literature review in qualitative research is

Archer Library

Qualitative research: literature review .

Archer Library This link opens in a new window
Schedule a Reference Appointment This link opens in a new window
Qualitative Research Handout This link opens in a new window
Locating Books
ebook Collections This link opens in a new window
A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
Research & Stats
Literature Review Resources
Citation & Reference

Exploring the literature review

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17). Included are the following points:

Historical background for the research;
Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
Theories and concepts related to your research;
Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;"
Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

AU Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: scholarly & practitioner journals.

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers: Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal . The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results. EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

Limit results to full text;
Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned. This can be a double-edged sword. How?

If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?). When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
EBSCO Connect: EBSCOhost Search Tips
EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
ProQuest Help: Search Tips
ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video: Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu. If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps. A video transcript is provided below.

EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A literature review is "a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works" (Reitz, 2014).

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press:

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
<< Previous: Research & Stats
Next: Literature Review Resources >>
Last Updated: Nov 17, 2023 7:46 AM
URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/qualitative

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Literature

What is a “literature review”.

No researcher ever comes up with a research question that is wholly novel. Someone, somewhere, has asked the same thing. Academic research is part of a larger community of researchers, and it is your responsibility, as a member of this community, to acknowledge others who have asked similar questions and to put your particular research into this greater context. It is not simply a convention or custom to begin your study with a review of previous literature (the “ lit review ”) but an important responsibility you owe the scholarly community.

Too often, new researchers pursue a topic to study and then write something like, “No one has ever studied this before” or “This area is underresearched.” It may be that no one has studied this particular group or setting, but it is highly unlikely no one has studied the foundational phenomenon of interest. And that comment about an area being underresearched? Be careful. The statement may simply signal to others that you haven’t done your homework. Rubin ( 2021 ) refers to this as “free soloing,” and it is not appreciated in academic work:

The truth of the matter is, academics don’t really like when people free solo. It’s really bad form to omit talking about the other people who are doing or have done research in your area. Partly, I mean we need to cite their work, but I also mean we need to respond to it—agree or disagree, clarify for extend. It’s also really bad form to talk about your research in a way that does not make it understandable to other academics.…You have to explain to your readers what your story is really about in terms they care about . This means using certain terminology, referencing debates in the literature, and citing relevant works—that is, in connecting your work to something else. ( 51–52 )

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. It includes both articles and books—and in some cases reports—relevant to a particular area of research. Ideally, one’s research question follows from the reading of what has already been produced. For example, you are interested in studying sports injuries related to female gymnasts. You read everything you can find on sports injuries related to female gymnasts, and you begin to get a sense of what questions remain open. You find that there is a lot of research on how coaches manage sports injuries and much about cultures of silence around treating injuries, but you don’t know what the gymnasts themselves are thinking about these issues. You look specifically for studies about this and find several, which then pushes you to narrow the question further. Your literature review then provides the road map of how you came to your very specific question, and it puts your study in the context of studies of sports injuries. What you eventually find can “speak to” all the related questions as well as your particular one.

In practice, the process is often a bit messier. Many researchers, and not simply those starting out, begin with a particular question and have a clear idea of who they want to study and where they want to conduct their study but don’t really know much about other studies at all. Although backward, we need to recognize this is pretty common. Telling students to “find literature” after the fact can seem like a purposeless task or just another hurdle for completing a thesis or dissertation. It is not! Even if you were not motivated by the literature in the first place, acknowledging similar studies and connecting your own research to those studies are important parts of building knowledge. Acknowledgment of past research is a responsibility you owe the discipline to which you belong.

Literature reviews can also signal theoretical approaches and particular concepts that you will incorporate into your own study. For example, let us say you are doing a study of how people find their first jobs after college, and you want to use the concept of social capital . There are competing definitions of social capital out there (e.g., Bourdieu vs. Burt vs. Putnam). Bourdieu’s notion is of one form of capital, or durable asset, of a “network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” ( 1984:248 ). Burt emphasizes the “brokerage opportunities” in a social network as social capital ( 1997:355 ). Putnam’s social capital is all about “facilitating coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” ( 2001:67 ). Your literature review can adjudicate among these three approaches, or it can simply refer to the one that is animating your own research. If you include Bourdieu in your literature review, readers will know “what kind” of social capital you are talking about as well as what kind of social scientist you yourself are. They will likely understand that you are interested more in how some people are advantaged by their social capital relative to others rather than being interested in the mechanics of how social networks operate.

The literature review thus does two important things for you: firstly, it allows you to acknowledge previous research in your area of interest, thereby situating you within a discipline or body of scholars, and, secondly, it demonstrates that you know what you are talking about. If you present the findings of your research study without including a literature review, it can be like singing into the wind. It sounds nice, but no one really hears it, or if they do catch snippets, they don’t know where it is coming from.

Examples of Literature Reviews

To help you get a grasp of what a good literature review looks like and how it can advance your study, let’s take a look at a few examples.

