert elite in your field of interest. But it also can be an overwhelming task, so don’t hesitate in contacting Elsevier for text editing services, either for profound edition or just a last revision. We guarantee the very highest standards. You can also save time by letting us suggest and make the necessary amendments to your manuscript, so that it fits the structural pattern of a literature review. Who knows how many worldwide researchers you will impact with your next perfectly written literature review.

Know more: How to Find a Gap in Research .

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

What is a Research Gap

• Manuscript Preparation

Types of Scientific Articles

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

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

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

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

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

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

The common perception of literature review and reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of literature review in research:

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

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

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

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

• Literature Review
• Academic Integrity
• Citing Sources
• Fair Use, Permissions, and Copyright
• Writing Resources
• Grants and Fellowships
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• Open access
• Published: 25 April 2024

A scoping review of academic and grey literature on migrant health research conducted in Scotland

• G. Petrie 1 ,
• K. Angus 2 &
• R. O’Donnell 2  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  1156 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

73 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Migration to Scotland has increased since 2002 with an increase in European residents and participation in the Asylum dispersal scheme. Scotland has become more ethnically diverse, and 10% of the current population were born abroad. Migration and ethnicity are determinants of health, and information on the health status of migrants to Scotland and their access to and barriers to care facilitates the planning and delivery of equitable health services. This study aimed to scope existing peer-reviewed research and grey literature to identify gaps in evidence regarding the health of migrants in Scotland.

A scoping review on the health of migrants in Scotland was carried out for dates January 2002 to March 2023, inclusive of peer-reviewed journals and grey literature. CINAHL/ Web of Science/SocIndex and Medline databases were systematically searched along with government and third-sector websites. The searches identified 2166 journal articles and 170 grey literature documents for screening. Included articles were categorised according to the World Health Organisation’s 2016 Strategy and Action Plan for Refugee and Migrant Health in the European region. This approach builds on a previously published literature review on Migrant Health in the Republic of Ireland.

Seventy-one peer reviewed journal articles and 29 grey literature documents were included in the review. 66% were carried out from 2013 onwards and the majority focused on asylum seekers or unspecified migrant groups. Most research identified was on the World Health Organisation’s strategic areas of right to health of refugees, social determinants of health and public health planning and strengthening health systems. There were fewer studies on the strategic areas of frameworks for collaborative action, preventing communicable disease, preventing non-communicable disease, health screening and assessment and improving health information and communication.

While research on migrant health in Scotland has increased in recent years significant gaps remain. Future priorities should include studies of undocumented migrants, migrant workers, and additional research is required on the issue of improving health information and communication.

Peer Review reports

The term migrant is defined by the International Organisation for Migration as “ a person who moves away from his or her place of usual residence, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons. The term includes several well-defined legal categories of people, including migrant workers; persons whose particular types of movements are legally-defined, such as smuggled migrants; as well as those whose status are not specifically defined under international law, such as international students.” [ 1 ] Internationally there are an estimated 281 million migrants – 3.6% of the world population, including 26.4 million refugees and 4.1 million asylum seekers – the highest number ever recorded [ 2 ]. The UN Refugee Society defines the term refugee as “ someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence…most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so .” The term asylum-seeker is defined as “someone whose request for sanctuary has yet to be processed.” [ 3 ].

Net-migration to Europe was negative in the 19th century due to higher levels of emigration, however in the mid-20th century immigration began to rise, because of an increase in migrant workers and following conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa [ 4 ]. Current migration drivers include conflicts alongside world-wide economic instability, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic [ 5 ]. Environmental damage due to climate change is expected to inflate the number of asylum seekers entering Europe in future [ 6 ]. The increase in migration to Europe is not a short-term influx but a long-term phenomenon, and European nations must adapt and find solutions to resulting financial, safeguarding and health challenges [ 7 ].

Data on healthcare use by migrants in Europe is variable, which means cross-country comparisons are inadequate [ 8 ]. Many countries do not record migration information within health records and all use disparate criteria to classify migrant status. The lack of comparative data hinders public health surveillance and effective interventions [ 9 ]. Even where information is available, results can be contradictory due to the multifarious migrant population. Migrants have a wide range of origin countries, socio-economic position, age and journeys undertaken which can affect health status [ 10 ].

Migrants initially may have better health than the general population, known as the ‘Healthy Migrant effect’ [ 11 ]. However, health declines with increasing length of residence [ 12 ] and over time to levels comparable with the general population [ 13 ]. Second generation immigrants may have higher mortality than average [ 14 ]. The process of acculturation to the host country, with adoption of unhealthy lifestyle and behaviours, increases the risk for chronic disease [ 15 ]. In addition, inequalities in health of migrants compared to host populations has been confirmed by wide-ranging research [ 16 ].

Host countries may limit healthcare access, with undocumented migrants sometimes only entitled to emergency care [ 17 ]. Even when access is granted, inequitable services can affect quality of care due to language barriers and cultural factors [ 18 ]. Poor working/living conditions and discrimination can exacerbate health inequalities [ 12 ]. Processing facilities for asylum seekers are frequently overpopulated, stressful environments [ 19 ] and threat of deportation, lack of citizenship rights and integration can negatively affect health and access to care [ 20 ]. Undocumented workers are unprotected by health and safety legislation leading to dangerous working conditions and injuries [ 15 ].

A systematic review of migrant health in the European Union (EU) found migrants have worse self-perceived health than the general population [ 21 ]. Research evidence indicates increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health disorders and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Exposure to conflict, harsh travel conditions and suboptimal vaccine programmes can mean higher risk of communicable disease [ 22 ]. Scoping reviews have also been conducted to describe trends within migration health research in the United Kingdom (UK) [ 23 ] and identify gaps for future research agendas in the UK [ 23 ] and in the Republic of Ireland [ 24 ].

Almost three-quarters (73%) of published migration health research in the UK has been conducted in England, focusing primarily on infectious diseases and mental health. There is limited evidence on the social determinants of health, access to and use of healthcare and structural and behavioural factors behaviours that influence migrant health in the UK [ 23 ]. By contrast, a large amount of the migration research conducted in the Republic of Ireland has focused on the social determinants of health, and on health system adaptations, with a paucity of research focusing on improving health information systems [ 24 ].

Migration and Health in Scotland

Immigration to Scotland began to rise in 2003 with the expansion of the EU [ 25 ]. The population in Scotland increased from 5.11 million to 5.47 million between 2005 and 2020 and is predicted to continue rising until 2028 [ 26 ] despite low birth rates, with the increased population resulting from inward migration [ 27 ]. Scotland’s population is becoming more ethnically diverse [ 28 ] and susceptibility to different health conditions varies by ethnic group, which has implications for the planning and provision of health services [ 29 ]. 7% of the current Scottish population are non-UK nationals and 10% were born outside Britain. The commonest countries of origin were Poland, Ireland, Italy, Nigeria and India [ 30 ].

Within Scotland, linking health data to ethnicity is standard in order to monitor and improve health of minority groups [ 31 ]. Ethnic background can differ from country of birth which means migration status cannot be assumed [ 32 ], although health inequalities experienced by migrants often extend to affect all ethnic minority groups [ 33 ]. The Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study (SHELS) linked census data to health records of 91% of the population which has provided information on mortality and morbidity by ethnic group and country of birth [ 34 ]. SHELS research indicates that the white-Scottish population have a higher mortality rate than other ethnic groups. This may be consequent to the comparatively poor health of the Scottish population relative to other European nations: high mortality rates in the general population may cause a perception that the health of minorities is more advantageous than in reality [ 35 ].

Cezard et al’s [ 13 ] analysis of self-perceived health among people in Scotland found that being born abroad had a positive impact on health status. Health declined with increased length of residence, which may be explained by cultural convergence with the majority population. Allik et al. [ 36 ] compared health inequalities by ethnic background and found that with increasing age, health differences reduced thus people aged over 75 of all ethnicities had similar or worse health status than White-Scottish people. While working-age migrants appear to be healthier than the White Scottish population, it cannot be assumed that in future this would extend to older age groups.

Research has shown deprivation as a cause of heath inequalities among ethnic minority and migrant groups [ 37 ]. The socio-economic status of minority ethnic groups in Scotland is unusual, as most are of similar or higher status than the white-Scottish population [ 38 ]. Therefore, public health interventions targeting deprivation may not address risk-factors for ethnic minorities and migrants [ 36 ]. Further research on determinants of health in migrants can help with planning and design of inclusive policies.

The 2011 census indicated that 50% of immigrants lived in the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen. Glasgow had a greater percentage of non-European immigrants due to participation in the Asylum dispersal programme [ 39 ]. 10% of UK asylum seekers are placed in Glasgow, but records are not kept following approval of asylum claims, therefore the size of the refugee population is unknown [ 40 ]. While immigration is controlled by the British government, in policy areas devolved to the Scottish government, refugees and asylum seekers have more rights than elsewhere in UK, including access to primary healthcare for undocumented migrants [ 40 ]. Despite the mitigating effect of Scottish policies, asylum seekers’ health is worsened by the asylum process and associated poverty, marginalisation, and discrimination [ 40 ]. Health deteriorates with increasing length of time in the asylum system [ 40 ] and asylum seekers and refugees have additional health needs and require enhanced support [ 41 ]. Research on the health needs of asylum seekers in Scotland is required to ensure adequate healthcare.

Aim and objectives

While scoping reviews on migrant health have been carried out in Europe [ 12 ], Ireland [ 24 ] and the UK [ 23 ] none are currently specific to the Scottish context. Given the devolved government of Scotland and demographics described above, a targeted review would help to clarify research priorities, with the aim of improving health and health care within the migrant community in Scotland. This work therefore builds on the published scoping review of migrant health in the Republic of Ireland [ 24 ]. The authors recommend replication of the study in other countries to facilitate cross-country comparison. Our aim was to scope peer-reviewed research and grey literature on migrant health conducted in Scotland and identify any gaps in the evidence. Our objectives were to: [1] understand the extent of the available research by topic area [2] summarise the types of research already conducted, populations studied, topics covered and approaches taken [3], map the existing research conducted in Scotland and [4] identify areas for future research based on any gaps in the evidence identified.

A scoping review was conducted as they can aid detection of evidence gaps [ 42 ] and allow incorporation of grey literature in topics with insufficient published research [ 43 ]. Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 44 ] five stage scoping review framework was used.

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Arskey and O’Malley [ 44 ] suggest maintaining a broad approach to identifying the research question, in order to generate breadth of coverage. On this basis, and in line with the research question identified in the Villarroel et al. [ 24 ] scoping review, our research question was framed as follows: What is the scope, main topics and gaps in evidence in the existing literature on health of international migrants living in Scotland? Arksey and O’Malley [ 44 ] highlight the importance of defining terminology at the outset of scoping reviews. For consistency, we used the broad definition of ‘migrant’ as per Villaroel et al. [ 24 ], from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) [ 1 ]. References to refugees or asylum seekers followed the United Nations Refugee Agency definitions [ 3 ].

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

Electronic database searches identified reports alongside a grey literature search, in line with Arskey and O’Malley’s [ 44 ] guidance to search for evidence via different sources. CINAHL, Web of Science, SocIndex and Medline academic databases were selected with input from co-authors. Search terms for the review were based upon those used by Villaroel et al. [ 24 ] with additional relevant terms from Hannigan et al. [ 9 ] The strategy combined three sets of terms for: Migrants (e.g., refugee, migrant, immigrant or newcomer), Scotland and Health. Both free text terms and index terms were used and adapted to the 4 academic databases and searches were run on 10th March 2023 (see Additional File 1 for database search strategies). Thirteen Government, University, and third-sector websites in Scotland were scoped for selection then hand-searched for grey literature (listed in Additional File 1 ).

Stage 3: study selection

Net-migration to Scotland increased in the 2000s [ 27 ] hence a date range of January 2002-March 2023 was used to identify evidence. The search was limited to English only. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for the studies were based on those used by Villaroel et al. [ 24 ] and expanded upon following discussion with co-authors (see Table  1 ). Reports were included if based on primary or secondary research on the health of international migrants in Scotland and used qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research design. International or UK based reports were only included if Scottish results were documented separately. Reports on the health of ethnic minority groups in Scotland was included if place of birth was recorded. Research on internal (non-international) migrants within Scotland, either moving from one Scottish area to another or from another part of the United Kingdom to Scotland, were excluded.

Stage 4: data charting

All records were saved to RefWorks for screening. Records were first screened at title/abstract stage with 10% independently checked by the co-authors. The remaining reports were single screened using full text by the first author. Data from the included records was extracted and organised in tabular form under the following headings, which were agreed by team members: article type (peer-reviewed article or grey literature), publication date, geographical setting, study/intervention’s target population, funding, primary research focus on migrant health (y/n), study objective, data collection method, study design (qualitative/quantitative/mixed) and main finding. Reports were not critically appraised in this scoping review.

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting results

A report (either a peer-reviewed journal article or grey literature report) is used as our unit of analysis. In order to present the range of research identified, reports were grouped by the different headings in our data charting table and the outcomes considered for relevance to our scoping review’s aim. Our Results summarise the recency, focus, study designs and funding sources of the identified research, followed by the geographical settings and whether Scotland was included in international research reports. Reports were grouped by their study population and further sub-divided by publication type and geographical area for summarising. Finally, the WHO’s European strategy and action plan (SAAP) for refugee and migrant health [ 7 ] is a policy framework designed to help governments and other stakeholders monitor and improve migrant health in Europe. There are nine strategic areas in the WHO’s SAAP, which prioritise the most salient issues. In line with Villaroel et al’s [ 24 ] approach and in order to compare scoping review outcomes, these areas were used to categorise the findings of this review. Each report was matched to the most appropriate SAAP:

Establishing a Framework for Collaborative Action.

Advocating for the right to health of refugees.

Addressing the social determinants of health.

Achieving public health preparedness and ensuring an effective response.

Strengthening health systems and their resilience.

Preventing communicable disease.

Preventing and reducing the risks caused by non-communicable disease.

Ensuring ethical and effective health screening and assessment.

Improving health information and communication.

The primary focus (aims and objectives) of each report was used to identify the relevant SAAP area/areas. To improve reliability, results were compared using coding criteria used in Villaroel et al’s study (MacFarlane 2023, personal communication, 31st May). 10% of the reports were checked by one co-author to ensure consistent coding to SAAP categories. Any instances of uncertainty in mapping reports to the relevant SAAP area/areas were discussed and resolved by team members.

This scoping review of the literature on migrant health in Scotland identified 2166 records from academic literature databases, following duplicate removal, and 170 records from website searches (see Fig.  1 ). Following screening, a total of 71 peer-reviewed journal articles and 29 grey literature studies (totalling 100 reports) were included for analysis (Results table and reference list are presented in Additional File 2 ).

Flow chart illustrating the identification of sources of evidence included in the scoping review

Overall findings

The majority of reports were published between 2013 and 2022. Fifty-eight reports (58%) focused exclusively on migrant health [ 18 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 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 ]. 23 centred on health but included other populations in addition to migrants – for example research on ethnic minorities or other vulnerable groups [ 13 , 31 , 35 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. Seventeen reports were included where the sample population were migrants, but the primary topic was not health – for example destitution, integration, and service needs [ 27 , 73 , 74 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 ]. Health data was reported as part of the wider subject matter. One report [ 136 ] looked at the social determinants of breastfeeding including migrant status and one [ 137 ] compared attitudes to aging and family support between countries.

