review of literature in legal research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Conducting Literature Review in Legal Research

• Post author By Dr. Rhea Roy Mammen
• Post date April 2, 2023
• No Comments on Conducting Literature Review in Legal Research

“Literature review in Legal research” , How is it different from literature review in any other discipline? Well! The principle stays the same (that’s the purpose) but it’s more tedious and require a systematic approach. The voluminous literatures in different forms makes the review tiresome compared to other disciplines. Legal research is not restricted to books, journals alone, but extends to other forms such as case laws, statutes, reports etc. It is for this reason, there are some dedicated texts on conducting literature review that was referred to for this blog.

one of the prominent literature in this regard being “Legal Research: How to Find & Understand the Law” by Stephen Elias and Susan Levinkind: This book is a comprehensive guide to legal research and includes a section on conducting a literature review in legal research. (others I will give in the reference )

Lets get to business!

What is literature review

The cliché start! Well, it makes all sense to set the tone and background here.

literature review is a critical evaluation and analysis of existing literature (books, articles, journals, etc.) on a particular topic or research question. It aims to identify relevant and credible sources, summarize the key findings and arguments, and provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in a specific field.

In short it is gathering the existing literatures in the area of research that will help us to understand the topic, identify the gap along with the other purposes given below

Purpose of literature review

Especially in Legal research, Literature review holds a special position. before that , the prime objective/ purpose of literature review are:

a . Identify and summarize the current state of knowledge on a specific legal topic or research question: It provides a foundation for further research by summarizing and analyzing existing legal literature on a topic. This helps researchers to understand the current state of knowledge

b. Tool to identify the research gap : THE ONE! It helps the scholar to identify the grey area in research (the research gap) that the current research will be covering. This provides lead to justification of the research area.

c. Evaluate the quality and credibility of legal sources : It helps researchers to determine the validity and reliability of the sources, and to identify any biases or limitations.

d. Helps to formulate the research question/ hypothesis : Literatures those In support of the research will help to develop the research .

Ultimately Literature review has dual role : The literature that helps to identify the research gap and the other that supports in the research.

In legal research, there are different methods of literatures reviews. It really doesn’t matter, but it’s good to know. The different methods are based on diversity of the source and nature of information. This provides a clarity to conducting literature reviews:

• Systematic literature review : This method involves a comprehensive and structured search for literature on a specific legal topic, using a predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. This method is commonly used in legal research because it ensures that all relevant literature is identified and analyzed.
• Case law analysis : Case law analysis involves reviewing judicial decisions on a particular legal issue or area of law. This method is useful for identifying legal principles and trends that have developed over time, as well as gaps or inconsistencies in the law.
• Statutory analysis: Statutory analysis involves reviewing legislative materials, such as statutes, regulations, and legislative history, on a particular legal issue. This method is useful for understanding the intent of the legislature, as well as the practical application of the law.
• Comparative analysis : Comparative analysis involves comparing legal sources from different jurisdictions or legal systems on a particular legal issue. This method is useful for identifying differences and similarities in legal approaches, as well as for understanding the impact of cultural and historical factors on the development of the law.
• Thematic analysis: Thematic analysis involves identifying and analyzing common themes or patterns across legal sources on a particular legal issue. This method is useful for understanding the underlying principles and values that guide legal decision-making, as well as for identifying gaps or inconsistencies in the law.

Tools for conducting literature review

We are competing with technology! But that is ok. There are multiple tools that can support the scholars to conduct literature review. This can in fact save time and invest in creativity. Some thing to look at are:

• Reference management software: Reference management software, such as EndNote, Mendeley, or Zotero, can help you to organize your sources and create citations and bibliographies. These tools allow you to import and export references from different databases, and to automatically format citations in various styles.
• Search engines and databases : There are several search engines and databases that can help you to find relevant literature, such as Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, and LexisNexis. These tools allow you to search for articles, books, and other sources using keywords and other search criteria.
• Text mining software: Text mining software, such as NVivo or Atlas.ti, can help you to analyze large amounts of text and to identify themes and patterns in the literature. These tools allow you to code and categorize your sources, and to visualize your findings using various charts and graphs.
• Literature review software: There are several software programs designed specifically for literature review, s uch as Covidence, Rayyan, or DistillerSR . These tools can help you to manage and organize your sources, screen and select relevant studies, and analyze the data more efficiently.

Reporting Literature review

Ah ha! Allas the important part – reporting or documenting the literature review. There are different methods that is followed in literature review.

a. Chapter wise review: Some would report the literature based on the chapterisation (especially for PhD and Post Doctoral fellowship)

b. Academic discussion : Especially for articles, proposals, write ups, literature reviews are recorded in the body of the text as academic discourses. Where they provide the reference in the citation and emphasis is on the prominent authors.

c. Thematic : Every research has a key word connected, and it is very common that each can be used as heads for reporting literature review

d. one running text: Some would prefer (rather institutions) would prefer where literatures are discussed as one running text.

Now the question is, how is recorded? Is it simply recording the summary of the literature? NO

The whole idea is to gather the take away from the existing literature and show casing how it is connected to your research and what is the missing area in that literature.

I have used a generic example of literature review for the purpose of understanding. I have used a relatively over discussed topic for the purpose of easy understanding .

Topic: The impact of the Right to Education Act on access to education in India

• Identify the research question: How has the Right to Education Act (RTE) impacted access to education in India?
• Conduct a search for relevant literature: Search for literature on the topic using search engines and databases. Use keywords such as “Right to Education Act”, “education in India”, “access to education”, and “impact of RTE”.
• Screen the literature: Review the titles and abstracts of the articles and select those that are relevant to the research question. Exclude articles that are not related to the topic or that are not written in English.
• Analyze the literature: Read the selected articles and identify the key themes and findings. Organize the articles by themes, such as the impact of RTE on enrollment, quality of education, and equity in education.
• Evaluate the quality and credibility of the sources: Assess the quality and credibility of the sources by evaluating the methodology, data sources, and author credentials. Use citation analysis to identify highly cited articles and authors.

Synthesize the findings: Summarize the key findings from the literature review and identify any gaps or inconsistencies in the literature. Use the literature review to develop research questions and hypotheses, and to inform policy and practice

Existing literatures:

• Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2013). The impact of the Right to Education Act on student outcomes and school inputs: Evidence from a large-scale randomized evaluation. Policy Research Working Paper, 6643. World Bank.
• Jha, N., & Gupta, V. (2018). Right to Education in India: An analysis of the impact of RTE Act 2009. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 32(1), 5-20.
• Nambissan, G. B., & Dash, S. K. (2017). Implementation of the Right to Education Act in India: Challenges and the way forward. Prospects, 47(2), 231-242.
• Desai, S., & Vanneman, R. (2016). India’s primary education challenge: The impact of the Right to Education Act. Economic & Political Weekly, 51(7), 51-58.

The Right to Education Act (RTE), passed in 2009, is a landmark legislation aimed at providing free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 years in India. The implementation of the RTE Act has been a subject of much debate and scrutiny, with concerns raised about its impact on access, quality, and equity in education. In this literature review, we focus on the impact of the RTE Act on access to education in India.

Muralidharan and Sundararaman (2013) conducted a large-scale randomized evaluation of the RTE Act in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The study aimed to assess the impact of the RTE Act on student outcomes and school inputs. The authors found that the RTE Act had a significant positive impact on enrollment in schools, particularly among girls and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The study also found that the RTE Act had a positive impact on school inputs, such as the availability of toilets and drinking water, which are important factors in ensuring access to education.

The findings of this study are consistent with other studies that have examined the impact of the RTE Act on access to education in India. Jha and Gupta (2018) conducted a study in the state of Bihar and found that the RTE Act had a positive impact on enrollment in primary schools. Nambissan and Dash (2017) examined the implementation of the RTE Act in India and found that while there were challenges in ensuring access to education, the Act had contributed to increased enrollment and retention rates.

However, while the RTE Act has had a positive impact on access to education in India, there are still challenges that need to be addressed. Desai and Vanneman (2016) conducted a study that examined the primary education challenge in India and found that while the RTE Act had led to increased enrollment, there were still issues with the quality of education and the high dropout rates. The study highlighted the need for improvements in teacher training and support, as well as the need for greater investment in infrastructure and resources.

In conclusion, the literature suggests that the RTE Act has had a positive impact on access to education in India, particularly among girls and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to ensure that all children have access to quality education. The findings of this literature review justify further research to examine the impact of the RTE Act on other aspects of education, such as quality and equity, and to identify strategies to address the challenges in its implementation.

POINTER: For PhD , One of the major literatures are the PhD’s earlier conducted. This goes for LLM dissertation.

SPOILER: NOW THINK , what is the difference between literature survey and Literature review

WORST: I wanted to share the steps for literature review… but I am saving it for the upcoming training! See you then

Oh thank you for reading all the way down, Pretty lengthy uh: Hope it helped

By Dr. Rhea Roy Mammen

Dr. Mammen is founder & Director (Academics) of Jusfocus Academic Consultancy. Dr. Mammen is an international fellow under two prestigious fellowships and has numerous international projects to her credit. Academia & research is her passion that drives her to engage with scholars.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

leiden lawmethods portal

Systematic literature review.

Last update: December 10, 2020

‘Literature review’ can refer to a portion of a research article in which the author(s) describe(s) or summarizes a body of literature which is relevant to their article. ‘Literature review’ can also refer to a methodological approach in which a selection of existing literature is collected and analyzed in order to answer a specific question. One approach to doing this type of literature review is called a ‘systematic literature review’ (SLR).

When conducting an SLR, the researcher creates a set of rules or guidelines prior to beginning the review. These rules determine the characteristics of the literature to be included and the steps to be followed during the research process. Creating these rules helps the researcher by narrowing down the focus of their project and the scope of the literature to be included, and they aid in making the research methodology transparent and replicable.

There are many different ways that an SLR can be used in socio-legal research. For example, an SLR can be used to show the impact of a certain law or policy (Loong e.a. 2019), uncover patterns across literature (e.g. perpetrator characteristics) (Alleyne & Parfitt 2017), outline crime prevention strategies that are currently in place (Gorden & Buchanan 2013), describe to what extent a problem is understood or researched (Krieger 2013), point out the gaps in the current research (Urinboyev e.a. 2016), or identify potential areas for future research. Various types of documents may be included in an SLR such as court transcripts, academic literature, news articles, NGO reports or government documents.