Reader-Friendly Example: The Power of Peers

The first is by Janice McCabe ( 2016 ) and is from an article on peer networks in the journal Contexts . Contexts presents articles in a relatively reader-friendly format, with the goal of reaching a large audience for interesting sociological research. Read this example carefully and note how easily McCabe is able to convey the relevance of her own work by situating it in the context of previous studies:

Scholars who study education have long acknowledged the importance of peers for students’ well-being and academic achievement. For example, in 1961, James Coleman argued that peer culture within high schools shapes students’ social and academic aspirations and successes. More recently, Judith Rich Harris has drawn on research in a range of areas—from sociological studies of preschool children to primatologists’ studies of chimpanzees and criminologists’ studies of neighborhoods—to argue that peers matter much more than parents in how children “turn out.” Researchers have explored students’ social lives in rich detail, as in Murray Milner’s book about high school students, Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids , and Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton’s look at college students, Paying for the Party . These works consistently show that peers play a very important role in most students’ lives. They tend, however, to prioritize social over academic influence and to use a fuzzy conception of peers rather than focusing directly on friends—the relationships that should matter most for student success. Social scientists have also studied the power of peers through network analysis, which is based on uncovering the web of connections between people. Network analysis involves visually mapping networks and mathematically comparing their structures (such as the density of ties) and the positions of individuals within them (such as how central a given person is within the network). As Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler point out in their book Connected , network structure influences a range of outcomes, including health, happiness, wealth, weight, and emotions. Given that sociologists have long considered network explanations for social phenomena, it’s surprising that we know little about how college students’ friends impact their experiences. In line with this network tradition, I focus on the structure of friendship networks, constructing network maps so that the differences we see across participants are due to the underlying structure, including each participant’s centrality in their friendship group and the density of ties among their friends. ( 23 )

What did you notice? In her very second sentence, McCabe uses “for example” to introduce a study by Coleman, thereby indicating that she is not going to tell you every single study in this area but is going to tell you that (1) there is a lot of research in this area, (2) it has been going on since at least 1961, and (3) it is still relevant (i.e., recent studies are still being done now). She ends her first paragraph by summarizing the body of literature in this area (after giving you a few examples) and then telling you what may have been (so far) left out of this research. In the second paragraph, she shifts to a separate interesting focus that is related to the first but is also quite distinct. Lit reviews very often include two (or three) distinct strands of literature, the combination of which nicely backgrounds this particular study . In the case of our female gymnast study (above), those two strands might be (1) cultures of silence around sports injuries and (2) the importance of coaches. McCabe concludes her short and sweet literature review with one sentence explaining how she is drawing from both strands of the literature she has succinctly presented for her particular study. This example should show you that literature reviews can be readable, helpful, and powerful additions to your final presentation.

Authoritative Academic Journal Example: Working Class Students’ College Expectations

The second example is more typical of academic journal writing. It is an article published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education by Wolfgang Lehmann ( 2009 ):

Although this increase in post-secondary enrolment and the push for university is evident across gender, race, ethnicity, and social class categories, access to university in Canada continues to be significantly constrained for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Finnie, Lascelles, and Sweetman 2005). Rising tuition fees coupled with an overestimation of the cost and an underestimation of the benefits of higher education has put university out of reach for many young people from low-income families (Usher 2005). Financial constraints aside, empirical studies in Canada have shown that the most important predictor of university access is parental educational attainment. Having at least one parent with a university degree significantly increases the likelihood of a young person to attend academic-track courses in high school, have high educational and career aspirations, and ultimately attend university (Andres et al. 1999, 2000; Lehmann 2007a). Drawing on Bourdieu’s various writing on habitus and class-based dispositions (see, for example, Bourdieu 1977, 1990), Hodkinson and Sparkes (1997) explain career decisions as neither determined nor completely rational. Instead, they are based on personal experiences (e.g., through employment or other exposure to occupations) and advice from others. Furthermore, they argue that we have to understand these decisions as pragmatic, rather than rational. They are pragmatic in that they are based on incomplete and filtered information, because of the social context in which the information is obtained and processed. New experiences and information can, however, also be allowed into one’s world, where they gradually or radically transform habitus, which in turn creates the possibility for the formation of new and different dispositions. Encountering a supportive teacher in elementary or secondary school, having ambitious friends, or chance encounters can spark such transformations. Transformations can be confirming or contradictory, they can be evolutionary or dislocating. Working-class students who enter university most certainly encounter such potentially transformative situations. Granfield (1991) has shown how initially dislocating feelings of inadequacy and inferiority of working-class students at an elite US law school were eventually replaced by an evolutionary transformation, in which the students came to dress, speak and act more like their middle-class and upper-class peers. In contrast, Lehmann (2007b) showed how persistent habitus dislocation led working-class university students to drop out of university. Foskett and Hemsley-Brown (1999) argue that young people’s perceptions of careers are a complex mix of their own experiences, images conveyed through adults, and derived images conveyed by the media. Media images of careers, perhaps, are even more important for working-class youth with high ambitions as they offer (generally distorted) windows into a world of professional employment to which they have few other sources of access. It has also been argued that working-class youth who do continue to university still face unique, class-specific challenges, evident in higher levels of uncertainty (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lehmann 2004, 2007a; Quinn 2004), their higher education choices (Ball et al. 2002; Brooks 2003; Reay et al. 2001) and fears of inadequacy because of their cultural outsider status (Aries and Seider 2005; Granfield 1991). Although the number of working-class university students in Canada has slowly increased, that of middle-class students at university has risen far more steeply (Knighton and Mizra 2002). These different enrolment trajectories have actually widened the participation gap, which in tum explains our continued concerns with the potential outsider status Indeed, in a study comparing first-generation working-class and traditional students who left university without graduating, Lehmann (2007b) found that first-generation working-class students were more likely to leave university very early in some cases within the first two months of enrollment. They were also more likely to leave university despite solid academic performance. Not “fitting in,” not “feeling university,” and not being able to “relate to these people” were key reasons for eventually withdrawing from university. From the preceding review of the literature, a number of key research questions arise: How do working-class university students frame their decision to attend university? How do they defy the considerable odds documented in the literature to attend university? What are the sources of information and various images that create dispositions to study at university? What role does their social-class background- or habitus play in their transition dispositions and how does this translate into expectations for university? ( 139 )

What did you notice here? How is this different from (and similar to) the first example? Note that rather than provide you with one or two illustrative examples of similar types of research, Lehmann provides abundant source citations throughout. He includes theory and concepts too. Like McCabe, Lehmann is weaving through multiple literature strands: the class gap in higher education participation in Canada, class-based dispositions, and obstacles facing working-class college students. Note how he concludes the literature review by placing his research questions in context.