Funding sources were not declared for 35 (35%) of reports. The Scottish Government funded 20 reports (20%) [ 13 , 27 , 32 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 66 , 77 , 88 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 113 , 116 , 119 , 121 , 129 , 134 ]. Other common sources of funding included Government funded public bodies ( n  = 13) [ 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 104 , 107 , 113 , 116 , 131 , 136 ], the Scottish Health Service ( n  = 18) (either the National Health Service (NHS) [ 13 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 102 , 113 , 116 ], local NHS trusts [ 45 , 60 , 61 , 77 , 102 , 103 , 112 ] or by Public Health Scotland [ 13 , 113 ]) Eleven reports (11%) were funded by Universities. The charity sector financed 15 (15%) reports [ 53 , 63 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 103 , 111 , 123 , 125 , 132 , 138 ] and the EU and Scottish local authorities funded four reports each [ 45 , 62 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 102 , 125 , 135 ]. Professional bodies financed one report [ 126 ] as did the Japanese government [ 64 ]. No reports received funding from the business sector. The biggest sources of funding for grey literature were Refugee charities (40%) and the Scottish government (30%) (see Fig. 2 ).

Sources of funding for migrant health research in Scotland

Research methods and data collection

52% of reports used qualitative research methods. Forty-five reports (86%) collected data using 1–1 interviews and 24 (46%) used focus groups. Other methods of data collection included questionnaires (six studies (11%)), workshops (two studies (3.85%)) and observation (two studies (3.85%)). Oral/written evidence, guided play sessions, family case studies and participatory activity sessions were used in one report each.

28% of reports used quantitative research methods, most commonly cross section design (ten studies (36%)) and cohort design (18 studies (64%)). Information was obtained from databases including medical records, Census data and national records in 21 reports (75%). Questionnaires were used in six reports (21%). Other methods including body measurements, food diaries, blood samples, interviews and case reviews were used in 1 report each.

20% of reports used mixed methods. The most common method of data collection was questionnaires in 14 reports (70%), interviews in ten reports (50%), focus groups in seven reports (35%), workshops in three reports (13.6%), and databases in three reports (13.6%). Other methods included literature review in two reports (10%), case note reviews in two reports (10%) and one reports each used mapping and school records.

Geographical areas of study

Ninety-one reports were situated in Scotland, of which 35 (38.5%) covered the whole country and 56 (61.5%) specified a city or area where research was undertaken. Some UK and international reports also specified the area of Scotland. The largest share of research within Scotland overall was in Glasgow with 36 reports, followed by Edinburgh with 16 reports, Lothian with six reports, Aberdeen with five reports and Grampian with three reports. The Northeast, Stirling, Highlands, Inverness, Lanarkshire, Motherwell and Selkirk had one report in each area.

There were seven international reports, three on mortality by country of birth [ 75 , 76 , 78 ], one on cross cultural communication [ 79 ], one on maternity care in Poland and Scotland [ 99 ], one comparing attitudes to aging in China and Scotland [ 137 ] and one on the link between birthweights and integration of migrants [ 64 ]. The remaining two reports were UK based, one on immunisation of Roma and traveller communities [ 117 ] and one on the link between ethnic diversity and mortality [ 104 ]. All the included international and UK reports documented the Scottish data separately within results.

Migrant population

Thirty-one reports included all migrants in the study population. The remaining reports included 30 studies on asylum seekers/refugees, 11 on Polish migrants, ten on Africans, six each on South Asians/Chinese/European, three on Arabs, and two on Roma populations (see Fig.  3 ). Most reports did not specify the country of origin for Asylum seekers and refugees - where country of birth was specified, reports were also included in the appropriate category.

Migrant populations studied in health research in Scotland

Grey literature and peer-reviewed reports differed in population focus. The most common populations of interest in grey literature were asylum seekers/refugees consisting of 18 reports (62%) [ 27 , 47 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 63 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 123 , 125 , 127 , 128 , 132 , 134 , 138 ] while for peer-reviewed journals 24 reports (34%) focused on all migrants [ 13 , 35 , 45 , 48 , 64 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 104 , 105 , 108 , 109 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 118 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 136 ].

Migrant study population also differed by local area; Glasgow city, where the majority of research occurred, had 18 reports of 36 (50%) on Asylum seekers/refugees [ 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 63 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 82 , 83 , 127 , 128 , 130 , 138 , 139 ] eight reports (22%) on Africans [ 52 , 53 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 106 , 107 ], seven reports (19%) on all migrants [ 45 , 48 , 80 , 102 , 104 , 105 , 121 ] and two reports (5.5%) on Roma migrants [ 103 , 117 ]. Other populations had one reports each. In Edinburgh five reports of 16 (31%) were on the Polish population [ 56 , 67 , 68 , 89 , 90 ], and two reports (12.5%) on Asylum seekers/refugees [ 60 , 133 ], Chinese [ 62 , 137 ], South Asian [ 46 , 119 ], all migrants [ 105 , 121 ] and Africans [ 87 , 107 ]. The remaining migrant groups had one report each. Other areas of Scotland show no clear pattern with studies in disparate migrant population groups.

Number of reports per Strategic and Action Plan (SAAP) Area

SAAP Area mapping

1. establishing a framework for collaborative action.

Nine reports had a primary focus on collaborative action and were categorised under SAAP area 1 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 66 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 103 , 125 , 129 , 132 , 134 ]. Four reports (33%) used a mixed methods study design, the remaining five reports (67%) used a qualitative design. One report [ 66 ] focused on the epidemiology of female genital mutilation and a proposed intervention strategy. One report [ 66 ] focused on the epidemiology of female genital mutilation and a proposed intervention strategy. One report [ 103 ] evaluated service provision to the Roma community in Glasgow. The remaining reports focused on refugees and asylum seekers: four [ 73 , 125 , 132 , 134 ] evaluations of refugee integration projects, one [ 70 ] on services available to pregnant women, and one [ 72 ] an assessment of a peer-education service. One report [ 129 ] was a review of service provisions for migrants during the Covid-19 pandemic. All reports in SAAP area 1 were grey literature and three (37.5%) had a primary focus on migrant health while four (50%) focused on integration, one (11%) included data on ethnic minorities and one (11%) on services during the covid-19 pandemic. The majority (seven reports (78%)) were also categorised to another SAAP area most commonly area 2 (five studies (55%)) or area 5 (four studies (44%)).

2. Advocating for the right to health of refugees

Nineteen reports focused on SAAP area 2, advocating for the right to health of refugees (see Fig.  4 ) [ 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 63 , 70 , 71 , 83 , 103 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 134 , 138 , 140 ]. Sixteen reports (84%) had a qualitative study design and the remaining three (16%) reports used mixed methods. Nine reports (47%) focused on the health impact of the asylum system [ 52 , 55 , 71 , 74 , 123 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 138 ], five (26%) on health and access to care [ 47 , 54 , 83 , 103 , 124 ], two (10.5%) on maternity care [ 63 , 70 ], two (10.5%) on integration services [ 125 , 134 ] and one report on mental health in HIV positive migrants [ 53 ]. Nine reports (47%) had a primary focus on migrant health while the remaining 10 (53%) also involved wider social issues. The majority (15 (79%)) of reports were grey literature. All the articles in this group overlapped with another SAAP area. Area 3 is the most common joint category with ten reports (53%) followed by area 5 with seven reports (37%), area 1 shares five reports (26%), while areas 4 and 8 share one report each (5%).

3. Addressing the social determinants of health

Twenty-nine reports were categorised to SAAP area 3 – addressing the social determinants of health (see Fig.  4 ) [ 13 , 27 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 68 , 71 , 74 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 102 , 112 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 128 , 136 , 137 , 138 ]. The majority (14 (48%)) used a qualitative study method, eight (28%) used quantitative methodology and the remaining seven reports (24%) used mixed methods. Nineteen reports (65.5%) were peer-reviewed journals [ 13 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 68 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 104 , 112 , 124 , 136 , 137 ] and ten (34.5%) were grey literature [ 27 , 55 , 63 , 71 , 74 , 102 , 123 , 127 , 128 , 138 ]. Ten reports (34.5%) discussed the effects of the asylum system on health [ 27 , 52 , 63 , 71 , 74 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 128 , 137 ] and one (3.5%) migration and health [ 50 ]. Six reports (21%) focused on culture and ethnicity [ 82 , 92 , 102 , 104 , 112 , 137 ], five reports (17%) discussed economic and environmental determinants of health [ 13 , 45 , 67 , 81 , 93 ] and five reports (17%) the health impact of social activities [ 55 , 60 , 62 , 80 , 91 ]. Of the remaining reports, one [ 65 ] discussed Brexit and mental health of European migrants and one discussed the effect of coping strategies on wellbeing in Polish migrants [ 68 ]. Most reports, 18 (62%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 45 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 71 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 102 ], six reports (21%) discussed wider social factors in addition to health [ 74 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 128 , 138 ]. Of the remaining reports three (10%) looked at ethnic background and country of birth [ 13 , 112 , 136 ], one [ 27 ] included other vulnerable groups and one [ 137 ] included people living in China and Chinese migrants to Scotland. Thirteen reports were also categorised to one or more additional SAAP area - ten (34%) were also applicable to area 2 [ 52 , 55 , 63 , 71 , 74 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 128 , 138 ], three (10%) to area 5 [ 63 , 82 , 92 ] and one (7%) to area 4 [ 27 ].

4. Achieving public health preparedness and ensuring an effective response

Twenty-one reports were assigned to SAAP area 4 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 27 , 31 , 35 , 39 , 47 , 57 , 64 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 94 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 111 , 113 , 114 , 116 , 120 , 135 ] of which fourteen (67%) used quantitative research methods, four (19%) mixed methods and three (14%) qualitative methods. Thirteen (62%) reports were peer-reviewed journals [ 35 , 59 , 64 , 75 , 78 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 111 , 113 , 114 , 116 , 120 ] and eight (38%) grey literature [ 27 , 31 , 39 , 47 , 57 , 77 , 94 , 135 ]. Most reports (12 (57%)) focused on morbidity and mortality in migrant populations [ 31 , 35 , 64 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 113 , 114 , 116 ]. Six (29%) investigated health status and healthcare needs in migrant groups in Scotland [ 39 , 47 , 57 , 77 , 94 , 135 ]. Two reports (9.5%) analysed the epidemiology of HIV infections [ 111 , 120 ] and the remaining report focused on the health needs of young people during the covid-19 pandemic [ 27 ]. Nine reports (43%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 39 , 47 , 55 , 64 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 94 ] while eight (38%) also analysed data by ethnicity [ 31 , 35 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 113 , 114 , 116 ]. Of the remaining reports, three (14%) included other populations within Scotland [ 27 , 111 , 120 ] and one (5%) included other characteristics in addition to health information [ 135 ]. Ten reports (48%) were also categorised to another SAAP area; one to area 2 [ 47 ], one to area 3 [ 27 ], four to area 5 [ 47 , 57 , 77 , 135 ], two to area 6 [ 111 , 120 ] and two to area 9 [ 31 , 108 ].

5. Strengthening health systems and their resilience

Twenty-nine reports were assigned to SAAP area 5 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 18 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 57 , 63 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 77 , 79 , 82 , 83 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 103 , 118 , 119 , 126 , 129 , 131 , 133 , 135 , 141 ] of which 23 (79%) used qualitative research methods. Three reports used quantitative methods (10.3%) and the remaining three used mixed methods (10.3%). Twelve reports (41%) examined migrants needs and experiences of health care [ 47 , 49 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 77 , 83 , 95 , 103 , 119 , 129 , 135 ], eight (24%) focused on pregnancy and childcare [ 63 , 70 , 92 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 118 ] and two (7%) on barriers to healthcare access [ 48 , 131 ]. Two reports (7%) evaluated healthcare programmes [ 72 , 133 ] and two focused on communication in primary care [ 79 ] and maternity services [ 69 ]. The remaining three reports (10%) covered sexual health [ 82 ], health information needs of Syrian refugees [ 126 ] and general practitioner training [ 18 ]. Nineteen (65.5%) were peer reviewed journals [ 18 , 48 , 49 , 58 , 69 , 79 , 82 , 83 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 118 , 119 , 125 , 131 , 133 ] and ten (34.5%) were grey literature [ 47 , 54 , 57 , 63 , 70 , 72 , 77 , 103 , 129 , 135 ]. Twenty-one (72%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 18 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 63 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 77 , 79 , 82 , 83 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 ]. Six reports (21%) included research on other characteristics or services [ 103 , 126 , 129 , 131 , 133 , 135 ]. The remaining two reports (7%) included ethnic groups as well as migrants in the data [ 118 , 119 ]. Nineteen reports (65.5%) were also assigned to one or more other category areas: five reports (17%) to area 1 [ 47 , 70 , 72 , 103 , 129 ], five reports (17%) to area 2 [ 54 , 63 , 83 , 103 , 129 ], three reports (10%) to area 3 [ 63 , 82 , 92 ], four reports (14%) to area 4 [ 47 , 57 , 77 , 135 ], one (3.5%) to area 7 [ 119 ] and one (3.5%) to area 9 [ 48 ].

6. Preventing communicable diseases

Fourteen reports were assigned to SAAP area 6 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 56 , 61 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 111 , 115 , 117 , 120 , 122 ] of which four (31%) used quantitative methods, five (38%) used qualitative methods and five (38%) used mixed methods. Five reports (38.5%) examined immunisation behaviour [ 56 , 61 , 89 , 90 , 117 ], five (38%) on epidemiology and treatment of HIV [ 106 , 107 , 111 , 120 , 122 ]. The remaining four reports (31%) focused on tuberculosis in healthcare workers [ 115 ], malaria [ 105 ] and sexual health services [ 87 , 88 ]. Only one reports was grey literature [ 88 ], the remainder were peer-reviewed journals. Six reports (46%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 56 , 61 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ] while seven reports (54%) also included other at-risk groups in the analysis. Four reports (31%) were also assigned to another SAAP category, two (15%) to area 4 [ 111 , 120 ] and two (15%) to area 8 [ 88 , 115 ].

7. Preventing and reducing the risks posed by non-communicable diseases

Eight reports were categorised to SAAP area 7 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 46 , 51 , 59 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 98 , 119 ] of which six (75%) used qualitative research methods, one (12.5%) used quantitative methods and one (12.5%) used mixed methods. Only one report (12.5%) was grey literature [ 59 ] the remaining seven reports (87.5%) were peer-reviewed journals [ 48 , 87 , 92 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 140 ]. Three reports (37.5%) focused on health behaviours [ 51 , 85 , 98 ], two (25%) on mental health, two (25%) on diabetes and one (12.5%) on chronic disease. Seven reports(87.5%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 46 , 51 , 59 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 98 ], with the remaining report (12.5%) including ethnic minority groups [ 119 ]. One report (12.5%) was also assigned to SAAP area number 5 [ 119 ].

8. Ensuring ethical and effective health screening and assessment

There were six reports assigned to category 8 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 53 , 88 , 100 , 110 , 115 , 121 ] of which two (33%) used a quantitative research method, three (50%) used a qualitative method and one used mixed methods. One report (14%) was grey literature [ 88 ] the remaining five reports (83%) were peer reviewed journals [ 53 , 100 , 110 , 115 , 121 ]. Three reports (50%) focused on cancer screening in migrant women [ 21 , 100 , 110 ], one (17%) analysed access to HIV testing among African migrants [ 53 ], one (17%) on T.B in healthcare workers [ 72 ] and one (17%) on sexual health [ 36 ]. Three reports (50%) had a primary focus on migrant health [ 53 , 88 , 100 ] while the remaining three reports (50%) included other at-risk groups in the analysis [ 110 , 115 , 121 ]. There were three reports which overlapped with other SAAP areas: one [ 53 ] (17%) was categorised to area 2 while two [ 88 , 115 ] (33%) were categorised to area 6.