The first step for starting your SLR is creating a research journal in which you will write down your SLR rules and keep track of your daily activities. This will help you keep a timeline of your project, keep track of your decision making process, and maintain the transparency and replicability of your research. The next step is determining your research question. When you have your research question, you can create the inclusion and exclusion criteria or the characteristics that literature must or must not have to be included in your SLR. The key question is “what kind of information is needed to answer the research question?” It is necessary to explain why the criteria were selected. After this, you can begin searching for and collecting literature which meets your inclusion criteria. Different databases and sources of literature (e.g. academic journals or newspapers) will yield different search results, so it may be helpful to do trial searches to see which sources provide the most relevant literature for your project. Once you have collected all of your literature, you can begin reading and analyzing the literature.

There are various research tools that can aid you in conducting your SLR such as qualitative data analysis software (e.g. ATLAS.ti) or reference manager software (e.g. Mendeley). Determine which programs to use based on your personal preference and your research project.

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Hagen-Zanker, J. & Mallet, R. (2013). How to do a Rigorous, Evidence Focused Literature Review in International Development: A Guidance Note. Working paper Overseas Direct Investment.

Oliver, S., & Sutcliffe, K. (2012). Describing and analysing studies. Gough, D. A. & Oliver, S. In An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. London, UK. SAGE.

Pittaway, L. (2008). Systematic Literature Reviews. Thorpe, R. & Holt, R. In T he Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research . London, UK. SAGE.

Siddaway, A. (2014). What Is a Systematic Literature Review and How Do I Do One?

Snel, M. & de Moraes, J. (2018). Doing a Systematic Literature Review in Legal Scholarship. The Hague, NL. Eleven International Publishing.

Interactive Learning Module 1: Introduction to Conducting Systematic Reviews

Alleyne, E. & Parfitt, C. (2017). Adult-Perpetrated Animal Abuse: A Systematic Literature Review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse. Vol. 20. No. 3. Pp. 344-357.

Example of a systematic literature review.

Brown, R. T. (2010). Systematic Review of the Impact of Adult Drug-Treatment Courts. Translational Research . Vol. 155. No 6. Pp. 263-274.

Gorden, C., & Buchanan, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Doorstep Crime: Are the Crime-Prevention Strategies More Harmful than the Crime? The Howard Journal . Vol. 52. No. 5. Pp. 498-515.

Krieger, M. A. (2016). Unpacking “Sexting”: A Systematic Review of Nonconensual Sexting in Legal, Educational, and Psychological Literatures. Trauma, Violence & Abuse . Vol. 18. No. 5. Pp. 593-601.

Loong, D., Bonato, S., Barnsley, J., & Dewa, C. S. (2019). The Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts in Reducing Recidivism and Police Contact: A Systematic Review. Community Mental Health Journal. Vol. 55. No. 7 Pp. 1073-1098.

Urinboyev, R., Wickenberg, P., & Leo, U. (2016). Child Rights, Classroom, and Social Management: A Systematic Literature Review. The International Journal of Children’s Rights. Vol. 24. No. 3. Pp. 522-547.

• A-Z Databases
• Training Calendar
• Research Portal

Law: Introduction to Research

• Finding a Research Topic
• Getting Started
• Generate Research Ideas
• Brainstorming
• Scanning Material
• Suitability Analysis
• The difference between a topic and a research question

Literature Review

• Referencing

When thinking about any risks associated with your research you may realise that it is difficult to predict your research needs and the accompanying risks as you were not sure what information would be required; this is why a literature review is necessary. A thorough literature review will help identify gaps in existing knowledge where research is needed; filling those gaps is one of the prime functions of research. The literature review will indicate what is known about your chosen area of research and show where further contributions from further research can be made.

Undertaking a literature review is probably one of the most difficult stages of the research process but it can be both exciting and fulfilling. This section aims to put the literature review into context and to explain what it does and how to do it.

The literature on a particular legal topic is of fundamental importance to the international community of researchers and scholars working within particular academic disciplines. Academic publishing supports research by enabling researchers to tell the world what they have discovered and allows others researching in the same area to peer review their work; in this way, a combined body of knowledge is established.

During your research, you will use the literature to:

• develop your knowledge of your chosen topic and the research process in general terms
• ensure that you have an understanding of the current state of academic knowledge within your chosen topic
• identify the gaps in knowledge that your research will address
• ensure that your research question will not become too broad or narrow.

The Purpose of Literature Review

Understanding existing research is at the core of your study. A good literature review is important because it enables you to understand the existing work in your chosen topic as well as explaining concepts, approaches and ideas relevant to that topic.

The literature review is also essential as it will enable you to identify an appropriate research method. Your research method, and needs, can only be established in the light of a review of existing knowledge.

Your literature review is regarded as secondary research. The research process is an ongoing one, so your literature review is never really finished or entirely up to date as reading and understanding the existing literature is a constant part of being a researcher; professionally it is an obligation.

Different Types of Research

• Different types of research
• Different sources
• Understand research in your chosen area
• Explaining relevant concepts and ideas
• Contextualizing your results
• What to read?
• Peer review
• Searching the literature
• Critically evaluating documents

Your research will draw upon both primary and secondary research. The difference between primary and secondary research is that primary research is new research on a topic that adds to the existing body of knowledge. Secondary research is research into what others have written or said on the topic.

You will also draw upon primary and secondary sources to undertake your research. Primary sources are evidence recorded at the time, such as a photograph, an artifact, a diary, or the text of a statute or court ruling. Primary legal sources are the products of those bodies with the authority to make, interpret and apply the law. Secondary sources are what others have written or said about the primary source, their interpretation, support, or critique of the primary source. Similarly, secondary legal sources are what academics, lawyers, politicians, journalists, and others have said or written about a primary legal source.

Part of the aim of your studies is to make a contribution to the existing body of academic knowledge. Without a literature review there would be a risk that what you are producing is not actually newly researched knowledge; instead it may only be a replication of what is already known. The only way to ensure that your research is new is to find out what others have already done. However, this is not to say that you should never attempt to research some things that have been done before if you feel that you can provide valuable new insights.

You also need to use the literature review to build a body of useful ideas to help you conceptualise your research question and understand the current thinking on the topic. By studying the literature you will become familiar with research methods appropriate to your chosen topic and this will show you how to apply them. Careful consideration should be given to the research methods deployed by existing researchers in the topic, but this should not stifle innovative approaches. Your literature study should also demonstrate the context of your own work, and how it relates, and builds, on the work of others; ‘to make proper acknowledgment of the work of previous authors and to delineate [your] own contributions to the field’ (Sharp et al., 2002, p. 28).

When you have completed your primary research, you will still have the task of demonstrating how your research contributes to the topic in which you have been working. Comparing your results to similar work within the topic will demonstrate how you have moved the discipline forward.

Comparing your results with the gaps that you identified in the early stages of your literature review will allow you to evaluate how well you have addressed them.

A successful literature review will have references from a number of different types of sources; it is not simply a book review. What is much more important than the number of references is that you have a selection of literature that is appropriate for your research; what is appropriate will depend on the type of research you are undertaking. For example, if your topic is in an area of recent legal debate, you will probably find most of the relevant material in journal articles or conference papers. If you are studying policy issues in law-making, you would expect to cite more government reports. In either case, you will need some core references that are recent and relevant. A research project could also contain a number of older citations to provide a historical context or describe established methods. Perhaps a recent newspaper, journal or magazine article could illustrate the contemporary relevance or importance of your research.

You will have to use your own judgment (and the advice of your tutor) to ascertain what the suitable range of literature and references is for your review. This will differ for each topic of research, but you will be able to get a feel for what is appropriate by looking at relevant publications; most publications fall into the following broad categories:

Online legal databases

Online legal research services such as Westlaw , LexisNexis , JSTOR , EBSCOhost , or HeinOnline are a good source of journal articles and as a repository of legislation, case law, law reports, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, and treatises.

Journal articles

These provide more recent discussions than textbooks. Peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard for academic quality. Having at least some journal articles in your literature review is almost always required. Note that the lead time on journal articles is often up to two years, so they may not be sufficiently up to date for fast-moving areas. Look for special issues of journals, as these usually focus on a particular topic and you may find that they are more relevant to your area of research.

Many law schools host journals that contain articles by academics and students; these may also be of interest. Other sources could include online newspapers such as  The Conversation  which are sourced from academia and designed to highlight current academic research or respond to current events.

Conference literature

Academic conferences are meetings in which groups of academics working in a particular area meet to discuss their work. Delegates usually write one or more papers that are then collected into a volume or special edition of a journal. Conference proceedings can be quite good in providing a snapshot of a topic, as they tend to be quite focused. Looking at the authors of the papers can also give you an idea of who the key names in that area are. The quality varies widely, both in terms of the material published and how it is presented. Most conferences include some professional researchers, some of whom can be contacted, and lots of students. Conference papers are often refereed but usually not to the same level as journal articles.

Having conference papers in your literature review does lend academic credibility, especially in rapidly developing areas, and conference papers generally contain the preliminary work that eventually forms journal articles.

Textbooks are good for identifying established, well-understood concepts and techniques, but are unlikely to have enough up-to-date research to be the main source of literature. Most disciplines, however, have a collection of canonical reference works that you should use to ensure you are implementing standard terms or techniques correctly. Textbooks can also be useful as a starting point for your literature search as you can investigate journal articles or conference papers that have been cited. Footnotes are a rich source of preliminary leads.

Law magazines

These can be useful, particularly for projects related to the role of lawyers. Be aware of the possibility of law firm bias (for example in labour law towards employers, employee rights, or trade unions) or articles that are little more than advertisements. Examples of professional journals include the  SA ePublications (Sabinet), De Rebus - SA Attorneys' Journal ,  etc . Most jurisdictions have some form of a professional journal.

Government and other official reports

There is a wide range of publications, including ‘white papers', official reports, census, and other government-produced statistical data that are potentially useful to the researcher. Be aware of the possibility of political or economic bias or the reflection of a situation that has since changed.

Internal company or organisation reports/Institutional repository

These may be useful in a few situations but should be used sparingly, particularly if they are not readily available to the wider community of researchers. They will also not have been through a process of academic review. Such unpublished or semi-published reports are collectively called ‘grey literature.

Manuals and handbooks

These are of limited relevance, but may be useful to establish current techniques, approaches, and procedures.