Find other articles of interest and read their literature reviews carefully. I’ve included two more for you at the end of this chapter . As you learned how to diagram a sentence in elementary school (hopefully!), try diagramming the literature reviews. What are the “different strands” of research being discussed? How does the author connect these strands to their own research questions? Where is theory in the lit review, and how is it incorporated (e.g., Is it a separate strand of its own or is it inextricably linked with previous research in this area)?

One model of how to structure your literature review can be found in table 9.1. More tips, hints, and practices will be discussed later in the chapter.

Table 9.1. Model of Literature Review, Adopted from Calarco (2020:166)

Embracing Theory

A good research study will, in some form or another, use theory. Depending on your particular study (and possibly the preferences of the members of your committee), theory may be built into your literature review. Or it may form its own section in your research proposal/design (e.g., “literature review” followed by “theoretical framework”). In my own experience, I see a lot of graduate students grappling with the requirement to “include theory” in their research proposals. Things get a little squiggly here because there are different ways of incorporating theory into a study (Are you testing a theory? Are you generating a theory?), and based on these differences, your literature review proper may include works that describe, explain, and otherwise set forth theories, concepts, or frameworks you are interested in, or it may not do this at all. Sometimes a literature review sets forth what we know about a particular group or culture totally independent of what kinds of theoretical framework or particular concepts you want to explore. Indeed, the big point of your study might be to bring together a body of work with a theory that has never been applied to it previously. All this is to say that there is no one correct way to approach the use of theory and the writing about theory in your research proposal.

Students are often scared of embracing theory because they do not exactly understand what it is. Sometimes, it seems like an arbitrary requirement. You’re interested in a topic; maybe you’ve even done some research in the area and you have findings you want to report. And then a committee member reads over what you have and asks, “So what?” This question is a good clue that you are missing theory, the part that connects what you have done to what other researchers have done and are doing. You might stumble upon this rather accidentally and not know you are embracing theory, as in a case where you seek to replicate a prior study under new circumstances and end up finding that a particular correlation between behaviors only happens when mediated by something else. There’s theory in there, if you can pull it out and articulate it. Or it might be that you are motivated to do more research on racial microaggressions because you want to document their frequency in a particular setting, taking for granted the kind of critical race theoretical framework that has done the hard work of defining and conceptualizing “microaggressions” in the first place. In that case, your literature review could be a review of Critical Race Theory, specifically related to this one important concept. That’s the way to bring your study into a broader conversation while also acknowledging (and honoring) the hard work that has preceded you.

Rubin ( 2021 ) classifies ways of incorporating theory into case study research into four categories, each of which might be discussed somewhat differently in a literature review or theoretical framework section. The first, the least theoretical, is where you set out to study a “configurative idiographic case” ( 70 ) This is where you set out to describe a particular case, leaving yourself pretty much open to whatever you find. You are not expecting anything based on previous literature. This is actually pretty weak as far as research design goes, but it is probably the default for novice researchers. Your committee members should probably help you situate this in previous literature in some way or another. If they cannot, and it really does appear you are looking at something fairly new that no one else has bothered to research before, and you really are completely open to discovery, you might try using a Grounded Theory approach, which is a methodological approach that foregrounds the generation of theory. In that case, your “theory” section can be a discussion of “Grounded Theory” methodology (confusing, yes, but if you take some time to ponder, you will see how this works). You will still need a literature review, though. Ideally one that describes other studies that have ever looked at anything remotely like what you are looking at—parallel cases that have been researched.

The second approach is the “disciplined configurative case,” in which theory is applied to explain a particular case or topic. You are not trying to test the theory but rather assuming the theory is correct, as in the case of exploring microaggressions in a particular setting. In this case, you really do need to have a separate theory section in addition to the literature review, one in which you clearly define the theoretical framework, including any of its important concepts. You can use this section to discuss how other researchers have used the concepts and note any discrepancies in definitions or operationalization of those concepts. This way you will be sure to design your study so that it speaks to and with other researchers. If everyone who is writing about microaggressions has a different definition of them, it is hard for others to compare findings or make any judgments about their prevalence (or any number of other important characteristics). Your literature review section may then stand alone and describe previous research in the particular area or setting, irrespective of the kinds of theory underlying those studies.

The third approach is “heuristic,” one in which you seek to identify new variables, hypotheses, mechanisms, or paths not yet explained by a theory or theoretical framework. In a way, you are generating new theory, but it is probably more accurate to say that you are extending or deepening preexisting theory. In this case, having a single literature review that is focused on the theory and the ways the theory has been applied and understood (with all its various mechanisms and pathways) is probably your best option. The focus of the literature reviewed is less on the case and more on the theory you are seeking to extend.

The final approach is “theory testing,” which is much rarer in qualitative studies than in quantitative, where this is the default approach. Theory-testing cases are those where a particular case is used to see if an existing theory is accurate or accurate under particular circumstances. As with the heuristic approach, your literature review will probably draw heavily on previous uses of the theory, but you may end up having a special section specifically about cases very close to your own . In other words, the more your study approaches theory testing, the more likely there is to be a set of similar studies to draw on or even one important key study that you are setting your own study up in parallel to in order to find out if the theory generated there operates here.