9. Improving health information and communication

Three reports were assigned to SAAP area 9 (see Fig.  4 ) [ 31 , 108 , 130 ]. One of these (33%) used a qualitative approach, one (33%) used a quantitative approach and one (33%) used mixed methods. Two [ 108 , 130 ] (66%) were peer-reviewed journal articles and one [ 31 ] (33%) was grey literature. Two reports (66%) focused on improving migrant demographics and health information using databases [ 31 , 108 ] while one (33%) described an information-needs matrix for refugees and asylum seekers [ 130 ]. Two [ 31 , 108 ] included ethnicities in the data while one [ 130 ] had a primary focus on migrant health. Two reports [ 31 , 108 ] (66%) also applied to SAAP area 4 while one report [ 130 ] (33%) was in SAAP area 9 only.

To our knowledge this is the first scoping review conducted on migrant health in Scotland. A previous rapid literature review [ 94 ] found most research focused on health behaviours, mental health, communicable disease and use of and access to healthcare; however, the review limited migrant definition to those who had immigrated within five years and asylum seekers were not included.

In our review, the majority of reports were published from 2013 onwards, aligning with the expansion in migrant research internationally [ 142 ]. 52% used qualitative research methods, 28% used quantitative methods and 20% used mixed methods. 58% focused on migrant health: the remaining papers included other populations or health as part of a wider remit. Research funding was mostly provided by the Scottish Government, NHS, refugee charities and Universities. No studies received funding from the private sector, although this sector has the potential resource and capacity to play a key role in funding future research to improve migrant health in Scotland. Geographically, most studies took place in Glasgow (36%), nationwide (38.5%) or Edinburgh (16%) – other areas were under-represented including Aberdeen (5%), despite being the city with the largest migrant population [ 30 ]. There was a lack of studies in rural localities. These findings concur with a UK migrant health review by Burns et al. [ 23 ] where research was concentrated in larger cities and data was sparse in rural areas relative to the migrant population.

Half of the research identified that was conducted in Glasgow focused on asylum seekers/refugees. Glasgow was previously the only Scottish city to host asylum seekers [ 143 ] and currently supports the most asylum seekers of any local authority in the UK [ 29 ]. In April 2022, the UK government widened the Asylum dispersal scheme to all local authorities [ 144 ]. Around 70% of Scotland’s refugee support services are based in Glasgow and the South-west [ 145 ]. As reduced access to services may impact the health of asylum seekers, research in Glasgow may not be generalizable to other regions of Scotland.

Almost one-third (30%) of all reports focused on asylum seekers and refugees – an overrepresentation given that only 18% of migrants to the UK are asylum seekers [ 146 ] and as low as 2% of all migrants in Scotland [ 147 ]. Asylum seekers and refugees are at risk of poor health due to trauma, difficult journeys, overcrowded camps, poor nutrition and lack of access to healthcare [ 148 ]. They have worse maternity outcomes and increased rates of mental illness [ 149 ]. Increased research on health of asylum seekers and refugees is necessary due to their additional vulnerabilities [ 142 ]. However, asylum seeker’s country of origin was generally not specified. Asylum seekers have heterogenic backgrounds [ 150 ] and nationality and trauma experience affect health status [ 151 ]. Further research focused on specific nationalities of asylum seekers would enhance understanding of the health needs in this population.

Almost one-third (31%) of studies did not specify a migrant group. This concurs with a Norwegian migrant health study by Laue et al. [ 152 ] where 36% of research did not identify country of birth. Where nationality was identified, Polish, African and South Asian were most prevalent. Poles are the largest migrant group in Scotland, however for the other most common immigrant groups of Irish, Italian and Nigerian [ 30 ] there was an absence of research. No studies took place on Nigerian migrants – nine studies indicated African populations, but country of birth was not specified. Since March 2022, 23,000 Ukrainians have migrated to Scotland [ 153 ], however no studies on Ukrainians were identified currently. Research may be underway which is yet to be published.

Only one study explored the impact of Brexit on European migrants’ health despite 56% of migrants to Scotland being EU nationals [ 30 ]. Again, research may be taking place currently, which is yet to be published. No studies involved undocumented migrants despite this populations’ high rates of poor physical/mental health exacerbated by poor housing and working conditions [ 154 ]. An estimated 7.2–9.5% of the workforce in the UK are migrant workers who have higher risks of poor working conditions and injury [ 155 ]. Scotland depends on a migrant workforce for some industries such as agriculture [ 156 ] but only two research papers specified migrant workers.

Most research papers related to the right to health of refugees (SAAP 2), social determinants of health (SAAP 3), public health planning (SAAP 4) and strengthening health systems (SAAP 5). Areas with less research were frameworks for collaborative action (SAAP 1), preventing communicable disease (SAAP 6), preventing non-communicable disease (SAAP 7) and health screening and assessment (SAAP 8). Only three studies related to improving health information and communication (SAAP 9). Lebano et al. [ 12 ] conducted a literature review of migrant health in Europe and found data collection unreliable and disorganised. There is a lack of data on the numbers and types of migrants entering Scotland and research tends not to differentiate between ethnic minorities and migrants [ 94 ]. As poor-quality information hinders surveillance and planning of services SAAP area 9 is an important consideration for increased research.

Villarroel et al. [ 24 ] also found more research in SAAP areas 3 to 5 and less in areas 6 to 9. However, their study returned no results in category 1, collaborative action, or 2, the right to health of refugees, while this study assigned 9% of articles to category 1 and 19% to category 2. Most articles in our study relating to categories 1 and 2 were grey literature, which was excluded from the original Irish scoping review. This highlights a potential difference in the focus of peer-reviewed articles compared to government/refugee charity commissioned reports. Collaborative action and the right to health of refugees and asylum seekers are entwined in Scotland due to the complex policy environment; the social determinants of health such as housing, education, welfare rights and social integration are influenced by a variety of UK and Scottish statutory bodies as well as third sector organisations [ 157 ]. Despite this complexity, organisations work well together [ 158 ]. Further academic research in this area would enhance joint working practices and networks.

A scoping review in the UK [ 23 ] found similar quantities of research corresponding to SAAP areas 3, 2 and 9. However in Scotland areas 1, 5 and 8 were a combined 44% of included papers compared with 27.8% of results on health systems and structures in Burns et al’s [ 23 ] study. Almost half of the articles in SAAP areas 1,5 and 8 were grey literature, which was not included in Burns et al’s [ 23 ] review. Conversely, Burns et al. [ 23 ] found 81.9% of research in the UK related to epidemiology, equivalent to SAAP categories 4,6 and 7. In a Norwegian scoping review of migrant health [ 152 ] 65% of research was related to epidemiological data on health and disease. Only 42% of the research in this current study related to epidemiological data; the quantity of evidence was reduced by excluding combined research from the UK. As Scotland has higher mortality and morbidity than elsewhere in the UK [ 29 ] it is important to undertake further epidemiological research limited to Scotland.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths of this review include the use of the WHO’s SAAP categories [ 7 ] to classify data, in accordance with the Villarroel et al’s [ 24 ] study: this means results are linked to policy on migrant health and facilitates comparability to the Irish study results. Additionally results include data on migrant groups, locality, and funding of included papers; these highlight potential omissions for future research consideration. Results include diverse research methods and published and grey literature giving a wide overview of available evidence, reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (see Additional File 3 ) [ 159 ].

Limitations included the lack of an open-access protocol and search limitations of English language and selected databases. This means some relevant reports may be omitted. Due to time and resource limitations no quality appraisal was planned for included reports. Whilst we did not synthesise the findings for each topic area and migrant group, future systematic reviews could be undertaken to address this limitation and build on this work.

Conclusions

Immigration and ethnic diversity in Scotland have increased since 2002 which is reflected in the expansion of migrant health research. This review highlights evidence gaps including a lack of research in rural areas, undocumented migrants and migrant workers. There is a tendency to cluster asylum seekers together rather than differentiate between national groups. Within the SAAP areas there is less evidence relating to collaborative action, preventing communicable disease, preventing non-communicable disease and health screening and assessment. Further research is required on improving health information and communication for migrant populations in Scotland – a significant omission given the importance of accurate information for health service planning.

Availability of data and materials

All data analysed during this review comes from the papers listed in Additional file 2 .

Abbreviations

European Union

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

National Health Service

Strategy and Action Plan

The Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study

United Kingdom

World Health Organisation

International Organisation for Migration (IOM). IOM Definition of Migrant. 2024. Available from: https://www.iom.int/about-migration .Cited 2024 Feb 8.

International Organisation for Migration United Nations. World Migration Report. 2022. Available from: available: https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2022-interactive/ .

The United Nations Refugee Angency. Refugee facts: What is a refugee? 2024. Available from: https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/ . Cited 2024 Feb 8.

Migration Data Portal. Migration data in Europe. 2023. Available from: https://www.migrationdataportal.org/regional-data-overview/europe#past-and-present-trends . Cited 2023 Aug 22.

International Centre for Migration Policy Development. Migration Outlook 2022 Twelve migration issues to look out for in 2022 Origins, key events and priorities for Europe. 2022. Available from: https://www.icmpd.org/file/download/56783/file/ICMPD%2520Migration%2520Outlook%25202022.pdf .

European Parliament. Exploring migration causes: why people migrate. 2023. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/world/20200624STO81906/exploring-migration-causes-why-people-migrate .

World Health Organisation. Strategic plan: Strategy and Action Plan for Refugee and Migrant Health in the WHO European Region 2016–2022. 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/strategic-plan-strategy-and-action-plan-for-refugee-and-migrant-health-in-the-who-european-region-2016-2022 .

Graetz V, Rechel B, Groot W, Norredam M, Pavlova M. Utilization of health care services by migrants in Europe—a systematic literature review. Br Med Bull. 2017;121(1):5–18. Available from: https://www.academic.oup.com/bmb/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bmb/ldw057 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hannigan A, O'Donnell P, O'Keeffe M, MacFarlane A. How do Variations in Definitions of “Migrant” and their Application Influence the Access of Migrants to Health Care Services? Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2016. (Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report, No. 46.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK391032/ .

Rechel B, Mladovsky P, Ingleby D, Mackenbach JP, McKee M. Migration and health in an increasingly diverse Europe. Lancet. 2013;381(9873):1235–45. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673612620868 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Giannoni M, Franzini L, Masiero G. Migrant integration policies and health inequalities in Europe. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):463. Available from:  http://www.bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3095-9 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lebano A, Hamed S, Bradby H, Gil-Salmerón A, Durá-Ferrandis E, Garcés-Ferrer J, et al. Migrants’ and refugees’ health status and healthcare in Europe: a scoping literature review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1039. Available from: https://www.bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08749-8 .

Cézard G, Finney N, Kulu H, Marshall A. Ethnic differences in self-assessed health in Scotland: The role of socio-economic status and migrant generation. Popul Space Place. 2022;28(3):e2403. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.2403 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anson J. The migrant mortality advantage: a 70 month follow-up of the brussels population. Eur J Popul. 2004;20(3):191–218.

World Health Organisation. Health of refugees and migrants. WHO European Region. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/health-of-refugees-and-migrants---who-european-region-(2018) .

Mladovsky P. A framework for analysing migrant health policies in Europe. Health Policy (New York). 2009;93(1):55–63. Available from:  https://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168851009001444 .

De Vito E, de Waure C, Specchia ML, Parente P, Azzolini E, Frisicale EM, et al. Are undocumented migrants’ entitlements and barriers to healthcare a public health challenge for the European Union? Public Health Rev. 2016;37(1):13. Available from: http://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-016-0026-3 .

Katikireddi SV, Bhopal R, Quickfall JA. GPs need training and funding in caring for refugees and asylum seekers. BMJ. 2004;328(7442):770.1. Available from:  https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.328.7442.770 .

Carballo M, Hargreaves S, Gudumac I, Maclean EC. Evolving migrant crisis in Europe: implications for health systems. Lancet Glob Heal. 2017;5(3):e252-253. Available from:  https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214109X17300402 .

Juárez SP, Honkaniemi H, Dunlavy AC, Aldridge RW, Barreto ML, Katikireddi SV et al. Effects of non-health-targeted policies on migrant health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Heal. 2019;7(4):e420–35. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214109X18305606 .

Nielsen SS, Krasnik A. Poorer self-perceived health among migrants and ethnic minorities versus the majority population in Europe: a systematic review. Int J Public Health. 2010;55(5):357–71. Available from: ( http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00038-010-0145-4 ).

World Health Organsation. World report on the health of refugees and migrants. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240054462 .

Burns R, Zhang CX, Patel P, Eley I, Campos-Matos I, Aldridge RW. Migration health research in the United Kingdom: a scoping review. J Migr Heal. 2021;4:100061. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666623521000283 .

Villarroel N, Hannigan A, Severoni S, Puthoopparambil S, MacFarlane A. Migrant health research in the Republic of Ireland: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):324. Available from: ( https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-6651-2 ).

Scottish Government. Demographic Change in Scotland. 2010. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2010/11/demographic-change-scotland/documents/0108163-pdf/0108163-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0108163.pdf .

National Records of Scotland. Projected Population of Scotland (Interim) 2020-based. 2022. Available from: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/population-projections/2020-based/pop-proj-2020-scot-nat-pub.pdf .

Scottish Government. Coronavirus (COVID-19) - experiences of vulnerable children, young people, and parents: research. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/experiences-vulnerable-children-young-people-parents-during-covid-19-pandemic/ .

Scotland’s Census. Scotland’s Census: Ethnicity. 2011. Available from: https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/ethnicity/#:~:text=Scotland’spopulationwas96.0%25 .

Walsh D. The changing ethnic profiles of Glasgow and Scotland, and the implications for population health. 2017. Available from: https://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/6255/The_changing_ethnic_profiles_of_Glasgow_and_Scotland.pdf .

National Records of Scotland. Migration Statistics Quarterly Summary for Scotland. 2021. Available from: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/migration/quarterly-summary/miration-statistics-quarterly-summary-february-2021.pdf .

The Scottish Ethnicity and Health Research Strategy Working Group. Health in our Multi-ethnic Scotland Future Research Priorities. 2009. Available from: https://www.healthscotland.scot/media/1842/health-in-our-multi-ethnic-scotland-full-report.pdf  .

The Scottish Public Health Observatory. Ethnic minorities: defining ethnicity and race. 2023. Available from: https://www.scotpho.org.uk/population-groups/ethnic-minorities/defining-ethnicity-and-race/ . Cited 2023 Aug 22.

Krasnik A, Bhopal RS, Gruer L, Kumanyika SK. Advancing a unified, global effort to address health disadvantages associated with migration, ethnicity and race. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(suppl_1). Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cky046/4956664 .

Bhopal R, Fischbacher C, Povey C, Chalmers J, Mueller G, Steiner M, et al. Cohort profile: scottish health and ethnicity linkage study of 4.65 million people exploring ethnic variations in disease in Scotland. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(5):1168–75. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ije/dyq118 .