Specialist supplements from quality newspapers can provide useful up-to-date information, as can the online versions of the same papers. Some newspapers provide a searchable archive that can provide a more general interest context for your work.

The worldwide web

This is widely used by lawyers today. According to the 2011 American Bar Association Report, 84.4% of attorneys turn to online sources as their first step in legal research (Lenhart, 2012, p. 27). It is an extremely useful source of references, particularly whilst carrying out an initial investigation. Although sites such as Wikipedia can be very helpful for providing a quick overview of particular topics and highlighting other areas of research that may be connected to your own, they should  not  usually be included in your review as they are of variable quality and are open to very rapid change. Treat the information you find on the internet with appropriate care. Be very careful about the source of information and look carefully at who operates the website.

Personal communications

Personal communications such as (unpublished) letters and conversations are not references. If you use such comments (and of course, you should respect the confidence of anyone you have discussed your work with), you should draw attention to the fact that you are quoting someone and mark it as ‘personal communication’ in the body of the text. Responses you might obtain from, for example, interviews and questionnaires as part of your research should be reported as data obtained through primary research.

It is crucial that most of your literature should come from peer-reviewed materials, such as journal articles. The point of peer reviewing is to increase quality by ensuring that the ideas presented seem well-founded to other experts in the topic. Conference papers are generally peer-reviewed, although the review process is usually less stringent, and so the standing of conference papers is not the same as for journals. Books, magazines, newspapers, and websites (including blogs, wikis, corporate sites, etc.) are not subject to peer review, and you should treat them with appropriate caution. Also, treat each publication on its merits; it is more helpful to use a good conference paper than a poor journal paper. Similarly, it is acceptable to refer to a well-written blog by a knowledgeable and well-known author provided that you supply appropriate context. In all these cases, the important thing is that you interpret the work correctly.

You will have undertaken legal research and developed your research skills as you prepared for earlier assignments. A literature review builds on this. You may, however, be wondering where to start. One technique is to use an iteration of five stages to help you with your early research.

The five stages are: planning, searching, gathering, analysing and comparing.

Following these stages will provide you with a systematic approach to gathering and analysing literature in your chosen topic of study; this will ensure that you take a critical approach to the literature.

To undertake an effective review of the literature on your chosen topic you will need to plan your review carefully. This includes setting aside enough time in which to undertake your review. In planning there are several aspects you need to think about:

• What sources of information are most relevant to your chosen research question?
• What gaps in knowledge have you identified in your chosen topic and used as a basis for your research question?
• What search terms will you use and how will you refine these?
• How will you record your sources?
• How will you interrogate those sources?
• How will you continue to review the literature as you progress with your research in order to keep as up-to-date as possible?
• Are you able to easily access all the sources you need?
• What arrangements may you need to make to access any hard copy materials?
• Will you join one of the legal alert services to keep you abreast of changes in your chosen topic (such as new court judgments)?
• What notes of progress will you record in your research diary?

Spending time thinking about all aspects of the literature review, planning your time, and setting yourself targets will help to keep your research on track and will enable you to record your progress and any adjustments you make, along with the reasons for those adjustments.

This section is designed to provide you with some reminders in relation to searching, choosing search terms and some ideas about where to start in undertaking a literature review.

Where to start

The best places to start are likely to be a legal database (or law library) and Google Scholar. Many students and academics now use Google Scholar as one of their ‘go to’ tools for scholarly research. It can be helpful to gain an overview of a topic or to gain a sense of direction, but it is not a substitute for your own research of primary and secondary sources.

Having gained an overview from your initial search through browsing general collections of documents, you will then need to undertake a more detailed search to find specific documents. Identifying relevant scholarly articles and following links in footnotes and bibliographies can be helpful as you continue your search for relevant information.

One of the decisions you will have to make is when to stop working on your literature review and your research, and when to start writing up your dissertation. This will be determined by the material you gather and the time constraints you are working on.

Selecting resources

One starting point may be to locate a small number of key journal papers or articles; for a draft outline proposal for your research, you might have around four to six of these, accumulating more as you develop the research subsequently. Aim for quality, not quantity. Look for relevant and recent publications. Most of your references will typically not be more than four years old, although this does depend on your field of study. You will need quite a few more in due course to cover other aspects of your research such as methods and evaluation, but at this stage, you need only a few recent items.

While reading these documents, aim to identify the key issues that are essential to your research question, ideally around four to six.

Compare and contrast the literature, looking for commonalities, agreements, and disagreements and for problem identification and possible answers. Then write up your analysis of the comparison and any conclusions you might reach. The required outcome will be that you can make an informed decision about how to proceed with your primary research, based on the work carried out by other researchers.

Note that ultimately there are no infallible means of assessing the value of a given reference. Its source may be a useful indication, but you have to use your judgment about its value for your research.

Reviewing your sources

Skim read each document to decide whether a book or paper is worth reading in more depth. To do this you need to make use of the various signposts that are available from the:

• notes on a book’s cover can help situate the content
• abstract (for a paper), or the preface (for a book)
• contents page
• introduction
• conclusions
• references section (sometimes called the ‘bibliography’)

In your record, make a brief note (one or two sentences) of the main points.

Next, skim through the opening page of each chapter, or the first paragraph of each section. This should give you enough information to assess whether you need to read the book or paper in more depth, again make a suitable note against that record.

Reading in more detail: SQ3R

If you have decided to look in more detail at a source document that you have to skim read, you can use the well-known ‘SQ3R’ approach (Skimming, Questioning, Reading, Recalling, and Reviewing).

1. Skimming – skim reading the chapter or part of the paper that relates to your topic, or otherwise interests you.

2. Questioning – develop a few questions that you consider the text might answer for you. You can often use journal, chapter, or section titles to help you formulate relevant questions. For example, when studying a journal article with the title, ‘Me and my body: the relevance of the distinction for the difference between withdrawing life support and euthanasia’, you might ask, ‘How is the distinction between withdrawing life support and euthanasia drawn?’

3. Reading – read through the chapter, section, or paper with your questions in mind. Do not make notes at this stage.

4. Recalling – make notes on what you have read. You should normally develop your own summary or answers to your questions. There will also be short passages that you may want to note fully, perhaps to use as a quotation for when you write up your literature review. Be sure to note carefully the page(s) on which the quotation appears.

5. Reviewing – check through the process, perhaps flicking through the section or article again. It is also worth emphasising that if you maintain your reference list as you go along, not only will you save yourself a lot of work in later stages of the research, but you will also have all the necessary details to hand for writing up with fewer mistakes.

(adapted from Blaxter et al., 1996, p. 114)

There is no doubt that this approach takes considerably more effort than sitting back and studying a text passively. The benefit from the extra work involved in the development of a critical approach, which you must adopt for your research.

Following citations in a paper

When you have found (and read) your first couple of papers, you can then use them to seed your search for other useful literature. In this case, we will use this example:

When we looked at the references list in Suppon, J. F. (2010) ‘Life after death: the need to address the legal status of posthumously conceived children',  Family Court Review , vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 228–45, a couple of items, going only by the titles, looked promising:

• Doucettperry, Major M. (2008) ‘To Be Continued: A Look at Posthumous Reproduction As It Relates to Today’s Military’,  The Army Lawyer , no. 420, pp. 1–22.
• Karlin, J. H. (2006) ‘“Daddy, Can you Spare a Dime?”: Intestate Heir Rights of Posthumously Conceived Children’,  Temple Law Review , vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 1317–54.

These are simply the papers that we felt looked most appropriate from the references. There is no formula for determining the best paper; you simply need to read a few and try to develop a feel for which seem the most appropriate for your own research project. You should only be citing papers that contribute to your research in a significant way, or that you have included material from; not everything that you read (and discarded) along the way.

Recording your references

We strongly suggest that you establish a recording system at the outset when you begin your research and keep maintaining records in an organised and complete manner as you progress. You need to choose a consistent method of recording your references; this is a personal choice and can be paper-based or electronic. Do not be tempted to have more than one method or repository as this can lead to confusion and unnecessary extra work. There are software tools available that can help you to both organise your references and incorporate them into your written work. Always keep a backup copy of your records.

The following is a suggestion as to how you might record any document that you think you may use.

Open a new record, and record the basic details:

• author(s), including initials
• date of publication
• title of work or article.

Additionally, for books:

• place of publication
• page numbers of relevant material.

Additionally, for journal papers:

• journal name
• volume and issue number
• page range of the whole article.

‘How many references are needed to make a good literature review?’ There is no straightforward answer to this. In general, an appropriate number of references would be in the range of 15 to 25, with around 20 being typical. However, this is not hard and fast and will depend on the topic and research question chosen.

The crucial thing is to aim for  quality  and  relevance ; there is no credit to be gained from amassing a lengthy list of material, even if it all appears to be relevant. Part of your task is to select a range of references that is appropriate for the length and scope of your research project. It is easier, and more conducive to good research, to handle a smaller number of references specifically chosen to support your argument. Remember also that in general, a student whose research project contained a smaller number of references would generally be expected to demonstrate a deeper and  more critical  understanding of those references.

A colleague once commented on a student’s work in the following vein: ‘I don’t really need you to tell me what the author thinks since I can read her thoughts myself, but I do want to know what  you  think about what the author thinks’. Literature reviews are not a description of what has been written by other people in a particular field, they should be a discussion of what you think of what they have written, and how it helps clarify your own thinking.

This is why critical judgement is so important for your literature review. You must exercise critical judgement when determining which sources to read in-depth, and when evaluating the argument they put forward. Finally, critical judgement is important in communicating how those arguments might frame your research. It should not be a narrative of what you have read and the stories those sources tell. It should be sparing in its description of others’ arguments, and expansive in how those arguments have shaped your own thinking.

You need to exercise critical judgement as to which resources are the most useful and worthy of discussion. Having done this, you also need to ensure that your review is analytical rather than descriptive. A critical review extracts elements from the resource that directly relate to the chosen research interest; it debates them, or compares and contrasts them with how other resources have analysed them. A critical examination of the literature should allow you to develop your understanding of your research question. It should guide you to what knowledge you will need to answer your research question, and begin to develop some subsidiary questions. This will break the content down into more manageable and achievable segments of knowledge that you require.

Some elements of a good critical literature review are:

• relating different writings to each other, indicating their differences and contradictions, and highlighting what they lack
• understanding the values and theories that inform, and colour, reading and writing
• viewing research writing as an environment of contested views and positions
• placing the material in the context of your own research.