If we wanted to get very technical, it might be useful to distinguish theoretical frameworks properly from conceptual frameworks. The latter are a bit looser and, given the nature of qualitative research, often fit exploratory studies. Theoretical frameworks rely on specific theories and are essential for theory-testing studies. Conceptual frameworks can pull in specific concepts or ideas that may or may not be linked to particular theories. Think about it this way: A theory is a story of how the world works. Concepts don’t presume to explain the whole world but instead are ways to approach phenomena to help make sense of them. Microaggressions are concepts that are linked to Critical Race Theory. One could contextualize one’s study within Critical Race Theory and then draw various concepts, such as that of microaggressions from the overall theoretical framework. Or one could bracket out the master theory or framework and employ the concept of microaggression more opportunistically as a phenomenon of interest. If you are unsure of what theory you are using, you might want to frame a more practical conceptual framework in your review of the literature.

Helpful Tips

How to maintain good notes for what your read.

Over the years, I have developed various ways of organizing notes on what I read. At first, I used a single sheet of full-size paper with a preprinted list of questions and points clearly addressed on the front side, leaving the second side for more reflective comments and free-form musings about what I read, why it mattered, and how it might be useful for my research. Later, I developed a system in which I use a single 4″ × 6″ note card for each book I read. I try only to use the front side (and write very small), leaving the back for comments that are about not just this reading but things to do or examine or consider based on the reading. These notes often mean nothing to anyone else picking up the card, but they make sense to me. I encourage you to find an organizing system that works for you. Then when you set out to compose a literature review, instead of staring at five to ten books or a dozen articles, you will have ten neatly printed pages or notecards or files that have distilled what is important to know about your reading.

It is also a good idea to store this data digitally, perhaps through a reference manager. I use RefWorks, but I also recommend EndNote or any other system that allows you to search institutional databases. Your campus library will probably provide access to one of these or another system. Most systems will allow you to export references from another manager if and when you decide to move to another system. Reference managers allow you to sort through all your literature by descriptor, author, year, and so on. Even so, I personally like to have the ability to manually sort through my index cards, recategorizing things I have read as I go. I use RefWorks to keep a record of what I have read, with proper citations, so I can create bibliographies more easily, and I do add in a few “notes” there, but the bulk of my notes are kept in longhand.

What kinds of information should you include from your reading? Here are some bulleted suggestions from Calarco ( 2020:113–114 ), with my own emendations:

Citation . If you are using a reference manager, you can import the citation and then, when you are ready to create a bibliography, you can use a provided menu of citation styles, which saves a lot of time. If you’ve originally formatted in Chicago Style but the journal you are writing for wants APA style, you can change your entire bibliography in less than a minute. When using a notecard for a book, I include author, title, date as well as the library call number (since most of what I read I pull from the library). This is something RefWorks is not able to do, and it helps when I categorize.

I begin each notecard with an “intro” section, where I record the aims, goals, and general point of the book/article as explained in the introductory sections (which might be the preface, the acknowledgments, or the first two chapters). I then draw a bold line underneath this part of the notecard. Everything after that should be chapter specific. Included in this intro section are things such as the following, recommended by Calarco ( 2020 ):

Key background . “Two to three short bullet points identifying the theory/prior research on which the authors are building and defining key terms.”
Data/methods . “One or two short bullet points with information about the source of the data and the method of analysis, with a note if this is a novel or particularly effective example of that method.” I use [M] to signal methodology on my notecard, which might read, “[M] Int[erview]s (n-35), B[lack]/W[hite] voters” (I need shorthand to fit on my notecard!).
Research question . “Stated as briefly as possible.” I always provide page numbers so I can go back and see exactly how this was stated (sometimes, in qualitative research, there are multiple research questions, and they cannot be stated simply).
Argument/contributions . “Two to three short bullet points briefly describing the authors’ answer to the central research question and its implication for research, theory, and practice.” I use [ARG] for argument to signify the argument, and I make sure this is prominently visible on my notecard. I also provide page numbers here.

For me, all of this fits in the “intro” section, which, if this is a theoretically rich, methodologically sound book, might take up a third or even half of the front page of my notecard. Beneath the bold underline, I report specific findings or particulars of the book as they emerge chapter by chapter. Calarco’s ( 2020 ) next step is the following:

Key findings . “Three to four short bullet points identifying key patterns in the data that support the authors’ argument.”

All that remains is writing down thoughts that occur upon finishing the article/book. I use the back of the notecard for these kinds of notes. Often, they reach out to other things I have read (e.g., “Robinson reminds me of Crusoe here in that both are looking at the effects of social isolation, but I think Robinson makes a stronger argument”). Calarco ( 2020 ) concludes similarly with the following:

Unanswered questions . “Two to three short bullet points that identify key limitations of the research and/or questions the research did not answer that could be answered in future research.”

As I mentioned, when I first began taking notes like this, I preprinted pages with prompts for “research question,” “argument,” and so on. This was a great way to remind myself to look for these things in particular. You can do the same, adding whatever preprinted sections make sense to you, given what you are studying and the important aspects of your discipline. The other nice thing about the preprinted forms is that it keeps your writing to a minimum—you cannot write more than the allotted space, even if you might want to, preventing your notes from spiraling out of control. This can be helpful when we are new to a subject and everything seems worth recording!

After years of discipline, I have finally settled on my notecard approach. I have thousands of notecards, organized in several index card filing boxes stacked in my office. On the top right of each card is a note of the month/day I finished reading the item. I can remind myself what I read in the summer of 2010 if the need or desire ever arose to do so…those invaluable notecards are like a memento of what my brain has been up to!