Bhopal RS, Gruer L, Cezard G, Douglas A, Steiner MFC, Millard A, et al. Mortality, ethnicity, and country of birth on a national scale, 2001–2013: a retrospective cohort (Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study). Basu S, editor. Plos Med. 2018;15(3):e1002515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002515 . Basu S, editor.

Allik M, Brown D, Dundas R, Leyland AH. Differences in ill health and in socioeconomic inequalities in health by ethnic groups: a cross-sectional study using 2011 Scottish census. Ethn Health. 2022;27(1):190–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2019.1643009 ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ ).

Watkinson RE, Sutton M, Turner AJ. Ethnic inequalities in health-related quality of life among older adults in England: secondary analysis of a national cross-sectional survey. Lancet Public Hea. 2021;6(3):e145-154.

Fischbacher CM, Cezard G, Bhopal RS, Pearce J, Bansal N. Measures of socioeconomic position are not consistently associated with ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease in Scotland: methods from the Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study (SHELS). Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(1):129–39. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ije/dyt237 .

Scottish Government. Characteristics of Recent and Established EEA and non-EEA migrants in Scotland: Analysis of the 2011 Census. 2015. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/characteristics-recent-established-eea-non-eea-migrants-scotland-analysis-2011-census/ .

House of Lords Library. Refugees and asylum-seekers: UK policy. 2022. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-uk-policy/ .

British Medical Association. Refugee and asylum seeker patient health toolkit. Unique health challenges for refugees and asylum seekers. 2022. Available from: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/refugees-overseas-visitors-and-vulnerable-migrants/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-patient-health-toolkit/unique-health-challenges-for-refugees-and-asylum-seekers .

Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2016;13(2):118–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12144 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. Available from: ( http://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 ).

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1364557032000119616 ).

Kearns A, Whitley E, Egan M, Tabbner C, Tannahill C. Healthy migrants in an unhealthy city? The Effects of time on the health of migrants living in deprived areas of glasgow. J Int Migr Integr. 2017;18(3):675–98. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12134-016-0497-6 .

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Porqueddu T. Herbal medicines for diabetes control among Indian and Pakistani migrants with diabetes. Anthropol Med. 2017;24(1):17–31. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13648470.2016.1249338 .

Roshan N. Supporting new communities: a qualitative study of health needs among asylum seekers and refugee communities in North Glasgow final report. 2005. Available from: https://www.stor.scot.nhs.uk/handle/11289/579930 .

Piacentini T, O’Donnell C, Phipps A, Jackson I, Stack N. Moving beyond the ‘language problem’: developing an understanding of the intersections of health, language and immigration status in interpreter-mediated health encounters. Lang Intercult Commun. 2019;19(3):256–71. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353829214001233 .

Sime D. ‘I think that Polish doctors are better’: Newly arrived migrant children and their parents׳ experiences and views of health services in Scotland. Health Place. 2014;30:86–93. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353829214001233 .

Steven K, Munoz S, Migrants, Matter. Report of a Peer Researched Project on EU Migrant Health in the Highlands of Scotland. University of the Highlands and Islands. 2016. Available from: https://www.spiritadvocacy.org.uk/assets/Birchwood-Highland-HUG-Migrants-Matter-study-2015-2016.pdf .

Anderson AS, Bush H, Lean M, Bradby H, Williams R, Lea E. Evolution of atherogenic diets in South Asian and Italian women after migration to a higher risk region. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005;18(1):33–43. Available from: ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2004.00584.x ).

Isaacs A, Burns N, Macdonald S, O’Donnell CA. ‘I don’t think there’s anything I can do which can keep me healthy’: how the UK immigration and asylum system shapes the health and wellbeing of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. Crit Public Health. 2022;32(3):422–32. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2020.1853058 .

Palattiyil G, Sidhva D. Caught in a web of multiple jeopardy: post-traumatic stress disorder and HIV-positive asylum seekers in Scotland. Clin Soc Work J. 2015;43(4):362–74. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10615-015-0542-5 ).

Abdulkadir J, Azzudin A, Buick A, Curtice L, Dzingisai M, Easton D, et al. What do you mean, I have a right to health? Participatory action research on health and human rights. 2016. Available from: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/58209/1/Abdulkadir_etal_IPPI_2016_What_do_you_mean_I_have_a_right_to_health.pdf .

Strang A, Quinn N. Integration or isolation? Mapping social connections and well-being amongst refugees in Glasgow. 2014. Available from: https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/20.500.12289/4139/eResearch%25204139.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .

Gorman DR, Bielecki K, Larson HJ, Willocks LJ, Craig J, Pollock KG. Comparing vaccination hesitancy in polish migrant parents who accept or refuse nasal flu vaccination for their children. Vaccine. 2020;38(13):2795–9. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264410X20302255 .

Love J, Vertigans S, Domaszk E, Zdeb K, Love A, Sutton P. Health & ethnicity in Aberdeenshire: a study of Polish in-migrants; a report for the Scottish Health Council. 2007. Available from: https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/247667 .

O’Donnell CA, Higgins M, Chauhan R, Mullen K. Asylum seekers’ expectations of and trust in general practice: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(557):e1-11. Available from: https://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/bjgp08X376104 .

Quinn N, Shirjeel S, Siebelt L, Donnelly R, Pietka E. An evaluation of the sanctuary community conversation programme to address mental health stigma with asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow. 2011. Available from: https://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/5584-SanctuaryCommunityConversationEvaluation.pdf .

Ager A. Community contact and mental health amongst socially isolated refugees in Edinburgh. J Refug Stud. 2002;15(1):71–80. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jrs/15.1.71 .

Sim JA, Ulanika AA, Katikireddi SV, Gorman D. Out of two bad choices, I took the slightly better one’: Vaccination dilemmas for Scottish and Polish migrant women during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Public Health. 2011;125(8):505–11. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350611001697 .

Zhao S, Patuano A. International Chinese Students in the UK: association between use of green spaces and lower stress levels. Sustainability. 2021;4(1):89. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/1/89 .

Da Lomba S, Murray N. Women and Children First? Refused asylum seekers’ access to and experiences of maternity care in Glasgow. 2014. Available from: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/58655/1/Lomba_Murray_SRC_2014_Women_and_Children_First_Refused_Asylum_Seekers_Access_to_and_Experiences.pdf .

Sørbye IK, Vangen S, Juarez SP, Bolumar F, Morisaki N, Gissler M, et al. Birthweight of babies born to migrant mothers - What role do integration policies play? SSM - Popul Heal. 2019;9:100503. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352827319301971 .

Teodorowski P, Woods R, Czarnecka M, Kennedy C. Brexit, acculturative stress and mental health among EU citizens in Scotland. Popul Space Place. 2021;27(6). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.2436 .

Baillot H, Murray N, Connelly E, Howard N. Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish model of intervention. 2014. Available from: https://www.celcis.org/application/files/8116/2185/5421/Tackling_Female_Genital_Mutilation_-_A_Scottish_Model_of_Intervention.pdf .

Weishaar HB. Consequences of international migration: a qualitative study on stress among Polish migrant workers in Scotland. Public Health. 2008;122(11):1250–6. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350608000942 .

Weishaar HB. You have to be flexible—coping among polish migrant workers in Scotland. Health Place. 2010;16(5):820–7. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353829210000432 .

Crowther S, Lau A. Migrant polish women overcoming communication challenges in scottish maternity services: a qualitative descriptive study. Midwifery. 2019;72:30–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0266613819300361 .

Fassetta G, Da Lomba S, Quinn N. A healthy start? Experiences of pregnant refugee and asylum seeking women in Scotland. 2016. Available from: https://www.redcross.org.uk/-/media/documents/about-us/research-publications/refugee-support/a-healthy-start-report.pdf .

Positive Action in Housing. 12 months since the Park Inn Tragedy in Glasgow, one in three hotel asylum seekers say their mental health has deteriorated. 2021. Available from: https://www.paih.org/one-in-three-glasgow-asylum-seekers-suffering-depression-and-anxiety .

Strang A. Refugee Peer Education for Health and Well-being. Evaluation Report. 2015. Available from: https://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Peer-Education-Evaluation-Report.pdf .

Strang A, Marsden R, Mignard E. The Holistic Integration Service: Learning and Evaluation Year 1. 2014. Available from: https://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Holistic-Integration-Service-year-1-evaluation-report.pdf .

British Red Cross. How will we survive? Steps to preventing destitution in the asylum system. 2021. Available from: https://www.redcross.org.uk/-/media/documents/about-us/how-will-we-survive-preventing-destitution-in-the-asylum-system.pdf .

Bhopal RS, Rafnsson SB, Agyemang C, Fagot-Campagna A, Giampaoli S, Hammar N, et al. Mortality from circulatory diseases by specific country of birth across six European countries: test of concept. Eur J Public Health. 2012;22(3):353–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckr062 .

Rafnsson SB, Bhopal RS, Agyemang C, Fagot-Campagna A, Harding S, Hammar N, et al. Sizable variations in circulatory disease mortality by region and country of birth in six European countries. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(4):594–605. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckt023 ).

de Lima P, Masud Chaudhry M, Whelton R, Arshad R. A study of migrant workers in Grampian. 2007. Available from: . http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/%0Adocuments/webpages/pubcs_019731.pdff .

Ikram UZ, Mackenbach JP, Harding S, Rey G, Bhopal RS, Regidor E, et al. All-cause and cause-specific mortality of different migrant populations in Europe. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(7):655–65. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10654-015-0083-9 .

de Brún T, De-Brún MO, van Weel-Baumgarten E, van Weel C, Dowrick C, Lionis C, et al. Guidelines and training initiatives that support communication in cross-cultural primary-care settings: appraising their implementability using Normalization Process Theory. Fam Pract. 2015;cmv022. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/fampra/cmv022 .

García-Medrano S, Panhofer H. Improving migrant well-being: spontaneous movement as a way to increase the creativity, spontaneity and welfare of migrants in Glasgow. Body Mov Danc Psychother. 2020;15(3):189–203. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17432979.2020.1767208 .

Jamil NA, Gray SR, Fraser WD, Fielding S, Macdonald HM. The relationship between vitamin D status and muscle strength in young healthy adults from sunny climate countries currently living in the northeast of Scotland. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(4):1433–43. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00198-016-3901-3 .

Kaneoka M, Spence W. The cultural context of sexual and reproductive health support: an exploration of sexual and reproductive health literacy among female Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Glasgow. Int J Migr Heal Soc Care. 2019;16(1):46–64. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJMHSC-01-2019-0002/full/html .

O’Donnell CA, Higgins M, Chauhan R, Mullen K. They think we’re OK and we know we’re not. A qualitative study of asylum seekers’ access, knowledge and views to health care in the UK. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):75. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-7-75 .

Cooper M, Harding S, Mullen K, O’Donnell C. ‘A chronic disease is a disease which keeps coming back … it is like the flu’: chronic disease risk perception and explanatory models among French- and Swahili-speaking African migrants. Ethn Health. 2012;17(6):597–613. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13557858.2012.740003 .

Ezika EA. An exploration of smoking behavior of african male immigrants living in glasgow. Tob Use Insights. 2014;7:TUI .S13262. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.4137/TUI.S13262 .

Karadzhov D, White R. Between the whispers of the devil and the revelation of the word : christian clergy’s mental health literacy and pastoral support for BME congregants. J Spiritual Ment Heal. 2020;22(2):147–72. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19349637.2018.1537755 ).

Yakubu BD, Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Eboh W. Sexual health information and uptake of sexual health services by African women in Scotland: a pilot study. Int J Heal Promot Educ. 2010;48(3):79–84. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14635240.2010.10708186 .

Goff J, Kay K, Lima M, Shallangwa S, We All Have A. Different Consciousness About It: Exploring the Sexual Health Needs of People From African Communities in Scotland. 2021. Available from: https://www.waverleycare.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/We_All_Have_Different_Consciousness_About_It_Report.pdf .

Bielecki K, Craig J, Willocks LJ, Pollock KG, Gorman DR. Impact of an influenza information pamphlet on vaccination uptake among Polish pupils in Edinburgh, Scotland and the role of social media in parental decision making. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1381. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09481-z .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gorman DR, Bielecki K, Willocks LJ, Pollock KG. A qualitative study of vaccination behaviour amongst female Polish migrants in Edinburgh, Scotland. Vaccine. 2019;37(20):2741–7. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264410X19304220 .

Bak-Klimek A, Karatzias T, Elliott L, MacLean R. The determinants of well-being among polish economic immigrants. Testing the sustainable happiness model in migrant population. J Happiness Stud. 2018;19(6):1565–88. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-017-9877-7 .

Cheung NF. The cultural and social meanings of childbearing for Chinese and Scottish women in Scotland. Midwifery. 2002;18(4):279–95. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0266613802903281 .

Papadaki A, Scott J. The impact on eating habits of temporary translocation from a Mediterranean to a Northern European environment. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56(5):455–61. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/1601337 .

McCann A, Mackie P. Improving the Health of Migrants to Scotland: An update for Scottish Directors of Public Health. 2016. Available from: https://www.scotphn.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016_03_23-Migrant-Health-Report-FINAL-1.pdf .

Ahmed A, Cameron S, Dickson C, Mountain K. Arabic-speaking students’ primary care experiences in Scotland. Community Pract J Community Pract Heal Visit Assoc. 2010;83(2):23–6.

Google Scholar  

Bray J, Gorman D, Dundas K, Sim J. Obstetric care of New European migrants in Scotland: an audit of antenatal care, obstetric outcomes and communication. Scott Med J. 2010;55(3):26–31. Available from: ( http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1258/rsmsmj.55.3.26 .

Cheung NF. Choice and control as experienced by Chinese and Scottish childbearing women in Scotland. Midwifery. 2002;18(3):200–13. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0266613802903153 .

Spence W, Zhu L. Perceptions of smoking cessation among Glasgow’s Chinese community. Tob Prev Cessat. 2017;3(October). Available from: http://www.journalssystem.com/tpc/Perceptions-of-smoking-cessation-among-Glasgow-s-Chinese-community,77942,0,2.html .

Gorman DR, Katikireddi SV, Morris C, Chalmers JWT, Sim J, Szamotulska K, et al. Ethnic variation in maternity care: a comparison of Polish and Scottish women delivering in Scotland 2004–2009. Public Health. 2014;128(3):262–7. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350613003910 .

Gorman DR, Porteous LA. Influences on Polish migrants’ breast screening uptake in Lothian, Scotland. Public Health. 2018;158:86–92. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350617304018 .

Hogg R, de Kok B, Netto G, Hanley J, Haycock-Stuart E. Supporting Pakistani and Chinese families with young children: perspectives of mothers and health visitors. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(3):416–23. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cch.12154 .

Kearns A, Whitley E. Health, Wellbeing and Social Inclusion of Migrants in North Glasgow. 2010. Available from: https://www.gowellonline.com/assets/0000/0521/Health_Wellbeing_and_Social_Inclusion_of_Migrants_in_North_Glasgow.pdf .

Poole L, Adamson K. Report on the Situation of the Roma Community in Govanhill, Glasgow. 2008. Available from: https://www.bemis.org.uk/resources/gt/scotland/reportonthesituationoftheromacommunityingovanhill,Glasgow.pdf .

Schofield L, Walsh D, Feng Z, Buchanan D, Dibben C, Fischbacher C, et al. Does ethnic diversity explain intra-UK variation in mortality? A longitudinal cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e024563. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024563 .