An excellent way to critically analyse a document is to use the PROMPT system. The PROMPT system indicates what factors you should consider when evaluating a document. PROMPT stands for:

• Presentation – is the publication easy to read?
• Relevance – how will the publication help address your research aim?
• Objectivity – what is the balance between evidence and opinion? Does the evidence seem balanced? How was the research funded?
• Method – was the research in the publication carried out appropriately?
• Provenance – who is the author and how was the document published?
• Timeliness – is the publication still relevant, or has it been superseded?

By thinking about each of these factors when you read a publication in-depth, you will be able to provide a deeper, more critical analysis of each publication. A final tip for critical reading is to note down your overall impressions and any questions you still have at the end. Keeping a list of such open questions can help you identify the gaps in the literature by noticing which questions were raised, but not answered, by the publication; this, in turn, will guide your research.

In the planning stage, you thought about the gaps in existing knowledge you had identified, and which you then used as a basis to develop your research question. Through the work, you undertook in the earlier stages of your literature review you have a clear understanding of the existing work within the topic. At this point, a comparison of the results of your literature review, with the gaps you had previously identified, will enable you to reflect, and consider, whether you now have enough knowledge to address those gaps. You can then evaluate whether you need to further refine your literature review.

• << Previous: The difference between a topic and a research question
• Next: Referencing >>
• Last Updated: Sep 10, 2023 9:54 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwc.ac.za/c.php?g=1159497

UWC LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICES

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.

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 9 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.

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

It is unlikely that law researchers will be conducting systematic reviews, however you may need to conduct a literature review.

Applying systematic searching skills and techniques can also help shape and improve your research.

Below are some resources that can inform and guide law researchers with literature reviews and systematic research.

Key resources

• << Previous: Health sciences and medicine
• Next: Psychology >>
• Built environment
• Criminology
• Education (TESOL)
• Health sciences and medicine
• Social work

Contact your librarian

Faculty Librarian Law +61 7 5595 1550 [email protected]

Faculty of Law Manager, Law Library +61 7 5595 1520 [email protected]

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

• 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

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.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

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

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

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

INTRODUCTION

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

Literature search

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

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

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

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

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

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

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

Use of field and Boolean operators

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

Field operators used in PubMed search

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

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

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

Use of medical subject headings terms

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

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

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

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

Saving your searches

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

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

Single citation matcher

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

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

Full text articles

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

Managing filters

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

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

The Cochrane library

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2023

In search of an international multidimensional action plan for second victim support: a narrative review

• Deborah Seys 1 , 2 ,
• Massimiliano Panella 3 ,
• Sophia Russotto 3 ,
• Reinhard Strametz 4 ,
• José Joaquín Mira 5 , 6 ,
• Astrid Van Wilder 2 ,
• Lode Godderis 2 , 7 &
• Kris Vanhaecht 2 , 8  

BMC Health Services Research volume  23 , Article number:  816 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1206 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Insights around second victims (SV) and patient safety has been growing over time. An overview of the available evidence is lacking. This review aims to describe (i) the impact a patient safety incident can have and (ii) how healthcare professionals can be supported in the aftermath of a patient safety incident.

A literature search in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed between 1 and 2010 and 26 November 2020 with studies on SV as inclusion criteria. To be included in this review the studies must include healthcare professionals involved in the aftermath of a patient safety incident.

In total 104 studies were included. SVs can suffer from both psychosocial (negative and positive), professional and physical reactions. Support can be provided at five levels. The first level is prevention (on individual and organizational level) referring to measures taken before a patient safety incident happens. The other four levels focus on providing support in the aftermath of a patient safety incident, such as self-care of individuals and/or team, support by peers and triage, structured support by an expert in the field (professional support) and structured clinical support.

The impact of a patient safety incident on healthcare professionals is broad and diverse. Support programs should be organized at five levels, starting with preventive actions followed by self-care, support by peers, structured professional support and clinical support. This multilevel approach can now be translated in different countries, networks and organizations based on their own culture, support history, structure and legal context. Next to this, they should also include the stage of recovery in which the healthcare professional is located in.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Since the publication of “To Err is Human” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) back in 1999, attention to patient safety has been surging [ 1 ]. Several actions have been undertaken to reduce the number of preventable errors and patient safety incidents (PSIs) in the hospital. As mentioned in the Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 (Strategy 4.4) by the WHO, attention for PSIs continues to be important and it needs to be “ensured that patients, families and health care staff are given ongoing psychological and other support in the aftermath of a serious PSI” [ 2 ]. Next to the ‘first victim’, i.e. the patient and their kin affected by the PSI, the health care staff is considered to be ‘the second victim’ (SV), a term introduced by Wu in 2000 [ 3 ]. Since Wu’s seminal publication in BMJ, research on the impact of a PSI on the SV and on how to support them in the most optimal way has been numerous with collective consensus that the SV should not be treated punitively [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].

The term ‘second victims’ has been in use for over two decades and has been on the receiving end of some criticism [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Recently, the definition has been further improved upon by the COST Action on European Researchers’ Network Working on Second Victims (ERNST) [ 13 ] and a SV is now defined as “Any health care worker, directly or indirectly involved in an unanticipated adverse patient event, unintentional healthcare error, or patient injury, and who becomes victimized in the sense that they are also negatively impacted” [ 12 ]. In the aftermath of a PSI, healthcare professionals are highly affected by different psychological and psychosomatic symptoms, e.g. troubling memories, anxiety, anger, remorse, distress and fear of future errors [ 4 , 5 , 14 ].

When a healthcare professional is involved, the symptoms in the aftermath of a PSI can differ dependent on the stage of recovery healthcare professionals find themselves in. Scott et al. described the natural history of recovery in the aftermath of a PSI to first start with a chaos and accident response (1), followed by intrusive reflections (2), restoring personal integrity (3), enduring the inquisition (4), obtaining emotional first aid (5) and finally moving on (6) [ 15 ]. The different recovery stages described are comparable with the different stages of grief in the aftermath of a trauma as described by Kübler-Ross, which are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance [ 16 ]. This implies that being involved in a PSI is associated with a spiral of emotions [ 17 ]. Finally, a PSI can have a long impact on the healthcare professional which can be negative when symptoms are getting worse or the duration lasts longer than expected [ 18 ].

Since 2006, several support resources have been described in the literature, most established in the United States, trying to help healthcare professionals in dealing with the impact of a PSI [ 19 ]. In 2013, a review with possible support mechanisms was published concluding that support can be provided on the individual and on organizational level. These SV programmes should include support to be provided immediately after PSI occurrence as well as on the middle long and long term [ 4 ]. Scott et al. described the “Scott three-tiered emotional support system”, which includes department support and leadership mentoring (Tier 1), support by peer experts (Tier 2) and professional resources (Tier 3) [ 20 ]. However, the recent attention given towards assessments of a ‘just culture’ indicate that a lot of work is still required to put this into practice [ 21 ]. A recent meta-analysis confirmed that second victims use different types of coping strategies, e.g. being task-oriented or avoidance-oriented, to deal with the emotional impact of a PSI [ 8 , 22 ]. Further actions to increase awareness about the second victim after a PSI and implement support protocols are necessary to improve the complex and multi-layered impact of a PSI [ 23 ].

As the evidence-base around SVs and patient safety has evolved, and several of the available literature reviews were published over ten years ago, the international community lacks an update of the available insights and findings. How healthcare professionals can reduce the impact of a PSI has not been explored within current evidence-base. Therefore, this review wants to describe the different kinds of impact a PSI can cause, not only on a personal and physical level, but also on a professional level. Additionally, it wants to recount which support and prevention strategies are required. The following two research questions were defined: (i) What kind of impact of PSIs on healthcare professionals can be identified? and (ii) How can healthcare professionals be supported in the aftermath of a PSI?

Information sources and search strategy

A literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL from 1 October 2010 onwards, following on two reviews published by Seys et al. [ 4 , 5 ], and collected literature until 26 November 2020. The following search strategy was employed: (“second victim,” OR “medical error” OR “adverse event”) AND (“psychology” OR “emotions” OR “feelings” OR “burnout” OR “depression” OR “empathy” OR “attitude of health personnel,”) OR “medical error”[MeSH] AND “Burnout, Professional”[MeSH] OR “Depressive Disorder”[MeSH] OR “Empathy”[MeSH] for Medline. For EMBASE: (“second victim,” OR “medical error” OR “adverse event”) AND (“psychology” OR “emotions” OR “feelings” OR “burnout” OR “depression” OR “empathy” OR “attitude of health personnel,”) OR “medical error”/exp AND “professional burnout’/exp OR “depression’/exp OR ‘empathy’/exp. For CINAHL: (“second victim,” OR “medical error” OR “adverse event”) AND (“psychology” OR “emotions” OR “feelings” OR “burnout” OR “depression” OR “empathy” OR “attitude of health personnel,”). This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standard [ 24 ]. The studies should include healthcare professionals involved in a patient safety incident (PSI), where a PSI is defined as “an event or circumstance that could have resulted, or did result, in unnecessary harm to a patient.” [ 25 ].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if any of the following criteria were met. (i) They described a definition or described the term second victims. (ii) They mentioned the prevalence of health care professionals involved in a PSI, which could have occurred over the time span of their career or during a well-defined period. (iii) They studied the impact of a PSI on the involved health care professional without restrictions regarding the level of impact or harm. (iv) Finally, studies were included if they assessed what support was provided and/or needed in the aftermath of a PSI.

We excluded studies not published in English, reviews, conference reports, newspaper stories, and anecdotal evidence. Publications on analyses occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded due to the fact that these publications are no longer able to purely distinguish the effect of a PSI on the second victim, but have COVID-19 as a confounding factor.

Article screening

All citations were imported into the citations manager, Endnote X9, and duplicates were initially removed by this citation manager. Duplicates found during the title analyses were removed manually. In the next phase, the titles and abstracts were first screened by two reviewers (DS, KV) to eliminate unrelated studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by two other investigators (MP, SR). For all remaining relevant articles, the full text was retrieved, and two reviewers examined them independently according to the eligibility criteria.