Where to Start Looking for Literature

Your university library should provide access to one of several searchable databases for academic books and articles. My own preference is JSTOR, a service of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization that works to advance and preserve knowledge and to improve teaching and learning through the use of digital technologies. JSTOR allows you to search by several keywords and to narrow your search by type of material (articles or books). For many disciplines, the “literature” of the literature review is expected to be peer-reviewed “articles,” but some disciplines will also value books and book chapters. JSTOR is particularly useful for article searching. You can submit several keywords and see what is returned, and you can also narrow your search by a particular journal or discipline. If your discipline has one or two key journals (e.g., the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review are key for sociology), you might want to go directly to those journals’ websites and search for your topic area. There is an art to when to cast your net widely and when to refine your search, and you may have to tack back and forth to ensure that you are getting all that is relevant but not getting bogged down in all studies that might have some marginal relevance.

Some articles will carry more weight than others, and you can use applications like Google Scholar to see which articles have made and are continuing to make larger impacts on your discipline. Find these articles and read them carefully; use their literature review and the sources cited in those articles to make sure you are capturing what is relevant. This is actually a really good way of finding relevant books—only the most impactful will make it into the citations of journals. Over time, you will notice that a handful of articles (or books) are cited so often that when you see, say, Armstrong and Hamilton ( 2015 ), you know exactly what book this is without looking at the full cite. This is when you know you are in the conversation.

You might also approach a professor whose work is broadly in the area of your interest and ask them to recommend one or two “important” foundational articles or books. You can then use the references cited in those recommendations to build up your literature. Just be careful: some older professors’ knowledge of the literature (and I reluctantly add myself here) may be a bit outdated! It is best that the article or book whose references and sources you use to build your body of literature be relatively current.

Keep a List of Your Keywords

When using searchable databases, it is a good idea to keep a list of all the keywords you use as you go along so that (1) you do not needlessly duplicate your efforts and (2) you can more easily adjust your search as you get a better sense of what you are looking for. I suggest you keep a separate file or even a small notebook for this and you date your search efforts.

Here’s an example:

Table 9.2. Keep a List of Your Keywords

Think Laterally

How to find the various strands of literature to combine? Don’t get stuck on finding the exact same research topic you think you are interested in. In the female gymnast example, I recommended that my student consider looking for studies of ballerinas, who also suffer sports injuries and around whom there is a similar culture of silence. It turned out that there was in fact research about my student’s particular questions, just not about the subjects she was interested in. You might do something similar. Don’t get stuck looking for too direct literature but think about the broader phenomenon of interest or analogous cases.

Read Outside the Canon

Some scholars’ work gets cited by everyone all the time. To some extent, this is a very good thing, as it helps establish the discipline. For example, there are a lot of “Bourdieu scholars” out there (myself included) who draw ideas, concepts, and quoted passages from Bourdieu. This makes us recognizable to one another and is a way of sharing a common language (e.g., where “cultural capital” has a particular meaning to those versed in Bourdieusian theory). There are empirical studies that get cited over and over again because they are excellent studies but also because there is an “echo chamber effect” going on, where knowing to cite this study marks you as part of the club, in the know, and so on. But here’s the problem with this: there are hundreds if not thousands of excellent studies out there that fail to get appreciated because they are crowded out by the canon. Sometimes this happens because they are published in “lower-ranked” journals and are never read by a lot of scholars who don’t have time to read anything other than the “big three” in their field. Other times this happens because the author falls outside of the dominant social networks in the field and thus is unmentored and fails to get noticed by those who publish a lot in those highly ranked and visible spaces. Scholars who fall outside the dominant social networks and who publish outside of the top-ranked journals are in no way less insightful than their peers, and their studies may be just as rigorous and relevant to your work, so it is important for you to take some time to read outside the canon. Due to how a person’s race, gender, and class operate in the academy, there is also a matter of social justice and ethical responsibility involved here: “When you focus on the most-cited research, you’re more likely to miss relevant research by women and especially women of color, whose research tends to be under-cited in most fields. You’re also more likely to miss new research, research by junior scholars, and research in other disciplines that could inform your work. Essentially, it is important to read and cite responsibly, which means checking that you’re not just reading and citing the same white men and the same old studies that everyone has cited before you” ( Calarco 2020:112 ).

Consider Multiple Uses for Literature

Throughout this chapter, I’ve referred to the literature of interest in a rather abstract way, as what is relevant to your study. But there are many different ways previous research can be relevant to your study. The most basic use of the literature is the “findings”—for example, “So-and-so found that Canadian working-class students were concerned about ‘fitting in’ to the culture of college, and I am going to look at a similar question here in the US.” But the literature may be of interest not for its findings but theoretically—for example, employing concepts that you want to employ in your own study. Bourdieu’s definition of social capital may have emerged in a study of French professors, but it can still be relevant in a study of, say, how parents make choices about what preschools to send their kids to (also a good example of lateral thinking!).

If you are engaged in some novel methodological form of data collection or analysis, you might look for previous literature that has attempted that. I would not recommend this for undergraduate research projects, but for graduate students who are considering “breaking the mold,” find out if anyone has been there before you. Even if their study has absolutely nothing else in common with yours, it is important to acknowledge that previous work.