Unger HW, McCallum AD, Ukachukwu V, McGoldrick C, Perrow K, Latin G, et al. Imported malaria in Scotland – an overview of surveillance, reporting and trends. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2011;9(6):289–97. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1477893911001074 .

Young I, Flowers P, McDaid LM. Barriers to uptake and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among communities most affected by HIV in the UK: findings from a qualitative study in Scotland. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e005717. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005717 .

Young I, Flowers P, McDaid LM. Key factors in the acceptability of treatment as prevention (TasP) in Scotland: a qualitative study with communities affected by HIV. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91(4):269–74. Available from: https://sti.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/sextrans-2014-051711 .

Bhopal R, Cm FI, Teiner SM, Halmers CJ, Ovey PC, Amieson J. Ethnicity and health in Scotland: Can we fill the information gap ? A demonstration project focusing on coronary heart disease and linkage of census and health records. Ethics. 2005. Available from: http://www.cphs.mvm.ed.ac.uk/docs/Retrocodingfinalreport.pdf .

Cezard GI, Bhopal RS, Ward HJT, Bansal N, Bhala N. Ethnic variations in upper gastrointestinal hospitalizations and deaths: the Scottish Health and Ethnicity Linkage Study. Eur J Public Health. 2016;26(2):254–60. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckv182 .

Christie-de Jong F, Kotzur M, Amiri R, Ling J, Mooney JD, Robb KA. Qualitative evaluation of a codesigned faith-based intervention for muslim women in Scotland to encourage uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e058739. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058739 .

Cree VE, Sidhva D. Children and HIV in Scotland: findings from a cross-sector needs assessment of children and young people infected and affected by HIV in Scotland. Br J Soc Work. 2011;41(8):1586–603. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcr036 .

Gallimore A, Irshad T, Cooper M, Cameron S. Influence of culture, religion and experience on the decision of Pakistani women in Lothian, Scotland to use postnatal contraception: a qualitative study. BMJ Sex Reprod Heal. 2021;47(1):43–8. Available from: https://jfprhc.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200497 .

Gruer LD, Cézard GI, Wallace LA, Hutchinson SJ, Douglas AF, Buchanan D, et al. Complex differences in infection rates between ethnic groups in Scotland: a retrospective, national census-linked cohort study of 1.65 million cases. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2022;44(1):60–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/44/1/60/6106111 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bhala N, Cézard G, Ward HJT, Bansal N, Bhopal R. Ethnic variations in liver- and alcohol-related disease hospitalisations and mortality: the Scottish health and ethnicity linkage study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(5):593–601. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/alcalc/agw018 .

Pollock KG, McDonald E, Smith-Palmer A, Johnston F, Ahmed S. Tuberculosis in healthcare workers, Scotland. Scott Med J. 2017;62(3):101–3. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0036933017727963 .

Gruer LD, Millard AD, Williams LJ, Bhopal RS, Katikireddi SV, Cézard GI, et al. Differences in all-cause hospitalisation by ethnic group: a data linkage cohort study of 4.62 million people in Scotland, 2001–2013. Public Health. 2018;161:5–11. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350618301501 .

Jackson C, Bedford H, Cheater FM, Condon L, Emslie C, Ireland L, et al. Needles, Jabs and Jags: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to child and adult immunisation uptake among Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):254. Available from: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4178-y .

John JR, Curry G, Cunningham-Burley S. Exploring ethnic minority women’s experiences of maternity care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e050666. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050666 .

Lawton J, Ahmad N, Hanna L, Douglas M, Hallowell N. Diabetes service provision: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of Pakistani and Indian patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2006;23(9):1003–7. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01922.x .

Livingston MR, Shaw LE, Codere G, Goldberg DJ. Human immunodeficiency virus acquired heterosexually abroad: expert panel assessment of the indigenous/nonindigenous to the united kingdom status of cases. J Travel Med. 2006;12(1):19–25. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article-lookup/doi/10.2310/7060.2005.00005 .

Nelson M, Patton A, Robb K, Weller D, Sheikh A, Ragupathy K, et al. Experiences of cervical screening participation and non-participation in women from minority ethnic populations in Scotland. Heal Expect. 2021;24(4):1459–72. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.13287 .

Noble G, Okpo E, Tonna I, Fielding S. Factors associated with late HIV diagnosis in North-East Scotland: a six-year retrospective study. Public Health. 2016;139:36–43. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350616301020 .

Gillespie M. Trapped: Destitution and Asylum in Scotland. 2012. Available from: http://www.rst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Trapped-destitution-and-asylum-summary-final-compressed-pictures.pdf .

Hopkins P, Hill M. The needs and strengths of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people in Scotland. Child Fam Soc Work. 2010;15(4):399–408. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00687.x .

Marsden R, Harris C. “We started life again”: Integration experiences of refugee families reuniting in Glasgow. 2015. Available from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/560cde294.html .

Martzoukou K, Burnett S. Exploring the everyday life information needs and the socio-cultural adaptation barriers of Syrian refugees in Scotland. J Doc. 2018;74(5):1104–32. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-10-2017-0142/full/html .

McKenna R. From pillar to post: Destitution among people refused asylum in Scotland. 2019; Available from: https://www.rst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/From-Pillar-to-Post-Feb-2019.pdf .

Independent Commission of Inquiry. Failings in the provision of care to New Scots during the Covid pandemic: Part 2. 2022. Available from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62af1289a666c80e00b17253/t/636b9190408f81778746eaa7/1667994032702/AIS+Phase+2+Report+Full.pdf .

Trevena P, Gawlewicz A, Wright S. Addressing the needs of Scotland’s migrant and minority ethnic populations under Covid-19: lessons for the future. 2022. Available from: https://migrantessentialworkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SC-Migrant-C19-Innovations.pdf .

Oduntan O, Ruthven I. The information needs matrix: a navigational guide for refugee integration. Inf Process Manag. 2019;56(3):791–808. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306457318306939 .

Sime D, Fox R, Migrant C. Social capital and access to services post-migration: transitions, negotiations and complex agencies. Child Soc. 2015;29(6):524–34. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/chso.12092 .

Strang A, Baillot H, Mignard E. Insights into integration pathways. New Scots and the Holistic Integration Service. A report drawing on year two of the Holistic Integration Service. 2015. Available from: https://scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Holistic-Integration-Service-Year-2-report.pdf .

Weir KEA, Wilson SJ, Gorman DR. The Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme: evaluation of Edinburgh’s reception arrangements. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2018;40(3):451–60. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/40/3/451/4600209 .

Hammond CN. Scots 2- Engagement analysis of the New Scot Refugee Integration Strategy 2018–2022. 2018. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2018/06/news-scots-2-engagement-analysis-new-scots-refugee-integration-strategy/documents/00537019-pdf/00537019-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00537019.pdf .

Blake Stevenson. A8 Nationals in Glasgow. 2007. Available from: http://crosshillandgovanhill.org.uk/grindocs/A8NationalsinGlasgow.pdf .

Ajetunmobi O, Whyte B, Chalmers J, Fleming M, Stockton D, Wood R. Informing the ‘early years’ agenda in Scotland: understanding infant feeding patterns using linked datasets. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(1):83–92. Available from: https://jech.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/jech-2013-202718 .

Laidlaw K, Wang D, Coelho C, Power M. Attitudes to ageing and expectations for filial piety across Chinese and British cultures: a pilot exploratory evaluation. Aging Ment Health. 2010;14(3):283–92. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13607860903483060 .

Marsden R, Aldegheri E, Khan A, Lowe M, Strang A, Salinas E, et al. “What’s going on?” A study into destitution and poverty faced by asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland. 2005. Available from: http://www.rst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Whats_going_on_A_study.pdf .

Quinn N. Participatory action research with asylum seekers and refugees experiencing stigma and discrimination: the experience from Scotland. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(1):58–70. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2013.769863 .

British Red Cross, Refugee Survival Trust. How will we survive? Steps to preventing destitution in the asylum system. 2021. Available from: https://mcusercontent.com/c17c136fc126588cb51e5471d/files/a35dd0e1-d785-f962-6a41-01e928493775/DASS_Research_Report_2021.pdf .

O’Donnell R, Angus K, McCulloch P, Amos A, Greaves L, Semple S. Fathers’ views and experiences of creating a smoke-free home: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(24):5164. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/5164 .

Sweileh WM, Wickramage K, Pottie K, Hui C, Roberts B, Sawalha AF, et al. Bibliometric analysis of global migration health research in peer-reviewed literature (2000–2016). BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):777. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-5689-x .

Wren K. Supporting asylum seekers and refugees in glasgow: the role of multi-agency networks. J Refug Stud. 2007;20(3):391–413. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jrs/fem006 .

UK Government Home Office. A Fairer Asylum Accommodation System. 2022. Available from: https://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/write/Migration/Asylum_Dispersal_Factsheet_PDF.pdf .

Scottish Refugee Council. Scotland’s Welcome: an analysis of community support for refugee integration. 2020. Available from https://scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Community-support-analysis-2020.pdf .

Sturge G, UK Parliament House of Commons Library Asylum statistics Research Briefing. 2023. Available from: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/#:~:text=IntheyearendingJune,ofimmigrantstotheUK .

The Migration Observatory. Where do migrants live in the UK? The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. 2022. Available from: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/where-do-migrants-live-in-the-uk .

Pavli A, Maltezou H. Health problems of newly arrived migrants and refugees in Europe. J Travel Med. 2017;24(4). Available from: http://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/doi/10.1093/jtm/tax016/3095987/Health-problems-of-newly-arrived-migrants-and .

Humphris R, Bradby H. Health Status of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. Oxford University Press; 2017. Available from: https://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-8 .

Bradby H, Humphris R, Newall D, Phillimore J. Public Health Aspects of Migrant Health: A Review of the Evidence on Health Status for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the European Region. (Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report, No. 44.) ANNEX 2, DEFINITIONS OF REFUGEES, ASYLUM SEEKERS AND MIGRANTS IN THE LITERATURE. Copenhagen: Eerat; 2015. Available from:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK379415/ .

Gerritsen AAM, Bramsen I, Devillé W, van Willigen LHM, Hovens JE, van der Ploeg HM. Physical and mental health of Afghan, Iranian and Somali asylum seekers and refugees living in the Netherlands. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41(1):18–26. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00127-005-0003-5 .

Laue J, Diaz E, Eriksen L, Risør T. Migration health research in Norway: a scoping review. Scand J Public Health. 2023;51(3):381–90. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14034948211032494 .

Scottish Refugee Council. Ukraine response one year on. 2023. Available from: https://scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/ukraine-response-one-year-on/ . Cited 2023 Aug 26.

Woodward A, Howard N, Wolffers I. Health and access to care for undocumented migrants living in the European Union: a scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(7):818–30. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/heapol/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/heapol/czt061 .

Simon J, Kiss N, Laszewska A, Mayer S. Public health aspects of migrant health: a review of the evidence on health status for labour migrants in the European Region. Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report 43. 2015. Available from: http://www.epgencms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/114f16b6-1667-44ab-802b-a5a83dd50af0/WHO-HEN-Report-A5-1-Labour-FINAL_EN.pdf .

Scottish Government. Seasonal migrant workers in Scottish agriculture: research report. 2023. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/seasonal-migrant-workers-scottish-agriculture/pages/10/ .

Scottish Government. New Scots: refugee integration strategy 2018–2022. 2018. Available from: https://www.gov.scot/publications/new-scots-refugee-integration-strategy-2018-2022/pages/11/ .

Oliva A, Palavra V, Caloun J. Refugees in Scotland: understanding the policy domain. 2016. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/34097718/REFUGEES_IN_SCOTLAND_UNDERSTANDING_THE_POLICY_DOMAIN .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. Available from: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank-you to Professor Anne MacFarlane and PHD student Anne Cronin, of the University of Limerick, Ireland for sharing the coding guidelines currently used in an update to Villarroel et. al’s 2019 study on Migrant Health in the Republic of Ireland.

No funding was received for this work, which was undertaken as G. Petrie’s Master of Public Health dissertation module at the University of Stirling.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Caledonia House, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

Institute for Social Marketing and Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK

K. Angus & R. O’Donnell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KA, RO and GP finalised the study design collectively. GP conducted the searches, analysis and write up, with support from KA and RO. All three authors read and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. O’Donnell .

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., supplementary material 3., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Petrie, G., Angus, K. & O’Donnell, R. A scoping review of academic and grey literature on migrant health research conducted in Scotland. BMC Public Health 24 , 1156 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18628-1

Download citation

Received : 04 September 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 25 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18628-1

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

• Asylum seekers
• Scoping review
• Research funding
• Immigration

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

RRL Generator - Review of Related Literature

Ai-powered literature review generator.

• Research projects: Generate a comprehensive literature review for your research project, saving time and effort on finding and analyzing relevant resources.
• Academic papers: Create a literature review section for your academic paper that summarizes and analyzes the existing literature on your topic.
• Thesis or dissertation: Develop a literature review chapter for your thesis or dissertation that provides a comprehensive overview of the existing research on your topic.
• Grant proposals: Include a literature review in your grant proposal that demonstrates your understanding of the existing research in your field.

New & Trending Tools

Ai text generator, webpage text extractor ai.

• Open access
• Published: 23 April 2024

Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review

• Javiera Fuentes-Cimma 1 , 2 ,
• Dominique Sluijsmans 3 ,
• Arnoldo Riquelme 4 ,
• Ignacio Villagran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-8326 1 ,
• Lorena Isbej   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-8484 2 , 5 ,
• María Teresa Olivares-Labbe 6 &
• Sylvia Heeneman 7  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  440 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

130 Accesses

Metrics details

Feedback processes are crucial for learning, guiding improvement, and enhancing performance. In workplace-based learning settings, diverse teaching and assessment activities are advocated to be designed and implemented, generating feedback that students use, with proper guidance, to close the gap between current and desired performance levels. Since productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured feedback activities within undergraduate workplace-based learning settings. However, these settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students. This scoping review maps literature on how feedback processes are organised in undergraduate clinical workplace-based learning settings, providing insight into the design and use of feedback.

A scoping review was conducted. Studies were identified from seven databases and ten relevant journals in medical education. The screening process was performed independently in duplicate with the support of the StArt program. Data were organized in a data chart and analyzed using thematic analysis. The feedback loop with a sociocultural perspective was used as a theoretical framework.

The search yielded 4,877 papers, and 61 were included in the review. Two themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: (1) The organization of the feedback processes in workplace-based learning settings, and (2) Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. The literature describes multiple teaching and assessment activities that generate feedback information. Most papers described experiences and perceptions of diverse teaching and assessment feedback activities. Few studies described how feedback processes improve performance. Sociocultural factors such as establishing a feedback culture, enabling stable and trustworthy relationships, and enhancing student feedback agency are crucial for productive feedback processes.

Conclusions

This review identified concrete ideas regarding how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. The feedback encounter should be organized to allow follow-up of the feedback, i.e., working on required learning and performance goals at the next occasion. The educational programs should design feedback processes by appropriately planning subsequent tasks and activities. More insight is needed in designing a full-loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices.