Qualitative analysis: data extraction and data synthesis

Data were extracted from the full text by a single investigator (DS) using a data extraction sheet. The sheet included study summary information (authors, country, year of study), study design, patient population reports (sample size, type of respondents) and outcome measurements (impact of PSIs, support in the aftermath of a PSI). The outcome measurements related to the impact of a PSI were clustered by the researchers into psychosocial reactions, positive professional reactions, negative professional reactions or physical reactions which the authors defined before the study.Each of the outcomes related to support in the aftermath of a PSI were extracted from each article. Based on these results the support in the aftermath of a PSI could be clustered into five separate levels, whereby clustering occurred on the degree of support received by SVs. The data extraction was thoroughly discussed with the members of the review team (DS, KV, SR, MP).

Patient and public involvement

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

Figure  1 illustrates the outcome of the search process. A total of 120,635 titles were identified after the initial search. After the removal of duplicates and title, abstract and full text analysis, 104 studies remained.

PRISMA flow diagram

Description of the included studies

Out of the 104 included publications, eight involved opinion papers (Hauk et al. 2018 [ 26 ], MacLeod 2014 [ 27 ], Petersen 2019 [ 28 ], Saver 2013 [ 29 ], Schrøder et al. 2019 [ 30 ], Scott et al. 2016 [ 15 ], Scott 2015 [ 31 ], Smetzer 2012 [ 32 ]), six were perspectives (Ahc 2019 [ 10 ], Tebala 2020 [ 33 ], Tamburri et al. 2017 [ 34 ], Gómez-Durán et al. 2019 [ 35 ], Shapiro et al. 2016 [ 36 ], Slykerman et al. 2019 [ 37 ]), six were editorials (Anderson et al. [ 38 ], Clarkson et al. 2019 [ 11 ], Edrees et al. 2015 [ 39 ], Everly Jr et al. 2020 [ 40 ], Thompson et al. 2015 [ 41 ], Sataloff 2020 [ 42 ]) and one was a case study (Rappaport et al. 2019 [ 43 ]). The other 83 publications were research articles (Supplementary File 1 ). Most studies were performed in the USA (n = 30), followed by Iran (n = 5), Canada (n = 5) and China (n = 4). More than half of the studies were observational studies and one out of four were qualitative studies. More than 9 out of 10 studies were in-hospital studies of which 25% were multi-centre studies.

What kinds of impact of a PSI on healthcare professionals could be identified?

Symptoms can involve psychosocial reactions, professional reactions or a physical response. The PSI could have had an impact on the mental health of the healthcare professional as a SV, leading to a wave of emotions, or a psychosocial reaction. These psychosocial reactions can for example be. feelings of guilt, sleep disturbances, anxiety or fear. Additionally, both negative and positive impacts on their way of working can emerge, Negative professional reactions can e.g. be wanting to change wards, decrease professional self-efficacy or loss of confidence. Examples of positive professional reactions include raised attention, being more careful or being more critical/self-critical. Last, physical health, mentioned by physical response have been described including e.g. eating disorder, headache or muscle tension. The details of these reactions can be found in Supplementary Files 2 – 5 . Figure  2 provides an overview of the most commonly reported psychosocial, negative and positive reactions. Three studies mentioned that some healthcare professionals were not at all impacted by a PSI [ 18 , 44 , 45 ]. In contrast, other studies have posed that a PSI will always affect the involved healthcare professionals [ 46 ].

Most reported psychosocial, negative and positive professional reactions based on number of studies

How can healthcare professionals be supported in the aftermath of a PSI?

For the optimal support in the aftermath of a PSI, actions should be undertaken at five -levels (Fig.  3 , Supplementary File 6 ). The first level includes prevention on both the individual healthcare professional level and the organization level. Several actions can be taken in advance which can lead to a lower impact in the aftermath of a PSI. Examples include investments in good relationships with colleagues [ 47 ]; being a supportive and/or an active listener [ 26 , 39 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]; having an environment with no punitive response, where blame is avoided, an environment that is family oriented, or a just and no-macho culture [ 30 , 39 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ]; and being educated about the concept of the second victim and related feelings [ 30 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. The second level includes self-care of the healthcare individual and team and starts when a PSI had occurred [ 17 , 31 , 36 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Some examples of support in this level are: wanting to talk in great detail about PSI/discuss the PSI [ 17 , 46 , 50 , 54 ], trying to understand what happened and how to avoid the PSI in the future [ 31 , 36 , 43 , 46 , 50 , 52 , 73 , 75 ], looking for support or feedback by supervisor/senior person [ 31 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 57 , 63 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 82 , 83 ]. If this level is insufficient, support by peers and triage [ 15 , 17 , 30 , 31 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ] (Level 3) can be provided, which is, if necessary, followed by structured professional support [ 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 73 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 93 ] (Level 4) and clinical support (Level 5). In level 3 (Support by peers and triage), healthcare professionals want e.g. timely support or support soon in the aftermath of a PSI [ 15 , 31 , 39 , 54 , 64 , 87 ], support which is available by hotline, telephone, email, intranet [ 81 , 85 , 86 ] and they want to be informed about the next steps in the hospital’s process for follow-up a PSI [ 31 , 46 , 52 , 60 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 90 , 91 , 92 ]. The structured professional support (Level 4), is support given by an expert in the field and can include e.g. mental health support [ 39 , 42 , 45 , 52 , 58 , 64 , 69 , 73 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 93 ] or access to specialized support (Formal organizational support) [ 39 , 56 , 57 , 92 ], but can also be debriefings [ 39 , 43 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 61 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 87 ] or mortality and morbidity meetings/clinical incident reviews [ 45 , 50 , 81 , 89 ]. In general it treats the second victim as a person with a condition that requires e.g. short-term psychotherapy or psychosocial support, while clinical support (Level 5) treats the second victim as having a disease treatable with medication [ 32 , 42 , 44 , 48 , 52 , 67 , 73 , 76 , 93 , 94 ] and long-term psychotherapy [ 32 , 42 , 44 , 48 , 52 , 67 , 73 , 76 , 80 , 81 , 93 , 94 ].

Overview of the five-level of support

Next to this, national and local initiatives exist that include several levels of support [ 37 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 64 , 69 , 73 , 81 , 86 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ] (Supplementary File 7 ).

Methodological observations

Although professional and psychosocial reactions are described in many publications, only three validated questionnaires that evaluated the impact of a PSI could be identified [ 68 , 78 , 79 , 91 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. First, the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST) is increasingly being implemented as a questionnaire in second victim research [ 68 , 69 , 123 ]. The SVEST was originally validated in the United States and contains 29 items within seven psychosocial domains (psychological stress, physical distress, colleague support, supervisor support, institutional support, non-work-related support, professional self-efficacy) and two employment-related domains or outcomes (turnover intentions and absenteeism) [ 68 , 121 , 122 , 123 ]. The questionnaire is available in English [ 69 ] and evaluates psychological distress, physical distress, professional self-efficacy, colleague support, supervisor support, institutional support, non-work-related support, turnover intentions, and absenteeism [ 68 , 121 , 122 , 123 ]. Another questionnaire often applied in second victim research, is the Impact of Event Scale (IES). This evaluates the subjective distress caused by traumatic events such as PSIs [ 91 , 120 ]. Last, the Second Victims im Deutschsprachigen Raum (Second Victims in German-speaking Countries) (SeViD) questionnaire was developed in Germany and Austria and covers prevalence, symptoms and support strategies of the second victim phenomenon [ 78 , 79 ].

This is the first review focusing on preventive actions which can be taking in advance of a PSI, both by healthcare professionals and by organizations. Additionally our results showed that a difference should be made in different levels of professional support, whereby support can be either structured professionally for the SV on the short and middle term, or could be clinical, with medication or clinical-related aid on the long term. This lead to a shift of the “Scott three-tiered emotional support system towards a five-level support. These results are based on reviewing a total of 104 articles across different healthcare professionals, healthcare settings and countries. Based on the differences in published psychosocial and professional reactions, we argue that no general detailed support program is available for second victims, but that the actions should be based on the needs of the involved individual healthcare professional and should happen at different levels.

In general, the impact of a PSI on healthcare professionals is diverse, ranging from no reactions at all to psychosocial, negative and positive professional reactions, or physical reactions, which on their own could become an obstacle to patient safety. Previous studies showed that the greater the harm to the patient, the more intense the SV phenomenon is, culminating to the most severe symptoms in PSIs [ 22 ]. Healthcare organizations should also take into account that trainees and students can also become SVs in the aftermath of a PSI [ 62 , 66 , 81 , 124 , 125 ].

Only a few instruments to measure the impact of a PSI are published and the most common instrument is the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST)., [ 68 , 121 , 122 , 123 ] In the last two years, this instrument has been validated in several languages, e.g. Danish [ 126 ], Spanish [ 127 ], German [ 128 ]; Korean [ 63 ], Argentinian [ 68 ], Chinese [ 71 ], Italian [ 129 ], Malaysian [ 130 ] and Persian [ 121 ]. A revised version of the instrument (SVEST-R) was developed and validated in December 2020, right after the inclusion date of this review. It was first published in English [ 123 ], followed by publication of a German version [ 79 ]. The revised instrument comprises 35 items and has adapted the original domain on ‘non-work-related support’ to ‘resilience’. Additionally, seven items were added regarding desirability of second victim support options. Some of the items in the SVEST and SVEST-R questionnaire are scored inversely to reduce bias [ 131 ]. The SVEST and SVEST-R questionnaires include support and impact items by using these questionnaires in practice. This implies that the results of the questionnaire should be presented at all levels of the organization, not only on how to improve support in general to management and board, but also to supervisors and colleagues. As healthcare professionals go through different stages in their recovery [ 15 ], the SVEST or SVEST-R questionnaire should be taken at different timepoints to check the healthcare professional’s needs. This leads to the question if it is possible to translate one instrument into different languages. In other words: are these questionnaires sufficiently sensitive to capture the differences in culture, language and reactions of the healthcare professionals in the aftermath of a PSI over time? Healthcare professionals go through different stages in the aftermath of a PSI [ 15 , 16 , 17 ] and each stage can differ in time but can also need a different kind of support. For example, 23,6% of the involved healthcare professionals are still hypervigilant, 8,7% continue to have flashbacks, 8,2% have feelings of shame and 8,1% doubt their knowledge and skills six months after a PSI [ 18 ]. If countries, network or organizations want to set up a peer-support protocol, they should not start from scratch, but they should rely on the multilevel approach presented in this paper (see Fig.  3 ). However, these programs could be adapted based on their own cultural context and specific needs of the SV during the different stages of their recovery.