Describing Gaps in the Literature

First, be careful! Although it is common to explain how your research adds to, builds upon, and fills in gaps in the previous research (see all four literature review examples in this chapter for this), there is a fine line between describing the gaps and misrepresenting previous literature by failing to conduct a thorough review of the literature. A little humility can make a big difference in your presentation. Instead of “This is the first study that has looked at how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season,” say, “I use the previous literature on how working parents juggling childcare and the previous ethnographic studies of firefighters to explore how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season.” You can even add, “To my knowledge, no one has conducted an ethnographic study in this specific area, although what we have learned from X about childcare and from Y about firefighters would lead us to expect Z here.” Read more literature review sections to see how others have described the “gaps” they are filling.

Use Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a helpful tool for getting your thoughts in order and is particularly helpful when thinking about the “literature” foundational to your particular study. Concept maps are also known as mind maps, which is a delightful way to think about them. Your brain is probably abuzz with competing ideas in the early stages of your research design. Write/draw them on paper, and then try to categorize and move the pieces around into “clusters” that make sense to you. Going back to the gymnasts example, my student might have begun by jotting down random words of interest: gymnasts * sports * coaches * female gymnasts * stress * injury * don’t complain * women in sports * bad coaching * anxiety/stress * careers in sports * pain. She could then have begun clustering these into relational categories (bad coaching, don’t complain culture) and simple “event” categories (injury, stress). This might have led her to think about reviewing literature in these two separate aspects and then literature that put them together. There is no correct way to draw a concept map, as they are wonderfully specific to your mind. There are many examples you can find online.

Ask Yourself, “How Is This Sociology (or Political Science or Public Policy, Etc.)?”

Rubin ( 2021:82 ) offers this suggestion instead of asking yourself the “So what?” question to get you thinking about what bridges there are between your study and the body of research in your particular discipline. This is particularly helpful for thinking about theory. Rubin further suggests that if you are really stumped, ask yourself, “What is the really big question that all [fill in your discipline here] care about?” For sociology, it might be “inequality,” which would then help you think about theories of inequality that might be helpful in framing your study on whatever it is you are studying—OnlyFans? Childcare during COVID? Aging in America? I can think of some interesting ways to frame questions about inequality for any of those topics. You can further narrow it by focusing on particular aspects of inequality (Gender oppression? Racial exclusion? Heteronormativity?). If your discipline is public policy, the big questions there might be, How does policy get enacted, and what makes a policy effective? You can then take whatever your particular policy interest is—tax reform, student debt relief, cap-and-trade regulations—and apply those big questions. Doing so would give you a handle on what is otherwise an intolerably vague subject (e.g., What about student debt relief?).

Sometimes finding you are in new territory means you’ve hit the jackpot, and sometimes it means you’ve traveled out of bounds for your discipline. The jackpot scenario is wonderful. You are doing truly innovative research that is combining multiple literatures or is addressing a new or under-examined phenomenon of interest, and your research has the potential to be groundbreaking. Congrats! But that’s really hard to do, and it might be more likely that you’ve traveled out of bounds, by which I mean, you are no longer in your discipline . It might be that no one has written about this thing—at least within your field— because no one in your field actually cares about this topic . ( Rubin 2021:83 ; emphases added)

Don’t Treat This as a Chore

Don’t treat the literature review as a chore that has to be completed, but see it for what it really is—you are building connections to other researchers out there. You want to represent your discipline or area of study fairly and adequately. Demonstrate humility and your knowledge of previous research. Be part of the conversation.

Supplement: Two More Literature Review Examples

Elites by harvey ( 2011 ).

In the last two decades, there has been a small but growing literature on elites. In part, this has been a result of the resurgence of ethnographic research such as interviews, focus groups, case studies, and participant observation but also because scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding the perspectives and behaviors of leaders in business, politics, and society as a whole. Yet until recently, our understanding of some of the methodological challenges of researching elites has lagged behind our rush to interview them.

There is no clear-cut definition of the term elite, and given its broad understanding across the social sciences, scholars have tended to adopt different approaches. Zuckerman (1972) uses the term ultraelites to describe individuals who hold a significant amount of power within a group that is already considered elite. She argues, for example, that US senators constitute part of the country’s political elite but that among them are the ultraelites: a “subset of particularly powerful or prestigious influentials” (160). She suggests that there is a hierarchy of status within elite groups. McDowell (1998) analyses a broader group of “professional elites” who are employees working at different levels for merchant and investment banks in London. She classifies this group as elite because they are “highly skilled, professionally competent, and class-specific” (2135). Parry (1998:2148) uses the term hybrid elites in the context of the international trade of genetic material because she argues that critical knowledge exists not in traditional institutions “but rather as increasingly informal, hybridised, spatially fragmented, and hence largely ‘invisible,’ networks of elite actors.” Given the undertheorization of the term elite, Smith (2006) recognizes why scholars have shaped their definitions to match their respondents . However, she is rightly critical of the underlying assumption that those who hold professional positions necessarily exert as much influence as initially perceived. Indeed, job titles can entirely misrepresent the role of workers and therefore are by no means an indicator of elite status (Harvey 2010).

Many scholars have used the term elite in a relational sense, defining them either in terms of their social position compared to the researcher or compared to the average person in society (Stephens 2007). The problem with this definition is there is no guarantee that an elite subject will necessarily translate this power and authority in an interview setting. Indeed, Smith (2006) found that on the few occasions she experienced respondents wanting to exert their authority over her, it was not from elites but from relatively less senior workers. Furthermore, although business and political elites often receive extensive media training, they are often scrutinized by television and radio journalists and therefore can also feel threatened in an interview, particularly in contexts that are less straightforward to prepare for such as academic interviews. On several occasions, for instance, I have been asked by elite respondents or their personal assistants what they need to prepare for before the interview, which suggests that they consider the interview as some form of challenge or justification for what they do.