Peer Review reports

The design of effective feedback processes in higher education has been important for educators and researchers and has prompted numerous publications discussing potential mechanisms, theoretical frameworks, and best practice examples over the past few decades. Initially, research on feedback primarily focused more on teachers and feedback delivery, and students were depicted as passive feedback recipients [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. The feedback conversation has recently evolved to a more dynamic emphasis on interaction, sense-making, outcomes in actions, and engagement with learners [ 2 ]. This shift aligns with utilizing the feedback process as a form of social interaction or dialogue to enhance performance [ 4 ]. Henderson et al. (2019) defined feedback processes as "where the learner makes sense of performance-relevant information to promote their learning." (p. 17). When a student grasps the information concerning their performance in connection to the desired learning outcome and subsequently takes suitable action, a feedback loop is closed so the process can be regarded as successful [ 5 , 6 ].

Hattie and Timperley (2007) proposed a comprehensive perspective on feedback, the so-called feedback loop, to answer three key questions: “Where am I going? “How am I going?” and “Where to next?” [ 7 ]. Each question represents a key dimension of the feedback loop. The first is the feed-up, which consists of setting learning goals and sharing clear objectives of learners' performance expectations. While the concept of the feed-up might not be consistently included in the literature, it is considered to be related to principles of effective feedback and goal setting within educational contexts [ 7 , 8 ]. Goal setting allows students to focus on tasks and learning, and teachers to have clear intended learning outcomes to enable the design of aligned activities and tasks in which feedback processes can be embedded [ 9 ]. Teachers can improve the feed-up dimension by proposing clear, challenging, but achievable goals [ 7 ]. The second dimension of the feedback loop focuses on feedback and aims to answer the second question by obtaining information about students' current performance. Different teaching and assessment activities can be used to obtain feedback information, and it can be provided by a teacher or tutor, a peer, oneself, a patient, or another coworker. The last dimension of the feedback loop is the feedforward, which is specifically associated with using feedback to improve performance or change behaviors [ 10 ]. Feedforward is crucial in closing the loop because it refers to those specific actions students must take to reduce the gap between current and desired performance [ 7 ].

From a sociocultural perspective, feedback processes involve a social practice consisting of intricate relationships within a learning context [ 11 ]. The main feature of this approach is that students learn from feedback only when the feedback encounter includes generating, making sense of, and acting upon the information given [ 11 ]. In the context of workplace-based learning (WBL), actionable feedback plays a crucial role in enabling learners to leverage specific feedback to enhance their performance, skills, and conceptual understandings. The WBL environment provides students with a valuable opportunity to gain hands-on experience in authentic clinical settings, in which students work more independently on real-world tasks, allowing them to develop and exhibit their competencies [ 3 ]. However, WBL settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote self-directed learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students [ 12 ]. Consequently, designing purposive feedback opportunities within WBL settings is a significant challenge for clinical teachers and faculty.

In undergraduate clinical education, feedback opportunities are often constrained due to the emphasis on clinical work and the absence of dedicated time for teaching [ 13 ]. Students are expected to perform autonomously under supervision, ideally achieved by giving them space to practice progressively and providing continuous instances of constructive feedback [ 14 ]. However, the hierarchy often present in clinical settings places undergraduate students in a dependent position, below residents and specialists [ 15 ]. Undergraduate or junior students may have different approaches to receiving and using feedback. If their priority is meeting the minimum standards given pass-fail consequences and acting merely as feedback recipients, other incentives may be needed to engage with the feedback processes because they will need more learning support [ 16 , 17 ]. Adequate supervision and feedback have been recognized as vital educational support in encouraging students to adopt a constructive learning approach [ 18 ]. Given that productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured teaching and learning feedback activities within undergraduate WBL settings.

Despite the extensive research on feedback, a significant proportion of published studies involve residents or postgraduate students [ 19 , 20 ]. Recent reviews focusing on feedback interventions within medical education have clearly distinguished between undergraduate medical students and residents or fellows [ 21 ]. To gain a comprehensive understanding of initiatives related to actionable feedback in the WBL environment for undergraduate health professions, a scoping review of the existing literature could provide insight into how feedback processes are designed in that context. Accordingly, the present scoping review aims to answer the following research question: How are the feedback processes designed in the undergraduate health professions' workplace-based learning environments?

A scoping review was conducted using the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [ 22 ], intertwined with the PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis [ 23 ]. Scoping reviews allow us to study the literature without restricting the methodological quality of the studies found, systematically and comprehensively map the literature, and identify gaps [ 24 ]. Furthermore, a scoping review was used because this topic is not suitable for a systematic review due to the varied approaches described and the large difference in the methodologies used [ 21 ].

Search strategy

With the collaboration of a medical librarian, the authors used the research question to guide the search strategy. An initial meeting was held to define keywords and search resources. The proposed search strategy was reviewed by the research team, and then the study selection was conducted in two steps:

An online database search included Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO.

A directed search of ten relevant journals in the health sciences education field (Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Journal of Surgical Education, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education Online, Perspectives on Medical Education and The Clinical Teacher) was performed.

The research team conducted a pilot or initial search before the full search to identify if the topic was susceptible to a scoping review. The full search was conducted in November 2022. One team member (MO) identified the papers in the databases. JF searched in the selected journals. Authors included studies written in English due to feasibility issues, with no time span limitation. After eliminating duplicates, two research team members (JF and IV) independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts using the exclusion and inclusion criteria described in Table  2 and with the support of the screening application StArT [ 25 ]. A third team member (AR) reviewed the titles and abstracts when the first two disagreed. The reviewer team met again at a midpoint and final stage to discuss the challenges related to study selection. Articles included for full-text review were exported to Mendeley. JF independently screened all full-text papers, and AR verified 10% for inclusion. The authors did not analyze study quality or risk of bias during study selection, which is consistent with conducting a scoping review.

The analysis of the results incorporated a descriptive summary and a thematic analysis, which was carried out to clarify and give consistency to the results' reporting [ 22 , 24 , 26 ]. Quantitative data were analyzed to report the characteristics of the studies, populations, settings, methods, and outcomes. Qualitative data were labeled, coded, and categorized into themes by three team members (JF, SH, and DS). The feedback loop framework with a sociocultural perspective was used as the theoretical framework to analyze the results.

The keywords used for the search strategies were as follows:

Clinical clerkship; feedback; formative feedback; health professions; undergraduate medical education; workplace.

Definitions of the keywords used for the present review are available in Appendix 1 .

As an example, we included the search strategy that we used in the Medline/PubMed database when conducting the full search:

("Formative Feedback"[Mesh] OR feedback) AND ("Workplace"[Mesh] OR workplace OR "Clinical Clerkship"[Mesh] OR clerkship) AND (("Education, Medical, Undergraduate"[Mesh] OR undergraduate health profession*) OR (learner* medical education)).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used (Table  1 ):

Data extraction

The research group developed a data-charting form to organize the information obtained from the studies. The process was iterative, as the data chart was continuously reviewed and improved as necessary. In addition, following Levac et al.'s recommendation (2010), the three members involved in the charting process (JF, LI, and IV) independently reviewed the first five selected studies to determine whether the data extraction was consistent with the objectives of this scoping review and to ensure consistency. Then, the team met using web-conferencing software (Zoom; CA, USA) to review the results and adjust any details in the chart. The same three members extracted data independently from all the selected studies, considering two members reviewing each paper [ 26 ]. A third team member was consulted if any conflict occurred when extracting data. The data chart identified demographic patterns and facilitated the data synthesis. To organize data, we used a shared Excel spreadsheet, considering the following headings: title, author(s), year of publication, journal/source, country/origin, aim of the study, research question (if any), population/sample size, participants, discipline, setting, methodology, study design, data collection, data analysis, intervention, outcomes, outcomes measure, key findings, and relation of findings to research question.

Additionally, all the included papers were uploaded to AtlasTi v19 to facilitate the qualitative analysis. Three team members (JF, SH, and DS) independently coded the first six papers to create a list of codes to ensure consistency and rigor. The group met several times to discuss and refine the list of codes. Then, one member of the team (JF) used the code list to code all the rest of the papers. Once all papers were coded, the team organized codes into descriptive themes aligned with the research question.

Preliminary results were shared with a number of stakeholders (six clinical teachers, ten students, six medical educators) to elicit their opinions as an opportunity to build on the evidence and offer a greater level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to the preliminary findings [ 26 ]. No quality appraisal of the studies is considered for this scoping review, which aligns with the frameworks for guiding scoping reviews [ 27 ].

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

A database search resulted in 3,597 papers, and the directed search of the most relevant journals in the health sciences education field yielded 2,096 titles. An example of the results of one database is available in Appendix 2 . Of the titles obtained, 816 duplicates were eliminated, and the team reviewed the titles and abstracts of 4,877 papers. Of these, 120 were selected for full-text review. Finally, 61 papers were included in this scoping review (Fig.  1 ), as listed in Table  2 .

PRISMA flow diagram for included studies, incorporating records identified through the database and direct searching

The selected studies were published between 1986 and 2022, and seventy-five percent (46) were published during the last decade. Of all the articles included in this review, 13% (8) were literature reviews: one integrative review [ 28 ] and four scoping reviews [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Finally, fifty-three (87%) original or empirical papers were included (i.e., studies that answered a research question or achieved a research purpose through qualitative or quantitative methodologies) [ 15 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 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 ].

Table 2 summarizes the papers included in the present scoping review, and Table  3 describes the characteristics of the included studies.

The thematic analysis resulted in two themes: (1) the organization of feedback processes in WBL settings, and (2) sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. Table 4 gives a summary of the themes and subthemes.

Organization of feedback processes in WBL settings.

Setting learning goals (i.e., feed-up dimension).

Feedback that focuses on students' learning needs and is based on known performance standards enhances student response and setting learning goals [ 30 ]. Discussing goals and agreements before starting clinical practice enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. Farrell et al. (2017) found that teacher-learner co-constructed learning goals enhance feedback interactions and help establish educational alliances, improving the learning experience [ 50 ]. However, Kiger (2020) found that sharing individualized learning plans with teachers aligned feedback with learning goals but did not improve students' perceived use of feedback [ 64 ]

Two papers of this set pointed out the importance of goal-oriented feedback, a dynamic process that depends on discussion of goal setting between teachers and students [ 50 ] and influences how individuals experience, approach, and respond to upcoming learning activities [ 34 ]. Goal-oriented feedback should be embedded in the learning experience of the clinical workplace, as it can enhance students' engagement in safe feedback dialogues [ 50 ]. Ideally, each feedback encounter in the WBL context should conclude, in addition to setting a plan of action to achieve the desired goal, with a reflection on the next goal [ 50 ].

Feedback strategies within the WBL environment. (i.e., feedback dimension)

In undergraduate WBL environments, there are several tasks and feedback opportunities organized in the undergraduate clinical workplace that can enable feedback processes:

Questions from clinical teachers to students are a feedback strategy [ 74 ]. There are different types of questions that the teacher can use, either to clarify concepts, to reach the correct answer, or to facilitate self-correction [ 74 ]. Usually, questions can be used in conjunction with other communication strategies, such as pauses, which enable self-correction by the student [ 74 ]. Students can also ask questions to obtain feedback on their performance [ 54 ]. However, question-and-answer as a feedback strategy usually provides information on either correct or incorrect answers and fewer suggestions for improvement, rendering it less constructive as a feedback strategy [ 82 ].

Direct observation of performance by default is needed to be able to provide information to be used as input in the feedback process [ 33 , 46 , 49 , 86 ]. In the process of observation, teachers can include clarification of objectives (i.e., feed-up dimension) and suggestions for an action plan (i.e., feedforward) [ 50 ]. Accordingly, Schopper et al. (2016) showed that students valued being observed while interviewing patients, as they received feedback that helped them become more efficient and effective as interviewers and communicators [ 33 ]. Moreover, it is widely described that direct observation improves feedback credibility [ 33 , 40 , 84 ]. Ideally, observation should be deliberate [ 33 , 83 ], informal or spontaneous [ 33 ], conducted by a (clinical) expert [ 46 , 86 ], provided immediately after the observation, and clinical teacher if possible, should schedule or be alert on follow-up observations to promote closing the gap between current and desired performance [ 46 ].

Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), by definition, entail direct observation of performance during authentic task demonstration [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. WBAs can significantly impact behavioral change in medical students [ 55 ]. Organizing and designing formative WBAs and embedding these in a feedback dialogue is essential for effective learning [ 31 ].

Summative organization of WBAs is a well described barrier for feedback uptake in the clinical workplace [ 35 , 46 ]. If feedback is perceived as summative, or organized as a pass-fail decision, students may be less inclined to use the feedback for future learning [ 52 ]. According to Schopper et al. (2016), using a scale within a WBA makes students shift their focus during the clinical interaction and see it as an assessment with consequences [ 33 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) pointed out that an environment that only contains assessments with a summative purpose will not lead to a culture of learning and improving performance [ 56 ]. The recommendation is to separate the formative and summative WBAs, as feedback in summative instances is often not recognized as a learning opportunity or an instance to seek feedback [ 54 ]. In terms of the design, an organizational format is needed to clarify to students how formative assessments can promote learning from feedback [ 56 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) identified that enabling students to have more control over their assessments, designing authentic assessments, and facilitating long-term mentoring could improve receptivity to formative assessment feedback [ 56 ].

Multiple WBA instruments and systems are reported in the literature. Sox et al. (2014) used a detailed evaluation form to help students improve their clinical case presentation skills. They found that feedback on oral presentations provided by supervisors using a detailed evaluation form improved clerkship students’ oral presentation skills [ 78 ]. Daelmans et al. (2006) suggested that a formal in-training assessment programme composed by 19 assessments that provided structured feedback, could promote observation and verbal feedback opportunities through frequent assessments [ 43 ]. However, in this setting, limited student-staff interactions still hindered feedback follow-up [ 43 ]. Designing frequent WBA improves feedback credibility [ 28 ]. Long et al. (2021) emphasized that students' responsiveness to assessment feedback hinges on its perceived credibility, underlining the importance of credibility for students to effectively engage and improve their performance [ 31 ].

The mini-CEX is one of the most widely described WBA instruments in the literature. Students perceive that the mini-CEX allows them to be observed and encourages the development of interviewing skills [ 33 ]. The mini-CEX can provide feedback that improves students' clinical skills [ 58 , 60 ], as it incorporates a structure for discussing the student's strengths and weaknesses and the design of a written action plan [ 39 , 80 ]. When mini-CEXs are incorporated as part of a system of WBA, such as programmatic assessment, students feel confident in seeking feedback after observation, and being systematic allows for follow-up [ 39 ]. Students suggested separating grading from observation and using the mini-CEX in more informal situations [ 33 ].

Clinical encounter cards allow students to receive weekly feedback and make them request more feedback as the clerkship progresses [ 65 ]. Moreover, encounter cards stimulate that feedback is given by supervisors, and students are more satisfied with the feedback process [ 72 ]. With encounter card feedback, students are responsible for asking a supervisor for feedback before a clinical encounter, and supervisors give students written and verbal comments about their performance after the encounter [ 42 , 72 ]. Encounter cards enhance the use of feedback and add approximately one minute to the length of the clinical encounter, so they are well accepted by students and supervisors [ 72 ]. Bennett (2006) identified that Instant Feedback Cards (IFC) facilitated mid-rotation feedback [ 38 ]. Feedback encounter card comments must be discussed between students and supervisors; otherwise, students may perceive it as impersonal, static, formulaic, and incomplete [ 59 ].

Self-assessments can change students' feedback orientation, transforming them into coproducers of learning [ 68 ]. Self-assessments promote the feedback process [ 68 ]. Some articles emphasize the importance of organizing self-assessments before receiving feedback from supervisors, for example, discussing their appraisal with the supervisor [ 46 , 52 ]. In designing a feedback encounter, starting with a self-assessment as feed-up, discussing with the supervisor, and identifying areas for improvement is recommended, as part of the feedback dialogue [ 68 ].