It is still unclear how many healthcare professionals are in need of a specific level of support according to our five-level support system (Fig.  3 ) in the aftermath of a PSI. Our five-level support system is an enlargement of the “Scott three-tiered emotional support system”, The “Scott three-tiered emotional support system” showed that 60% of the SVs found that the support given by colleagues and peers is very helpful and that there was no need for specially trained peer-support [ 20 ]. This review mentioned different prevention strategies which can be used by the individual healthcare professional or by the organization. A safety culture promoting support for emotional needs and increasing awareness of the SV phenomenon are seen as important preventive actions [ 132 ]. An online program such as the ‘Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) online program’ can help to improve the knowledge about PSIs, possible support models and actions in the aftermath of a PSI [ 133 ]. Professional treatment for SVs doesn’t immediately include medication or clinically-related treatment, it can also include structured professional support. However, if structured professional support is not sufficient, the next step could be treating the involved healthcare professional clinically or with medication. Interventions including visuospatial cognitive ‘Tetris’-like tasks could be implemented to reduce intrusive memories, which are common after PSIs [ 134 ]. Other methods such as cognitive processing therapy (CPT), prolonged exposure therapy (PE) and eye movement, desensitization, and restructuring (EMDR) are the current golden standards for the treatment of trauma-associated symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder [ 135 ].

Next to learning from other SV support literature, the post-COVID era provides opportunities to enhance the SV evidence-base. A study comparing the reaction in the aftermath of a PSI by doctors and nurses with the reactions during COVID-19 showed that the impact on doctors and nurses is larger during COVID-19 than in the aftermath of a PSI [ 136 ]. Most organizations have set up a support program for their healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, which implies that these program can be extended to SVs. Not only the level of PSIs can have an impact on the reactions, being involved in formal complaints or lawsuits can put an additional layer on the personal and professional reactions of the involved healthcare professionals [ 137 , 138 ].

Some studies have shown positive reactions in the aftermath of a PSI, such as raised attention or becoming more critical. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was shown that the pandemic can be a trigger for developing posttraumatic growth, as it is disruptive enough to affect the individual’s values and perspectives [ 139 ]. Being involved in a PSI can similarly be disruptive enough, meaning there is potential for posttraumatic growth for SVs, while for others the disruption can be a possible reason why they want to leave profession.

Strengths and limitations

The strength of this review is that it draws together and reports all the possible reactions and support in the aftermath of a PSI. We chose to extract the reactions ad verbatim from the primary articles as to not lose subtle nuances that might depend on the language or culture of the respondents. Due to this type of research, recall bias in reactions is possible due to the fact that the symptoms were collected after the PSI had happened. These reactions were collected by (validated) questionnaires or based on qualitative research. For this reason the results of the symptoms should be interpreted by general trends and with caution. Other limitations of this review are caused by the heterogeneity of the included studies, in terms of type and severity of adverse events studied, involved healthcare professionals and types of study design. A critical appraisal of the individual studies was not performed as the aim of our study was to have a broad overview of both the reactions and support in the aftermath of a PSI.Next to this, the studies have been carried out in countries with different legal frameworks, which may affect the scope and type of intervention. Besides this, some of the studies have a small sample size or were performed at one organization which limits the generalizability of the results. Aspects of the safety culture of the individual organization should be considered when interpreting and implementing these results as differences between countries may also play a role.

Recommendations

Further research is needed to optimize the validated instruments which measure the impact and support mechanisms for healthcare professionals in the aftermath of a PSI. This five-level support system can be used for longitudinal research but can also evaluate the impact and support needed in the aftermath of different types of PSI and different levels of support, ranging from prevention to professional and cultural support. Age, gender, professional group, working experience and personality dimensions should also be included to understand the SV phenomenon better and give the most optimal support to them. Therefore, knowledge sharing networks within and across countries should be organized. Besides measuring cultural differences, possible reactions and their duration, interventional research is needed, including randomized controlled trials to solidify different interventions at different stages of recovery and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions.

Conclusions

The impact of a PSI on healthcare professionals is broad, ranging from psychosocial and physical reactions to negative and positive professional reactions. This review shows that support programs should be organized at five levels. It should start with preventive actions followed by self-care of the healthcare professionals, support by peers, structured professional support and clinical support. Based on this, the involved healthcare professionals can be supported in the most optimal way in the aftermath of a PSI. Finally, organizations and healthcare professionals should take preventive actions to reduce the impact of a PSI and should provide support based on the individual needs of each healthcare professional in the aftermath of a PSI and should evolve in time based on the different stages of recovery. As each SV is a unique individual, we should be careful in implementing standard protocols or generalized approaches and provide support fitting for the SV’s personal reaction and recovering stage.

Data Availability

All data presented in this study are available in results section. Deborah Seys can be contacted if there are questions about it.

Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System. Washington DC: National Academic Press; 1999.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. World Health Organization Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030. Towards zero patients harm in Healthcare. In.; 2020.

Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim. The doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):726–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Seys D, Scott S, Wu A, Van Gerven E, Vleugels A, Euwema M, Panella M, Conway J, Sermeus W, Vanhaecht K. Supporting involved health care professionals (second victims) following an adverse health event: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(5):678–87.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Seys D, Wu AW, Gerven EV, Vleugels A, Euwema M, Panella M, Scott SD, Conway J, Sermeus W, Vanhaecht K. Health Care Professionals as second victims after adverse events: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(2):135–62.

Quadrado ERS, Tronchin DMR, Maia FOM. Strategies to support health professionals in the condition of second victim: scoping review. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2021;55:e03669.

Harrison R, Johnson J, McMullan RD, Pervaz-Iqbal M, Chitkara U, Mears S, Shapiro J, Lawton R. Toward constructive change after making a medical error: recovery from situations of Error Theory as a Psychosocial Model for Clinician Recovery. J Patient Saf 2022, 18(6).

Busch IM, Moretti F, Purgato M, Barbui C, Wu AW, Rimondini M. Dealing with adverse events: a Meta-analysis on second victims’ coping strategies. J Patient Saf 2020, 16(2).

Tumelty ME. The second victim: a contested term? J Patient Saf 2018.

Ahc M. Second victim’ may not be the Best Approach to adverse events. Healthc Risk Manage. 2019;41(9):NPAG–NPAG.

Clarkson MD, Haskell H, Hemmelgarn C, Skolnik PJ. Abandon the term “second victim”. BMJ (Online) 2019, 364.

Vanhaecht K, Seys D, Russotto S, Strametz R, Mira J, Sigurgeirsdóttir S, Wu AW, Põlluste K, Popovici DG, Sfetcu R, et al. An evidence and Consensus-Based definition of second victim: a Strategic Topic in Healthcare Quality, Patient Safety, Person-Centeredness and Human Resource Management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(24):16869.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

The European Researchers’ Network Working on Second Victims. [ https://cost-ernst.eu/about/ ]. Accessed 15 Jul 2023

Busch IM, Moretti F, Purgato M, Barbui C, Wu AW, Rimondini M. Psychological and psychosomatic symptoms of second victims of adverse events: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(2):e61–e74.

Scott SD, McCoig MM. Care at the point of impact: insights into the second-victim experience. J Healthc risk management: J Am Soc Healthc Risk Manage. 2016;35(4):6–13.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kübler-Ross E, Byock I. On death and dying: what the Dying have to teach doctors, nurses, clergy and their own families. Manhattan: Scribner; 2014.

Luu S, Patel P, St-Martin L, Leung ASO, Regehr G, Murnaghan ML, Gallinger S. Moulton C-a: waking up the next morning: surgeons’ emotional reactions to adverse events. Med Educ. 2012;46(12):1179–88.

Vanhaecht K, Seys D, Schouten L, Bruyneel L, Coeckelberghs E, Panella M, Zeeman G. Duration of second victim symptoms in the aftermath of a patient safety incident and association with the level of patient harm: a cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e029923.

Busch IM, Moretti F, Campagna I, Benoni R, Tardivo S, Wu AW, Rimondini M. Promoting the Psychological Well-Being of Healthcare Providers facing the Burden of adverse events: a systematic review of second victim support resources. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5080.

Scott SD, Hirschinger LE, Cox KR, McCoig M, Hahn-Cover K, Epperly KM, Phillips EC, Hall LW. Caring for our own: deploying a systemwide second victim Rapid Response Team. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(5):233–40.

White RM, Delacroix R. Second victim phenomenon: is ‘just culture’ a reality? An integrative review. Appl Nurs Res. 2020;56:151319.

Kappes M, Romero-García M, Delgado-Hito P. Coping strategies in health care providers as second victims: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev. 2021;68(4):471–81.

Liukka M, Steven A, Moreno MFV, Sara-Aho AM, Khakurel J, Pearson P, Turunen H, Tella S. Action after adverse events in Healthcare: an integrative literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4717.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

World Health Organization.: The Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. Version 1.1. Final Technical Report. 2009.

Hauk L. Support strategies for health care professionals who are second victims. AORN J. 2018;107(6):P7–P9.

MacLeod L. Second victim” casualties and how physician leaders can help. Phys Exec. 2014;40(1):8–12.

Petersen IG. The term “second victim” is appropriate for frontline workers. BMJ. 2019;365:l2157.

Saver C. Second victim’ rapid-response team helps fellow clinicians recover from trauma. OR Manager. 2013;29(5):10–2.

Schrøder K, Hvidt NC, Jørgensen JS, Lamont RF, Jørgensen JS, Lamont RF, Hvidt NC. Second victims need emotional support after adverse events: even in a just safety culture. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2019;126(4):440–2.

Scott SD. The second victim experience: mitigating the harm. Am Nurse Today. 2015;10(9):8–11.

Smetzer J. Don’t abandon the “second victims” of medical errors. Nursing. 2012;42(2):54–8.

Tebala GD. Is there a standard reaction of surgeons to surgical complications? Study on an interesting historical case. Med Hypotheses. 2020;144:110006.

Tamburri LM. Creating healthy work environments for second victims of adverse events. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2017;28(4):366–74.

Gómez-Durán EL, Tolchinsky G, Martin-Fumadó C, Arimany-Manso J. Neglecting the “second victim” will not help harmed patients or improve patient safety. BMJ. 2019;365:l2167.