In many cases, it is not necessarily the figureheads or leaders of organizations and institutions who have the greatest claim to elite status but those who hold important social networks, social capital, and strategic positions within social structures because they are better able to exert influence (Burt 1992; Parry 1998; Smith 2005; Woods 1998). An elite status can also change, with people both gaining and losing theirs over time. In addition, it is geographically specific, with people holding elite status in some but not all locations. In short, it is clear that the term elite can mean many things in different contexts, which explains the range of definitions. The purpose here is not to critique these other definitions but rather to highlight the variety of perspectives.

When referring to my research, I define elites as those who occupy senior-management- and board-level positions within organizations. This is a similar scope of definition to Zuckerman’s (1972) but focuses on a level immediately below her ultraelite subjects. My definition is narrower than McDowell’s (1998) because it is clear in the context of my research that these people have significant decision-making influence within and outside of the firm and therefore present a unique challenge to interview. I deliberately use the term elite more broadly when drawing on examples from the theoretical literature in order to compare my experiences with those who have researched similar groups.

”Changing Dispositions among the Upwardly Mobile” by Curl, Lareau, and Wu ( 2018 )

There is growing interest in the role of cultural practices in undergirding the social stratification system. For example, Lamont et al. (2014) critically assess the preoccupation with economic dimensions of social stratification and call for more developed cultural models of the transmission of inequality. The importance of cultural factors in the maintenance of social inequality has also received empirical attention from some younger scholars, including Calarco (2011, 2014) and Streib (2015). Yet questions remain regarding the degree to which economic position is tied to cultural sensibilities and the ways in which these cultural sensibilities are imprinted on the self or are subject to change. Although habitus is a core concept in Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction, there is limited empirical attention to the precise areas of the habitus that can be subject to change during upward mobility as well as the ramifications of these changes for family life.

In Bourdieu’s (1984) highly influential work on the importance of class-based cultural dispositions, habitus is defined as a “durable system of dispositions” created in childhood. The habitus provides a “matrix of perceptions” that seems natural while also structuring future actions and pathways. In many of his writings, Bourdieu emphasized the durability of cultural tastes and dispositions and did not consider empirically whether these dispositions might be changed or altered throughout one’s life (Swartz 1997). His theoretical work does permit the possibility of upward mobility and transformation, however, through the ability of the habitus to “improvise” or “change” due to “new experiences” (Friedman 2016:131). Researchers have differed in opinion on the durability of the habitus and its ability to change (King 2000). Based on marital conflict in cross-class marriages, for instance, Streib (2015) argues that cultural dispositions of individuals raised in working-class families are deeply embedded and largely unchanging. In a somewhat different vein, Horvat and Davis (2011:152) argue that young adults enrolled in an alternative educational program undergo important shifts in their self-perception, such as “self-esteem” and their “ability to accomplish something of value.” Others argue there is variability in the degree to which habitus changes dependent on life experience and personality (Christodoulou and Spyridakis 2016). Recently, additional studies have investigated the habitus as it intersects with lifestyle through the lens of meaning making (Ambrasat et al. 2016). There is, therefore, ample discussion of class-based cultural practices in self-perception (Horvat and Davis 2011), lifestyle (Ambrasat et al. 2016), and other forms of taste (Andrews 2012; Bourdieu 1984), yet researchers have not sufficiently delineated which aspects of the habitus might change through upward mobility or which specific dimensions of life prompt moments of class-based conflict.

Bourdieu (1999:511; 2004) acknowledged simmering tensions between the durable aspects of habitus and those aspects that have been transformed—that is, a “fractured” or “cleft” habitus. Others have explored these tensions as a “divided” or “fragmented” habitus (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lee and Kramer 2013). Each of these conceptions of the habitus implies that changes in cultural dispositions are possible but come with costs. Exploration of the specific aspects of one’s habitus that can change and generate conflict contributes to this literature.

Scholars have also studied the costs associated with academic success for working-class undergraduates (Hurst 2010; Lee and Kramer 2013; London 1989; Reay 2017; Rondini 2016; Stuber 2011), but we know little about the lasting effects on adults. For instance, Lee and Kramer (2013) point to cross-class tensions as family and friends criticize upwardly mobile individuals for their newly acquired cultural dispositions. Documenting the tension many working-class students experience with their friends and families of origin, they find that the source of their pain or struggle is “shaped not only by their interactions with non-mobile family and friends but also within their own minds, by their own assessments of their social positions, and by how those positions are interpreted by others” (Lee and Kramer 2013:29). Hurst (2010) also explores the experiences of undergraduates who have been academically successful and the costs associated with that success. She finds that decisions about “class allegiance and identity” are required aspects of what it means to “becom[e] educated” (4) and that working-class students deal with these cultural changes differently. Jack (2014, 2016) also argues that there is diversity among lower-income students, which yields varied college experiences. Naming two groups, the “doubly disadvantaged” and the “privileged poor,” he argues that previous experience with “elite environments” (2014:456) prior to college informs students’ ability to take on dominant cultural practices, particularly around engagement, such as help seeking or meeting with professors (2016). These studies shed light on the role college might play as a “lever for mobility” (2016:15) and discuss the pain and difficulty associated with upward mobility among undergraduates, but the studies do not illuminate how these tensions unfold in adulthood. Neither have they sufficiently addressed potential enduring tensions with extended family members as well as the specific nature of the difficulties.