Peer feedback as an organized activity allows students to develop strategies to observe and give feedback to other peers [ 61 ]. Students can act as the feedback provider or receiver, fostering understanding of critical comments and promoting evaluative judgment for their clinical practice [ 61 ]. Within clerkships, enabling the sharing of feedback information among peers allows for a better understanding and acceptance of feedback [ 52 ]. However, students can find it challenging to take on the peer assessor/feedback provider role, as they prefer to avoid social conflicts [ 28 , 61 ]. Moreover, it has been described that they do not trust the judgment of their peers because they are not experts, although they know the procedures, tasks, and steps well and empathize with their peer status in the learning process [ 61 ].

Bedside-teaching encounters (BTEs) provide timely feedback and are an opportunity for verbal feedback during performance [ 74 ]. Rizan et al. (2014) explored timely feedback delivered within BTEs and determined that it promotes interaction that constructively enhances learner development through various corrective strategies (e.g., question and answers, pauses, etc.). However, if the feedback given during the BTEs was general, unspecific, or open-ended, it could go unnoticed [ 74 ]. Torre et al. (2005) investigated which integrated feedback activities and clinical tasks occurred on clerkship rotations and assessed students' perceived quality in each teaching encounter [ 81 ]. The feedback activities reported were feedback on written clinical history, physical examination, differential diagnosis, oral case presentation, a daily progress note, and bedside feedback. Students considered all these feedback activities high-quality learning opportunities, but they were more likely to receive feedback when teaching was at the bedside than at other teaching locations [ 81 ].

Case presentations are an opportunity for feedback within WBL contexts [ 67 , 73 ]. However, both students and supervisors struggled to identify them as feedback moments, and they often dismissed questions and clarifications around case presentations as feedback [ 73 ]. Joshi (2017) identified case presentations as a way for students to ask for informal or spontaneous supervisor feedback [ 63 ].

Organization of follow-up feedback and action plans (i.e., feedforward dimension).

Feedback that generates use and response from students is characterized by two-way communication and embedded in a dialogue [ 30 ]. Feedback must be future-focused [ 29 ], and a feedback encounter should be followed by planning the next observation [ 46 , 87 ]. Follow-up feedback could be organized as a future self-assessment, reflective practice by the student, and/or a discussion with the supervisor or coach [ 68 ]. The literature describes that a lack of student interaction with teachers makes follow-up difficult [ 43 ]. According to Haffling et al. (2011), follow-up feedback sessions improve students' satisfaction with feedback compared to students who do not have follow-up sessions. In addition, these same authors reported that a second follow-up session allows verification of improved performances or confirmation that the skill was acquired [ 55 ].

Although feedback encounter forms are a recognized way of obtaining information about performance (i.e., feedback dimension), the literature does not provide many clear examples of how they may impact the feedforward phase. For example, Joshi et al. (2016) consider a feedback form with four fields (i.e., what did you do well, advise the student on what could be done to improve performance, indicate the level of proficiency, and personal details of the tutor). In this case, the supervisor highlighted what the student could improve but not how, which is the missing phase of the co-constructed action plan [ 63 ]. Whichever WBA instrument is used in clerkships to provide feedback, it should include a "next steps" box [ 44 ], and it is recommended to organize a long-term use of the WBA instrument so that those involved get used to it and improve interaction and feedback uptake [ 55 ]. RIME-based feedback (Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating) is considered an interesting example, as it is perceived as helpful to students in knowing what they need to improve in their performance [ 44 ]. Hochberg (2017) implemented formative mid-clerkship assessments to enhance face-to-face feedback conversations and co-create an improvement plan [ 59 ]. Apps for structuring and storing feedback improve the amount of verbal and written feedback. In the study of Joshi et al. (2016), a reasonable proportion of students (64%) perceived that these app tools help them improve their performance during rotations [ 63 ].

Several studies indicate that an action plan as part of the follow-up feedback is essential for performance improvement and learning [ 46 , 55 , 60 ]. An action plan corresponds to an agreed-upon strategy for improving, confirming, or correcting performance. Bing-You et al. (2017) determined that only 12% of the articles included in their scoping review incorporated an action plan for learners [ 32 ]. Holmboe et al. (2004) reported that only 11% of the feedback sessions following a mini-CEX included an action plan [ 60 ]. Suhoyo et al. (2017) also reported that only 55% of mini-CEX encounters contained an action plan [ 80 ]. Other authors reported that action plans are not commonly offered during feedback encounters [ 77 ]. Sokol-Hessner et al. (2010) implemented feedback card comments with a space to provide written feedback and a specific action plan. In their results, 96% contained positive comments, and only 5% contained constructive comments [ 77 ]. In summary, although the recommendation is to include a “next step” box in the feedback instruments, evidence shows these items are not often used for constructive comments or action plans.

Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes.

Multiple sociocultural factors influence interaction in feedback encounters, promoting or hampering the productivity of the feedback processes.

Clinical learning culture

Context impacts feedback processes [ 30 , 82 ], and there are barriers to incorporating actionable feedback in the clinical learning context. The clinical learning culture is partly determined by the clinical context, which can be unpredictable [ 29 , 46 , 68 ], as the available patients determine learning opportunities. Supervisors are occupied by a high workload, which results in limited time or priority for teaching [ 35 , 46 , 48 , 55 , 68 , 83 ], hindering students’ feedback-seeking behavior [ 54 ], and creating a challenge for the balance between patient care and student mentoring [ 35 ].

Clinical workplace culture does not always purposefully prioritize instances for feedback processes [ 83 , 84 ]. This often leads to limited direct observation [ 55 , 68 ] and the provision of poorly informed feedback. It is also evident that this affects trust between clinical teachers and students [ 52 ]. Supervisors consider feedback a low priority in clinical contexts [ 35 ] due to low compensation and lack of protected time [ 83 ]. In particular, lack of time appears to be the most significant and well-known barrier to frequent observation and workplace feedback [ 35 , 43 , 48 , 62 , 67 , 83 ].

The clinical environment is hierarchical [ 68 , 80 ] and can make students not consider themselves part of the team and feel like a burden to their supervisor [ 68 ]. This hierarchical learning environment can lead to unidirectional feedback, limit dialogue during feedback processes, and hinder the seeking, uptake, and use of feedback [ 67 , 68 ]. In a learning culture where feedback is not supported, learners are less likely to want to seek it and feel motivated and engaged in their learning [ 83 ]. Furthermore, it has been identified that clinical supervisors lack the motivation to teach [ 48 ] and the intention to observe or reobserve performance [ 86 ].

In summary, the clinical context and WBL culture do not fully use the potential of a feedback process aimed at closing learning gaps. However, concrete actions shown in the literature can be taken to improve the effectiveness of feedback by organizing the learning context. For example, McGinness et al. (2022) identified that students felt more receptive to feedback when working in a safe, nonjudgmental environment [ 67 ]. Moreover, supervisors and trainees identified the learning culture as key to establishing an open feedback dialogue [ 73 ]. Students who perceive culture as supportive and formative can feel more comfortable performing tasks and more willing to receive feedback [ 73 ].

Relationships

There is a consensus in the literature that trusting and long-term relationships improve the chances of actionable feedback. However, relationships between supervisors and students in the clinical workplace are often brief and not organized as more longitudinally [ 68 , 83 ], leaving little time to establish a trustful relationship [ 68 ]. Supervisors change continuously, resulting in short interactions that limit the creation of lasting relationships over time [ 50 , 68 , 83 ]. In some contexts, it is common for a student to have several supervisors who have their own standards in the observation of performance [ 46 , 56 , 68 , 83 ]. A lack of stable relationships results in students having little engagement in feedback [ 68 ]. Furthermore, in case of summative assessment programmes, the dual role of supervisors (i.e., assessing and giving feedback) makes feedback interactions perceived as summative and can complicate the relationship [ 83 ].

Repeatedly, the articles considered in this review describe that long-term and stable relationships enable the development of trust and respect [ 35 , 62 ] and foster feedback-seeking behavior [ 35 , 67 ] and feedback-giver behavior [ 39 ]. Moreover, constructive and positive relationships enhance students´ use of and response to feedback [ 30 ]. For example, Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LICs) promote stable relationships, thus enhancing the impact of feedback [ 83 ]. In a long-term trusting relationship, feedback can be straightforward and credible [ 87 ], there are more opportunities for student observation, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 ]. Johnson et al. (2020) pointed out that within a clinical teacher-student relationship, the focus must be on establishing psychological safety; thus, the feedback conversations might be transformed [ 62 ].

Stable relationships enhance feedback dialogues, which offer an opportunity to co-construct learning and propose and negotiate aspects of the design of learning strategies [ 62 ].

Students as active agents in the feedback processes

The feedback response learners generate depends on the type of feedback information they receive, how credible the source of feedback information is, the relationship between the receiver and the giver, and the relevance of the information delivered [ 49 ]. Garino (2020) noted that students who are most successful in using feedback are those who do not take criticism personally, who understand what they need to improve and know they can do so, who value and feel meaning in criticism, are not surprised to receive it, and who are motivated to seek new feedback and use effective learning strategies [ 52 ]. Successful users of feedback ask others for help, are intentional about their learning, know what resources to use and when to use them, listen to and understand a message, value advice, and use effective learning strategies. They regulate their emotions, find meaning in the message, and are willing to change [ 52 ].

Student self-efficacy influences the understanding and use of feedback in the clinical workplace. McGinness et al. (2022) described various positive examples of self-efficacy regarding feedback processes: planning feedback meetings with teachers, fostering good relationships with the clinical team, demonstrating interest in assigned tasks, persisting in seeking feedback despite the patient workload, and taking advantage of opportunities for feedback, e.g., case presentations [ 67 ].

When students are encouraged to seek feedback aligned with their own learning objectives, they promote feedback information specific to what they want to learn and improve and enhance the use of feedback [ 53 ]. McGinness et al. (2022) identified that the perceived relevance of feedback information influenced the use of feedback because students were more likely to ask for feedback if they perceived that the information was useful to them. For example, if students feel part of the clinical team and participate in patient care, they are more likely to seek feedback [ 17 ].

Learning-oriented students aim to seek feedback to achieve clinical competence at the expected level [ 75 ]; they focus on improving their knowledge and skills and on professional development [ 17 ]. Performance-oriented students aim not to fail and to avoid negative feedback [ 17 , 75 ].

For effective feedback processes, including feed-up, feedback, and feedforward, the student must be feedback-oriented, i.e., active, seeking, listening to, interpreting, and acting on feedback [ 68 ]. The literature shows that feedback-oriented students are coproducers of learning [ 68 ] and are more involved in the feedback process [ 51 ]. Additionally, students who are metacognitively aware of their learning process are more likely to use feedback to reduce gaps in learning and performance [ 52 ]. For this, students must recognize feedback when it occurs and understand it when they receive it. Thus, it is important to organize training and promote feedback literacy so that students understand what feedback is, act on it, and improve the quality of feedback and their learning plans [ 68 ].

Table 5 summarizes those feedback tasks, activities, and key features of organizational aspects that enable each phase of the feedback loop based on the literature review.

The present scoping review identified 61 papers that mapped the literature on feedback processes in the WBL environments of undergraduate health professions. This review explored how feedback processes are organized in these learning contexts using the feedback loop framework. Given the specific characteristics of feedback processes in undergraduate clinical learning, three main findings were identified on how feedback processes are being conducted in the clinical environment and how these processes could be organized to support feedback processes.

First, the literature lacks a balance between the three dimensions of the feedback loop. In this regard, most of the articles in this review focused on reporting experiences or strategies for delivering feedback information (i.e., feedback dimension). Credible and objective feedback information is based on direct observation [ 46 ] and occurs within an interaction or a dialogue [ 62 , 88 ]. However, only having credible and objective information does not ensure that it will be considered, understood, used, and put into practice by the student [ 89 ].

Feedback-supporting actions aligned with goals and priorities facilitate effective feedback processes [ 89 ] because goal-oriented feedback focuses on students' learning needs [ 7 ]. In contrast, this review showed that only a minority of the studies highlighted the importance of aligning learning objectives and feedback (i.e., the feed-up dimension). To overcome this, supervisors and students must establish goals and agreements before starting clinical practice, as it allows students to measure themselves on a defined basis [ 90 , 91 ] and enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 , 92 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. In addition, learning goals should be shared, and co-constructed, through a dialogue [ 50 , 88 , 90 , 92 ]. In fact, relationship-based feedback models emphasize setting shared goals and plans as part of the feedback process [ 68 ].

Many of the studies acknowledge the importance of establishing an action plan and promoting the use of feedback (i.e., feedforward). However, there is yet limited insight on how to best implement strategies that support the use of action plans, improve performance and close learning gaps. In this regard, it is described that delivering feedback without perceiving changes, results in no effect or impact on learning [ 88 ]. To determine if a feedback loop is closed, observing a change in the student's response is necessary. In other words, feedback does not work without repeating the same task [ 68 ], so teachers need to observe subsequent tasks to notice changes [ 88 ]. While feedforward is fundamental to long-term performance, it is shown that more research is needed to determine effective actions to be implemented in the WBL environment to close feedback loops.

Second, there is a need for more knowledge about designing feedback activities in the WBL environment that will generate constructive feedback for learning. WBA is the most frequently reported feedback activity in clinical workplace contexts [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. Despite the efforts of some authors to use WBAs as a formative assessment and feedback opportunity, in several studies, a summative component of the WBA was presented as a barrier to actionable feedback [ 33 , 56 ]. Students suggest separating grading from observation and using, for example, the mini-CEX in informal situations [ 33 ]. Several authors also recommend disconnecting the summative components of WBAs to avoid generating emotions that can limit the uptake and use of feedback [ 28 , 93 ]. Other literature recommends purposefully designing a system of assessment using low-stakes data points for feedback and learning. Accordingly, programmatic assessment is a framework that combines both the learning and the decision-making function of assessment [ 94 , 95 ]. Programmatic assessment is a practical approach for implementing low-stakes as a continuum, giving opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance and having the student as an active agent [ 96 ]. This approach enables the incorporation of low-stakes data points that target student learning [ 93 ] and provide performance-relevant information (i.e., meaningful feedback) based on direct observations during authentic professional activities [ 46 ]. Using low-stakes data points, learners make sense of information about their performance and use it to enhance the quality of their work or performance [ 96 , 97 , 98 ]. Implementing multiple instances of feedback is more effective than providing it once because it promotes closing feedback loops by giving the student opportunities to understand the feedback, make changes, and see if those changes were effective [ 89 ].

Third, the support provided by the teacher is fundamental and should be built into a reliable and long-term relationship, where the teacher must take the role of coach rather than assessor, and students should develop feedback agency and be active in seeking and using feedback to improve performance. Although it is recognized that institutional efforts over the past decades have focused on training teachers to deliver feedback, clinical supervisors' lack of teaching skills is still identified as a barrier to workplace feedback [ 99 ]. In particular, research indicates that clinical teachers lack the skills to transform the information obtained from an observation into constructive feedback [ 100 ]. Students are more likely to use feedback if they consider it credible and constructive [ 93 ] and based on stable relationships [ 93 , 99 , 101 ]. In trusting relationships, feedback can be straightforward and credible, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 , 88 ]. Coaching strategies can be enhanced by teachers building an educational alliance that allows for trustworthy relationships or having supervisors with an exclusive coaching role [ 14 , 93 , 102 ].