Shapiro J, Galowitz P. Peer support for Clinicians: a Programmatic Approach. Acad medicine: J Association Am Med Colleges. 2016;91(9):1200–4.

Slykerman G, Wiemers MJ, Wyssusek KH. Peer support in anaesthesia: development and implementation of a peer-support programme within the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2019;47(6):497–502.

Anderson J, Gianola FJ. After the error, then what? The emotional impact of errors on clinicians. JAAPA: J Am Acad Physician Assistants (Haymarket Media Inc). 2011;24(12):71–2.

Edrees H, Federico F. Supporting clinicians after medical error. BMJ (Online) 2015, 350.

Everly GS Jr. Psychological first aid to support healthcare professionals. J Patient Saf Risk Manage. 2020;25(4):159–62.

Thompson CV, Suggett N, Fellows J. Must “second victims” always be in the wrong? BMJ (Online) 2015, 350.

Sataloff RT. Adverse Surgical events: Effects on the Surgeon. Ear Nose and Throat Journal. 2020;99(4):225–6.

Rappaport DI, Selbst SM, Mull CC. Medical errors and malpractice lawsuits: impact on Providers- Part 2 of 6. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019;35(6):440–2.

McLennan SR, Engel-Glatter S, Meyer AH, Schwappach DLB, Scheidegger DH, Elger BS. The impact of medical errors on swiss anaesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(8):990–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Biggs S, Waggett HB, Shabbir J. Impact of surgical complications on the operating surgeon. Colorectal Dis 2020.

Ullström S, Sachs MA, Hansson J, Øvretveit J, Brommels M. Suffering in silence: a qualitative study of second victims of adverse events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):325–31.

Schrøder K, Edrees HH, Christensen RD, Jørgensen JS, Lamont RF, Hvidt NC. Second victims in the labor ward: are danish midwives and obstetricians getting the support they need? Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(8):583–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rinaldi C, Leigheb F, Vanhaecht K, Donnarumma C, Panella M. Becoming a “second victim” in health care: pathway of recovery after adverse event. Rev Calid Asist. 2016;31(Suppl 2):11–9.

Dukhanin V, Edrees HH, Connors CA, Kang E, Norvell M, Wu AW. Case: a second victim support program in Pediatrics: Successes and Challenges to implementation. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;41:54–9.

Kobe C, Blouin S, Moltzan C, Koul R. The second victim phenomenon: perspective of canadian Radiation therapists. J Med Imaging Radiation Sci. 2019;50(1):87–97.

Pinto A, Faiz O, Bicknell C, Vincent C. Acute traumatic stress among surgeons after major surgical complications. Am J Surg. 2014;208(4):642–7.

Joesten L, Cipparrone N, Okuno-Jones S, DuBose ER. Assessing the Perceived Level of Institutional Support for the second victim after a Patient Safety Event. J Patient Saf. 2015;11(2):73–8.

Treiber LA, Jones JH. Making an infusion error: the second victims of infusion therapy-related medication errors. J Infus Nurs. 2018;41(3):156–63.

Edrees H, Connors C, Paine L, Norvell M, Taylor H, Wu AW. Implementing the RISE second victim support programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital: a case study. BMJ Open 2016, 6(9).

Harrison R, Sharma A, Walton M, Esguerra E, Onobrakpor S, Nghia BT, Chinh ND. Responding to adverse patient safety events in Viet Nam. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):677.

Merandi J, Winning AM, Liao N, Rogers E, Lewe D, Gerhardt CA. Implementation of a second victim program in the neonatal intensive care unit: an interim analysis of employee satisfaction. J Patient Saf Risk Manage. 2018;23(6):231–8.

Mok WQ, Chin GF, Yap SF, Wang W. A cross-sectional survey on nurses’ second victim experience and quality of support resources in Singapore. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28(2):286–93.

Han K, Bohnen JD, Peponis T, Martinez M, Nandan A, Yeh DD, Lee J, Demoya M, Velmahos G, Kaafarani HMA. The Surgeon as the second victim? Results of the Boston intraoperative adverse events Surgeons’ attitude (BISA) Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(6):1048–56.

Edrees H, Brock DM, Wu AW, McCotter PI, Hofeldt R, Shannon SE, Gallagher TH, White AA. The experiences of risk managers in providing emotional support for health care workers after adverse events. J Healthc Risk Manage. 2016;35(4):14–21.

Pratt S, Kenney L, Scott SD, Wu AW. How to develop a second victim support program: a toolkit for health care organizations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf/Jt Comm Resour. 2012;38(5):235–40.

Chung AS, Smart J, Zdradzinski M, Roth S, Gende A, Conroy K, Battaglioli N. Educator Toolkits on second victim syndrome, mindfulness and meditation, and positive psychology: the 2017 Resident Wellness Consensus Summit. Western J Emerg Medicine: Integrating Emerg Care Popul Health. 2018;19(2):327–31.

Huang H, Chen J, Xiao M, Cao S, Zhao Q. Experiences and responses of nursing students as second victims of patient safety incidents in a clinical setting: a mixed-methods study. J Nurs Manage (John Wiley Sons Inc). 2020;28(6):1317–25.

Kim EM, Kim SA, Lee JR, Burlison JD, Oh EG. Psychometric Properties of Korean Version of the second victim experience and Support Tool (K-SVEST). J Patient Saf. 2020;16(3):179–86.

Stone M. Second victim support: nurses’ perspectives of Organizational Support after an adverse event. J Nurs Adm. 2020;50(10):521–5.

Tan R, Luo K, Hu D, Zhao Y, Han Y, Xu K. Inpatient suicide second victim experience and Support Tool: psychometric properties of a scale for nurses who experienced inpatient suicide at chinese general hospitals. Nurs Health Sci 2020.

Pijl Zieber M, Williams B. The experience of nursing students who make mistakes in clinical. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2015;12(1):1–9.

Edrees HH, Paine LA, Feroli ER, Wu AW. Health care workers as second victims of medical errors. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2011;121(4):101–7.

Brunelli MV, Estrada S, Celano C. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of a second victim experience and Support Tool (SVEST). J Patient Saf 2018.

Burlison JD, Scott SD, Browne EK, Thompson SG, Hoffman JM. The second victim experience and Support Tool: validation of an Organizational Resource for assessing second victim Effects and the quality of Support Resources. J Patient Saf. 2017;13(2):93–102.

Zhang X, Li Q, Guo Y, Lee SY. From organisational support to second victim-related distress: role of patient safety culture. J Nurs Manage (John Wiley Sons Inc). 2019;27(8):1818–25.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhang X, Chen J, Lee SY. Psychometric testing of the chinese version of second victim experience and Support Tool. J Patient Saf 2020.

Winning AM, Merandi JM, Lewe D, Stepney LMC, Liao NN, Fortney CA, Gerhardt CA. The emotional impact of errors or adverse events on healthcare providers in the NICU: the protective role of coworker support. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(1):172–80.

Kable A, Kelly B, Adams J. Effects of adverse events in health care on acute care nurses in an australian context: a qualitative study. Nurs Health Sci. 2018;20(2):238–46.

Chen J, Yang Q, Zhao Q, Zheng S, Xiao M. Psychometric validation of the chinese version of the second victim experience and Support Tool (C-SVEST). J Nurs Manage (John Wiley Sons Inc). 2019;27(7):1416–22.

Koehn AR, Ebright PR, Draucker CB. Nurses’ experiences with errors in nursing. Nurs Outlook. 2016;64(6):566–74.

Edrees HH, Morlock L, Wu AW. Do hospitals support second victims? Collective insights from patient safety leaders in Maryland. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017;43(9):471–83.

Harrison R, Lawton R, Stewart K. Doctors’ experiences of adverse events in secondary care: the professional and personal impact. Clin Med J Royal Coll Physicians Lond. 2014;14(6):585–90.

Strametz R, Koch P, Vogelgesang A, Burbridge A, Rösner H, Abloescher M, Huf W, Ettl B, Raspe M. Prevalence of second victims, risk factors and support strategies among young german physicians in internal medicine (SeViD-I survey). J Occup Med Toxicol. 2021;16(1):11–1.

Strametz R, Siebold B, Heistermann P, Haller S, Bushuven S. Validation of the german version of the second victim experience and Support Tool-Revised. J Patient Saf 2021.

Graham P, Zerbi G, Norcross W, Montross-Thomas L, Lobbestael L, Davidson J. Testing of a Caregiver Support Team. Explore. 2019;15(1):19–26.

El Hechi MW, Bohnen JD, Westfal M, Han K, Cauley C, Wright C, Schulz J, Mort E, Ferris T, Lillemoe KD, et al. Design and impact of a novel surgery-specific second victim peer support program. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(6):926–33.

Abusalem SK, Coty M-B. Home health nurses coping with practice care errors. J Res Nurs. 2013;18(4):336–48.

Deringer E, Caligor E. Supervision and responses of psychiatry residents to adverse patient events. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;38(6):761–7.

Finney RE, Torbenson VE, Riggan KA, Weaver AL, Long ME, Allyse MA, Rivera-Chiauzzi E. Second victim experiences of Nurses in Obstetrics and Gynecology: a SVEST Survey. J Nurs Adm Manag 2020.

Merandi J, Liao N, Lewe D, Morvay S, Stewart B, Catt C, Scott SD. Deployment of a second victim peer support program: a replication study. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017;2(4):e031.

White AA, Brock DM, McCotter PI, Hofeldt R, Edrees HH, Wu AW, Shannon S, Gallagher TH. Risk managers’ descriptions of programs to support second victims after adverse events. J Healthc risk management: J Am Soc Healthc Risk Manage. 2015;34(4):30–40.

Edrees HH, Wu AW. Does one size fit all? Assessing the need for organizational second victim support programs. J Patient Saf 2017.

Mohsenpour M, Hosseini M, Abbaszadeh A, Shahboulaghi FM, Khankeh H. Iranian nurses’ experience of “being a wrongdoer”: a phenomenological study. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(5):653–64.

Vinson AE, Mitchell JD. Assessing levels of support for residents following adverse outcomes: a national survey of anesthesia residency programs in the United States. Med Teach. 2014;36(10):858–66.

Van Gerven E, Deweer D, Scott SD, Panella M, Euwema M, Sermeus W, Vanhaecht K. Personal, situational and organizational aspects that influence the impact of patient safety incidents: a qualitative study. Revista de calidad asistencial: organo de la Sociedad Espanola de Calidad Asistencial. 2016;31:34–46.

Van Gerven E, Bruyneel L, Panella M, Euwema M, Sermeus W, Vanhaecht K. Psychological impact and recovery after involvement in a patient safety incident: a repeated measures analysis. BMJ Open 2016, 6(8).

Mira JJ, Lorenzo S, Carrillo I, Ferrús L, Pérez-Pérez P, Iglesias F, Silvestre C, Olivera G, Zavala E, Nuño-Solinís R, et al. Interventions in health organisations to reduce the impact of adverse events in second and third victims. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:341.

Gupta K, Lisker S, Rivadeneira NA, Mangurian C, Linos E, Sarkar U. Decisions and repercussions of second victim experiences for mothers in medicine (SAVE DR MoM). BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(7):564–73.

Mira JJ, Carrillo I, Lorenzo S, Ferrús L, Silvestre C, Pérez-Pérez P, Olivera G, Iglesias F, Zavala E, Maderuelo-Fernández JA, et al. The aftermath of adverse events in spanish primary care and hospital health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):151–1.

Hopkins Medicine. [ http://m.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/publications/dome/november_2010/the_second_victims ]. Accessed 16 Jun 2022.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital[ http://www.brighamandwomens.org/medical_professionals/career/cpps/PeerSupport.aspx ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

Mike Greenstein. [ http://mikegreenstein.com/media/docs/Physicians-Insurance-Annual-Report-2010.pdf ]. Accessed 10 Jun 2020.

Physicians Insurance. [ https://www.phyins.com/magazine/provider-support-program ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2021.

Conway J, Federico F, Stewart K, Campbell MJ. Respectful Management of Serious Clinical Adverse Events (Second Edition). IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2011. (Available on www.IHI.org )

UCLA Health. [ https://www.uclahealth.org/quality/Workfiles/quality/NQF-Safety.pdf ]. Accessed 10 Jun 2022.

The Schwartz Center. [ https://www.theschwartzcenter.org/about/who-we-are/ ]. Accessed 10 Jun 2022.

Medically Induced Trauma Support Services (MITSS). [ http://www.mitss.org/ ]. Accessed 10 Jun 2022.

Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada. ISMP Canada Safety Bulletin. 2017;17(9):1-6. [ https://www.ismp-canada.org/download/safetyBulletins/2017/ISMPCSB2017-10-SecondVictim.pdf ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

For YOU team. [ https://www.muhealth.org/sites/default/files/forYOUstaff_brochure.pdf ]. 16 Jun 2022.

Foundations for Healthy Communities. [ https://healthynh.org/images/Implementationofasecondvictimprograminapediatrichospital_2.pdf ]. Accessed 10 Jun 2022.

Kaiser Permanente. [ http://kpnet.kp.org/qrrm/risk/CareforCaregivers/care_for_caregivers.htm ]. Accessed 19 Jun 2022.

Denham CR. TRUST: the 5 rights of the second victim. J Patient Saf. 2007;3(2):107–19.

Lane MA, Newman BM, Taylor MZ, OʼNeill M, Ghetti C, Woltman RM, Waterman AD. Supporting Clinicians after adverse events: development of a clinician peer support program. J Patient Saf. 2018;14(3):e56–e60.

Richtlijn Omgaan met Ernstige Klinische Incidenten. [ https://secondvictim.be/richtlijn-in-dutch-only/ ]. Accessed 16 Jun 2023.

University of Illnois Chicago. [ https://www.uic.edu/apps/departments-az/search?dispatch=find&orgid=94765 ]. Access 19 Feb 2021.

McCarthy SE, O’Boyle CA, O’Shaughnessy A, Walsh G. Online patient safety education programme for junior doctors: is it worthwhile? Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185(1):51–8.

American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. [ https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/aana-journal-web-documents-1/design-second-victim-0416-pp107-113.pdf?sfvrsn=f1d448b1_6 ]. Accessed 19 Feb 2021.

Patient Safety Switzerland. [ https://www.patientensicherheit.ch/ ]. Accessed 19 Feb 2021.

Gardner Webb University. [ https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/cgi/viewcontentcgi?article=1025&context=nursing_etd ]. Accessed 19 Feb 2021.

Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. [ https://www.anzca.edu.au/about-us/doctors-health-and-wellbeing ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Catastrophes in Anaesthetic Practice – dealing with the aftermath. September 2005

Mitchell I, Schuster A, Smith K, Pronovost P, Wu A: Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘ To Err is Human’. BMJ Quality & Safety 2016, 25(2):92–99

Segundas y Terceras victimas. [ http://www.segundasvictimas.es/acceso.php ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc. [ https://www.icisf.org/ ]. Accessed 15 Jun 2023.

Stukalin I, Lethebe BC, Temple W. The physician’s Achilles heel-surviving an adverse event. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(6):e742–7.

Ajoudani F, Habibzadeh H, Baghaei R. Second victim experience and Support Tool: persian translation and psychometric characteristics evaluation. Int Nurs Rev 2020.

Burlison JD, Quillivan RR, Scott SD, Johnson S, Hoffman JM. The Effects of the second victim phenomenon on work-related outcomes: connecting self-reported caregiver distress to turnover intentions and absenteeism. J Patient Saf 2016.

Winning AM, Merandi J, Rausch JR, Liao N, Hoffman JM, Burlison JD, Gerhardt CA. Validation of the second victim experience and Support Tool-Revised in the neonatal Intensive Care Unit. J Patient Saf 2020.

Van Slambrouck L, Verschueren R, Seys D, Bruyneel L, Panella M, Vanhaecht K. Second victims among baccalaureate nursing students in the aftermath of a patient safety incident: an exploratory cross-sectional study. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37(4):765–70.

Cebeci F, Karazeybek E, Sucu G, Kahveci R. Nursing students’ medication errors and their opinions on the reasons of errors: a cross-sectional survey. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65(5):457–62.

Knudsen T, Abrahamsen C, Jørgensen JS, Schrøder K. Validation of the danish version of the second victim experience and Support Tool. Scand J Public Health. 2022;50(4):497–506.

Santana-Domínguez I, González-de la Torre H, Verdú-Soriano J, Nolasco A, Martín-Martínez A. Validation and Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the second victim experience and support Tool Questionnaire. J Patient Saf 2022.

Trifunovic-Koenig M, Strametz R, Gerber B, Mantri S, Bushuven S. Validation of the german version of the Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals (G-MISS-HP) and its correlation to the second victim phenomenon. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(8).

Scarpis E, Castriotta L, Ruscio E, Bianchet B, Doimo A, Moretti V, Cocconi R, Farneti F, Quattrin R. The second victim experience and Support Tool: a cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation in Italy (IT-SVEST). J Patient Saf. 2022;18(2):88–93.

Mohd Kamaruzaman AZ, Ibrahim MI, Mokhtar AM, Mohd Zain M, Satiman SN, Yaacob NM. Translation and validation of the malay revised second victim experience and Support Tool (M-SVEST-R) among Healthcare Workers in Kelantan, Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(4).

Suárez-Álvarez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Using reversed items in likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema. 2018;30(2):149–58.

Mira JJ, Lorenzo S, Carrillo I, Ferrús L, Silvestre C, Astier P, Iglesias-Alonso F, Maderuelo JA, Pérez-Pérez P, Torijano ML, et al. Lessons learned for reducing the negative impact of adverse events on patients, health professionals and healthcare organizations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(4):450–60.

Mira JJ, Carrillo I, Guilabert M, Lorenzo S, Pérez-Pérez P, Silvestre C, Ferrús L. The second victim Phenomenon after a clinical error: the design and evaluation of a website to reduce caregivers’ emotional responses after a clinical error. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):e203.

Kanstrup M, Singh L, Göransson KE, Widoff J, Taylor RS, Gamble B, Iyadurai L, Moulds ML, Holmes EA. Reducing intrusive memories after trauma via a brief cognitive task intervention in the hospital emergency department: an exploratory pilot randomised controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):30.

Schrader C, Ross A. A review of PTSD and current treatment strategies. Mo Med. 2021;118(6):546–51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Seys D, De Decker E, Waelkens H, Claes S, Panella M, Danckaerts M, Vanhaecht K. A comparative study measuring the difference of Healthcare workers reactions among those involved in a patent Safety Incident and Healthcare Professionals while Working during COVID-19. J Patient Saf 2022.

Zeeman G, Schouten L, Seys D, Coeckelberghs E, Weijenborg P, Bruyneel L, Vanhaecht K. Prolonged mental health sequelae among doctors and nurses involved in patient safety incidents with formal complaints and lawsuits. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(4):777–9.

Sigurgeirsdóttir S. Criminalisation of human error in health care: how and why legal accountability can crowd out professional accountability and undermine patient safety. Icelandic Rev Politics Adm 2020, 16(2).

Olson K, Shanafelt T, Southwick S. Pandemic-Driven Posttraumatic Growth for Organizations and individuals. JAMA. 2020;324(18):1829–30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This publication is based upon work from COST ACTION 19113, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) www.cost.eu .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven, Belgium

Deborah Seys

Department Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Deborah Seys, Astrid Van Wilder, Lode Godderis & Kris Vanhaecht

Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy

Massimiliano Panella & Sophia Russotto

RheinMain University of Applied Science, Wiesbaden, Germany

Reinhard Strametz

The Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, Alicante, Spain

José Joaquín Mira

Health Psychology Department, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain

External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, IDEWE, Heverlee, Belgium

Lode Godderis

Department of Quality, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

Kris Vanhaecht

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S., M.P., S.R., R.S, J.M., L.G. and K.V., methodology, K.V., D.S., S.R. and M.P.; validation, K.V., D.S., S.R. and M.P.; formal analysis, D.S., M.P., S.R., R.S, J.M., A.V.W. and K.V. writing —original draft preparation, K.V., D.S., S.R. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, D.S., M.P., S.R., R.S, J.M., A.V.W., LG and K.V., supervision, K.V. and M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Seys .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required for this narrative review, since all data came from information freely available in the published articles.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1: Additional information

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.

Seys, D., Panella, M., Russotto, S. et al. In search of an international multidimensional action plan for second victim support: a narrative review. BMC Health Serv Res 23 , 816 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09637-8

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2023

Accepted : 03 June 2023

Published : 31 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09637-8

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

• Healthcare professionals
• Patients safety incident
• Second victim

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]