Last, from a sociocultural perspective, individuals are the main actors in the learning process. Therefore, feedback impacts learning only if students engage and interact with it [ 11 ]. Thus, feedback design and student agency appear to be the main features of effective feedback processes. Accordingly, the present review identified that feedback design is a key feature for effective learning in complex environments such as WBL. Feedback in the workplace must ideally be organized and implemented to align learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessments, allowing learners to learn, practice, and close feedback loops [ 88 ]. To guide students toward performances that reflect long-term learning, an intensive formative learning phase is needed, in which multiple feedback processes are included that shape students´ further learning [ 103 ]. This design would promote student uptake of feedback for subsequent performance [ 1 ].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study are (1) the use of an established framework, the Arksey and O'Malley's framework [ 22 ]. We included the step of socializing the results with stakeholders, which allowed the team to better understand the results from another perspective and offer a realistic look. (2) Using the feedback loop as a theoretical framework strengthened the results and gave a more thorough explanation of the literature regarding feedback processes in the WBL context. (3) our team was diverse and included researchers from different disciplines as well as a librarian.

The present scoping review has several limitations. Although we adhered to the recommended protocols and methodologies, some relevant papers may have been omitted. The research team decided to select original studies and reviews of the literature for the present scoping review. This caused some articles, such as guidelines, perspectives, and narrative papers, to be excluded from the current study.

One of the inclusion criteria was a focus on undergraduate students. However, some papers that incorporated undergraduate and postgraduate participants were included, as these supported the results of this review. Most articles involved medical students. Although the authors did not limit the search to medicine, maybe some articles involving students from other health disciplines needed to be included, considering the search in other databases or journals.

The results give insight in how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. On a small scale, i.e., in the feedback encounter between a supervisor and a learner, feedback should be organized to allow for follow-up feedback, thus working on required learning and performance goals. On a larger level, i.e., in the clerkship programme or a placement rotation, feedback should be organized through appropriate planning of subsequent tasks and activities.

More insight is needed in designing a closed loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices. The feedback that stimulates further action and learning requires a safe and trustful work and learning environment. Understanding the relationship between an individual and his or her environment is a challenge for determining the impact of feedback and must be further investigated within clinical WBL environments. Aligning the dimensions of feed-up, feedback and feedforward includes careful attention to teachers’ and students’ feedback literacy to assure that students can act on feedback in a constructive way. In this line, how to develop students' feedback agency within these learning environments needs further research.

Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38:698–712.

Article   Google Scholar  

Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E. Identifying feedback that has impact. In: The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2019. p. 15–34.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Winstone N, Carless D. Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Ajjawi R, Boud D. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863 .

Carless D. Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assess Eval High Educ. 2019;44:705–14.

Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci. 1989;18:119–44.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback The Meaning of Feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.

Zarrinabadi N, Rezazadeh M. Why only feedback? Including feed up and feed forward improves nonlinguistic aspects of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research. 2023;27(3):575–92.

Fisher D, Frey N. Feed up, back, forward. Educ Leadersh. 2009;67:20–5.

Reimann A, Sadler I, Sambell K. What’s in a word? Practices associated with ‘feedforward’ in higher education. Assessment evaluation in higher education. 2019;44:1279–90.

Esterhazy R. Re-conceptualizing Feedback Through a Sociocultural Lens. In: Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E, editors. The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5 .

Bransen D, Govaerts MJB, Sluijsmans DMA, Driessen EW. Beyond the self: The role of co-regulation in medical students’ self-regulated learning. Med Educ. 2020;54:234–41.

Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, Van Der Vleuten CP. Feedback Redefined: Principles and Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:744–53.

Atkinson A, Watling CJ, Brand PL. Feedback and coaching. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(2):441–6.

Suhoyo Y, Schonrock-Adema J, Emilia O, Kuks JBM, Cohen-Schotanus JA. Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:79.

Bowen L, Marshall M, Murdoch-Eaton D. Medical Student Perceptions of Feedback and Feedback Behaviors Within the Context of the “Educational Alliance.” Acad Med. 2017;92:1303–12.

Bok HGJ, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JPI, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DADC, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Al-Kadri HM, Al-Kadi MT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Workplace-based assessment and students’ approaches to learning: A qualitative inquiry. Med Teach. 2013;35(SUPPL):1.

Dennis AA, Foy MJ, Monrouxe LV, Rees CE. Exploring trainer and trainee emotional talk in narratives about workplace-based feedback processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:75–93.

Watling C, LaDonna KA, Lingard L, Voyer S, Hatala R. ‘Sometimes the work just needs to be done’: socio-cultural influences on direct observation in medical training. Med Educ. 2016;50:1054–64.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review Academic Medicine. 2017;92:1346–54.

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

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition methods and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.

StArt - State of Art through Systematic Review. 2013.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:1–9.

Peters MDJ, BPharm CMGHK, Parker PMD, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D, et al. The Feedback Tango: An Integrative Review and Analysis of the Content of the Teacher-Learner Feedback Exchange. Acad Med. 2018;93:657–63.

Ossenberg C, Henderson A, Mitchell M. What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019;24:383–401.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, Smyth E, Marron B, Murphy PJ, et al. Self -regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44:3–18.

Long S, Rodriguez C, St-Onge C, Tellier PP, Torabi N, Young M. Factors affecting perceived credibility of assessment in medical education: A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2022;27:229–62.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017.

Schopper H, Rosenbaum M, Axelson R. “I wish someone watched me interview:” medical student insight into observation and feedback as a method for teaching communication skills during the clinical years. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:286.

Crommelinck M, Anseel F. Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking behaviour: a literature review. Med Educ. 2013;47:232–41.

Adamson E, Kinga L, Foy L, McLeodb M, Traynor J, Watson W, et al. Feedback in clinical practice: Enhancing the students’ experience through action research. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;31:48–53.

Al-Mously N, Nabil NM, Al-Babtain SA, et al. Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2014;36(Supplement 1):S17-23.

Bates J, Konkin J, Suddards C, Dobson S, Pratt D. Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:362–74.

Bennett AJ, Goldenhar LM, Stanford K. Utilization of a Formative Evaluation Card in a Psychiatry Clerkship. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30:319–24.

Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Spruijt A, Van Beukelen P, Van Der Vleuten CP, Teunissen PW, et al. Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2016;38:88–95.

Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JP, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DA, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Calleja P, Harvey T, Fox A, Carmichael M, et al. Feedback and clinical practice improvement: A tool to assist workplace supervisors and students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;17:167–73.

Carey EG, Wu C, Hur ES, Hasday SJ, Rosculet NP, Kemp MT, et al. Evaluation of Feedback Systems for the Third-Year Surgical Clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:787–93.

Daelmans HE, Overmeer RM, Van der Hem-Stokroos HH, Scherpbier AJ, Stehouwer CD, van der Vleuten CP. In-training assessment: qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Medical education. 2006;40(1):51–8.

DeWitt D, Carline J, Paauw D, Pangaro L. Pilot study of a ’RIME’-based tool for giving feedback in a multi-specialty longitudinal clerkship. Med Educ. 2008;42:1205–9.

Dolan BM, O’Brien CL, Green MM. Including Entrustment Language in an Assessment Form May Improve Constructive Feedback for Student Clinical Skills. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27:461–4.

Duijn CC, Welink LS, Mandoki M, Ten Cate OT, Kremer WD, Bok HG. Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities. Perspectives on medical education. 2017;6:256–64.

Elnicki DM, Zalenski D. Integrating medical students’ goals, self-assessment and preceptor feedback in an ambulatory clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25:285–91.

Embo MP, Driessen EW, Valcke M, Van der Vleuten CP. Assessment and feedback to facilitate self-directed learning in clinical practice of Midwifery students. Medical teacher. 2010;32(7):e263-9.

Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17:15–26.

Farrell L, Bourgeois-Law G, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. An autoethnographic exploration of the use of goal oriented feedback to enhance brief clinical teaching encounters. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22:91–104.

Fernando N, Cleland J, McKenzie H, Cassar K. Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. Med Educ. 2008;42:89–95.

Garino A. Ready, willing and able: a model to explain successful use of feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:337–61.

Garner MS, Gusberg RJ, Kim AW. The positive effect of immediate feedback on medical student education during the surgical clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:391–7.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Palka T, Ford M, Trowbridge R. The Art (and Artifice) of Seeking Feedback: Clerkship Students’ Approaches to Asking for Feedback. Acad Med. 2018;93:1218–26.

Haffling AC, Beckman A, Edgren G. Structured feedback to undergraduate medical students: 3 years’ experience of an assessment tool. Medical teacher. 2011;33(7):e349-57.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, Schuwirth LWTT, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPMM. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:276–84.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Schuwirth LW, Wass V, Van der Vleuten CP, Konings KD, et al. Changing the culture of assessment: the dominance of the summative assessment paradigm. BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–4.

Harvey P, Radomski N, O’Connor D. Written feedback and continuity of learning in a geographically distributed medical education program. Medical teacher. 2013;35(12):1009–13.

Hochberg M, Berman R, Ogilvie J, Yingling S, Lee S, Pusic M, et al. Midclerkship feedback in the surgical clerkship: the “Professionalism, Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating, and Procedural Skills” application utilizing learner self-assessment. Am J Surg. 2017;213:212–6.

Holmboe ES, Yepes M, Williams F, Huot SJ. Feedback and the mini clinical evaluation exercise. Journal of general internal medicine. 2004;19(5):558–61.

Tai JHM, Canny BJ, Haines TP, Molloy EK. The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: opportunities in clinical medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21:659–76.

Johnson CE, Keating JL, Molloy EK. Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it? Med Educ. 2020;54:559–70.

Joshi A, Generalla J, Thompson B, Haidet P. Facilitating the Feedback Process on a Clinical Clerkship Using a Smartphone Application. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:651–5.

Kiger ME, Riley C, Stolfi A, Morrison S, Burke A, Lockspeiser T. Use of Individualized Learning Plans to Facilitate Feedback Among Medical Students. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32:399–409.

Kogan J, Shea J. Implementing feedback cards in core clerkships. Med Educ. 2008;42:1071–9.

Lefroy J, Walters B, Molyneux A, Smithson S. Can learning from workplace feedback be enhanced by reflective writing? A realist evaluation in UK undergraduate medical education. Educ Prim Care. 2021;32:326–35.

McGinness HT, Caldwell PHY, Gunasekera H, Scott KM. ‘Every Human Interaction Requires a Bit of Give and Take’: Medical Students’ Approaches to Pursuing Feedback in the Clinical Setting. Teach Learn Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2084401 .

Noble C, Billett S, Armit L, Collier L, Hilder J, Sly C, et al. ``It’s yours to take{’’}: generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:55–74.

Ogburn T, Espey E. The R-I-M-E method for evaluation of medical students on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:666–9.

Po O, Reznik M, Greenberg L. Improving a medical student feedback with a clinical encounter card. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7:449–52.

Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T, Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T. Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18:397–407.

Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feedback to students. Am J Surg. 2002;183:300–4.

Rassos J, Melvin LJ, Panisko D, Kulasegaram K, Kuper A. Unearthing Faculty and Trainee Perspectives of Feedback in Internal Medicine: the Oral Case Presentation as a Model. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2107–13.

Rizan C, Elsey C, Lemon T, Grant A, Monrouxe L. Feedback in action within bedside teaching encounters: a video ethnographic study. Med Educ. 2014;48:902–20.

Robertson AC, Fowler LC. Medical student perceptions of learner-initiated feedback using a mobile web application. Journal of medical education and curricular development. 2017;4:2382120517746384.

Scheidt PC, Lazoritz S, Ebbeling WL, Figelman AR, Moessner HF, Singer JE. Evaluation of system providing feedback to students on videotaped patient encounters. J Med Educ. 1986;61(7):585–90.

Sokol-Hessner L, Shea J, Kogan J. The open-ended comment space for action plans on core clerkship students’ encounter cards: what gets written? Acad Med. 2010;85:S110–4.

Sox CM, Dell M, Phillipi CA, Cabral HJ, Vargas G, Lewin LO. Feedback on oral presentations during pediatric clerkships: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2014;134:965–71.

Spickard A, Gigante J, Stein G, Denny JC. Automatic capture of student notes to augment mentor feedback and student performance on patient write-ups. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:979–84.

Suhoyo Y, Van Hell EA, Kerdijk W, Emilia O, Schönrock-Adema J, Kuks JB, et al. nfluence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkships: does culture matter? BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–7.

Torre DM, Simpson D, Sebastian JL, Elnicki DM. Learning/feedback activities and high-quality teaching: perceptions of third-year medical students during an inpatient rotation. Acad Med. 2005;80:950–4.

Urquhart LM, Ker JS, Rees CE. Exploring the influence of context on feedback at medical school: a video-ethnography study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:159–86.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Lingard L. Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians. Med Educ. 2014;48:713–23.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: Professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94.

Soemantri D, Dodds A, Mccoll G. Examining the nature of feedback within the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX): an analysis of 1427 Mini-CEX assessment forms. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35:Doc47.

Van De Ridder JMMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OTJ, van der Ridder JM, Stokking KM, et al. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42:189–97.

van de Ridder JMMM, McGaghie WC, Stokking KM, ten Cate OTJJ. Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: a meta-review. Med Educ. 2015;49:658–73.

Boud D. Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. Clin Teach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12345 .

Brehaut J, Colquhoun H, Eva K, Carrol K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:435–41.

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. J Am Med Assoc. 1983;250:777–81.

Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. Br Med J. 2008;337(7681):1292–4.

Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29:855–71.

Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53:76–85.

van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LKJ, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34:205–14.

Schuwirth LWT, der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85.

Schut S, Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, van der Vleuten C, Heeneman S. Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners’ perceptions within programmatic assessment. Med Educ. 2018;52:654–63.

Henderson M, Boud D, Molloy E, Dawson P, Phillips M, Ryan T, Mahoney MP. Feedback for learning. Closing the assessment loop. Framework for effective learning. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department for Education and Training; 2018.

Heeneman S, Pool AO, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW, Oudkerk A, et al. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49:487–98.

Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen P, Brand P, Watling C. Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99.

Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34:787–91.

Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The, “Educational Alliance” as a Framework for Reconceptualizing Feedback in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2015;90:609–14.

Lockyer J, Armson H, Könings KD, Lee-Krueger RC, des Ordons AR, Ramani S, et al. In-the-Moment Feedback and Coaching: Improving R2C2 for a New Context. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12:27–35.

Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Assess Eval Account. 2009;21:5–31.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Ignacio Villagran

School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Lorena Isbej

Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dominique Sluijsmans

Centre for Medical and Health Profession Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Arnoldo Riquelme

School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Lorena Isbej

Sistema de Bibliotecas UC (SIBUC), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

María Teresa Olivares-Labbe

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Health Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Sylvia Heeneman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.F-C, D.S, and S.H. made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. M.O-L contributed to the identification of studies. J.F-C, I.V, A.R, and L.I. made substantial contributions to the screening, reliability, and data analysis. J.F-C. wrote th e main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javiera Fuentes-Cimma .

Ethics declarations

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 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fuentes-Cimma, J., Sluijsmans, D., Riquelme, A. et al. Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 440 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

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 clerkship
• Feedback processes
• Feedforward
• Formative feedback
• Health professions
• Undergraduate medical education
• Undergraduate healthcare education
• Workplace learning

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]