Some scholars point to the positive outcomes upwardly mobile youth (Lehmann 2009) and adults (Stuber 2005) experience when they maintain a different habitus than their newly acquired class position, although, as Jack (2014, 2016) shows, those experiences may vary depending on one’s experience with elite environments in their youth. Researchers have not sufficiently explored the specific aspects of the habitus that upwardly mobile adults change or the conflicts that emerge with family and childhood friends as they reach adulthood and experience colliding social worlds. We contribute to this scholarship with clear examples of self-reported changes to one’s cultural dispositions in three specific areas: “horizons,” food and health, and communication. We link these changes to enduring tension with family members, friends, and colleagues and explore varied responses to this tension based on race.

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.

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

Literature Review

Literature review is important because it:

Provides ideas about what should be studied;
Helps us conduct inquires that have not already been done
Connects our research to existing studies

But…doing a literature review is not simply summarizing (or copying) what you think is related and useful to your work. BEING CRITICAL AND CAREFUL IS A MUST !

In reviewing existing literature, you may try to look for gaps in the field and rework your study in a different setting or with different people. Nonetheless, literature review is a continuous sense-making process -- you need to review the literature continuously in order to organize your thoughts and refine your analysis.

A good literature review should be able to:

Connect to your research questions
Connect to your choice of methods and research design
Support your data analysis
Help you draw conclusions and make claims about your research.

Selecting your literature with a purpose

It is impossible to read everything, so when selecting literature for reviewing, consider these:

Is it relevant to your topic/field of study?
Is it a primary source from the researcher(s) or secondary source (e.g. a summary you read in a book about someone’s research)?
Is it updated?

Nature of literatures:

Your literature review can be of different dimensions. Each has its foci and purposes

literature review in qualitative research is

Dissertations and research projects

Book a session
Planning your research

Developing a theoretical framework

Reflecting on your position, extended literature reviews, presenting qualitative data.

Quantitative research
Writing up your research project
e-learning and books
SkillsCheck This link opens in a new window
⬅ Back to Skills Centre This link opens in a new window
Review this resource

What is a theoretical framework?

Developing a theoretical framework for your dissertation is one of the key elements of a qualitative research project. Through writing your literature review, you are likely to have identified either a problem that need ‘fixing’ or a gap that your research may begin to fill.

The theoretical framework is your toolbox . In the toolbox are your handy tools: a set of theories, concepts, ideas and hypotheses that you will use to build a solution to the research problem or gap you have identified.

The methodology is the instruction manual: the procedure and steps you have taken, using your chosen tools, to tackle the research problem.

Why do I need a theoretical framework?

Developing a theoretical framework shows that you have thought critically about the different ways to approach your topic, and that you have made a well-reasoned and evidenced decision about which approach will work best. theoretical frameworks are also necessary for solving complex problems or issues from the literature, showing that you have the skills to think creatively and improvise to answer your research questions. they also allow researchers to establish new theories and approaches, that future research may go on to develop., how do i create a theoretical framework for my dissertation.

First, select your tools. You are likely to need a variety of tools in qualitative research – different theories, models or concepts – to help you tackle different parts of your research question.

An overview of what to include in a theoretical framework: theories, models, ideologies, concepts, assumptions and perspectives.

When deciding what tools would be best for the job of answering your research questions or problem, explore what existing research in your area has used. You may find that there is a ‘standard toolbox’ for qualitative research in your field that you can borrow from or apply to your own research.

You will need to justify why your chosen tools are best for the job of answering your research questions, at what stage they are most relevant, and how they relate to each other. Some theories or models will neatly fit together and appear in the toolboxes of other researchers. However, you may wish to incorporate a model or idea that is not typical for your research area – the ‘odd one out’ in your toolbox. If this is the case, make sure you justify and account for why it is useful to you, and look for ways that it can be used in partnership with the other tools you are using.

You should also be honest about limitations, or where you need to improvise (for example, if the ‘right’ tool or approach doesn’t exist in your area).

This video from the Skills Centre includes an overview and example of how you might create a theoretical framework for your dissertation:

How do I choose the 'right' approach?

When designing your framework and choosing what to include, it can often be difficult to know if you’ve chosen the ‘right’ approach for your research questions. One way to check this is to look for consistency between your objectives, the literature in your framework, and your overall ethos for the research. This means ensuring that the literature you have used not only contributes to answering your research objectives, but that you also use theories and models that are true to your beliefs as a researcher.

Reflecting on your values and your overall ambition for the project can be a helpful step in making these decisions, as it can help you to fully connect your methodology and methods to your research aims.

Should I reflect on my position as a researcher?

If you feel your position as a researcher has influenced your choice of methods or procedure in any way, the methodology is a good place to reflect on this. Positionality acknowledges that no researcher is entirely objective: we are all, to some extent, influenced by prior learning, experiences, knowledge, and personal biases. This is particularly true in qualitative research or practice-based research, where the student is acting as a researcher in their own workplace, where they are otherwise considered a practitioner/professional. It's also important to reflect on your positionality if you belong to the same community as your participants where this is the grounds for their involvement in the research (ie. you are a mature student interviewing other mature learners about their experences in higher education).

The following questions can help you to reflect on your positionality and gauge whether this is an important section to include in your dissertation (for some people, this section isn’t necessary or relevant):

How might my personal history influence how I approach the topic?
How am I positioned in relation to this knowledge? Am I being influenced by prior learning or knowledge from outside of this course?
How does my gender/social class/ ethnicity/ culture influence my positioning in relation to this topic?
Do I share any attributes with my participants? Are we part of a s hared community? How might this have influenced our relationship and my role in interviews/observations?
Am I invested in the outcomes on a personal level? Who is this research for and who will feel the benefits?

One option for qualitative projects is to write an extended literature review. This type of project does not require you to collect any new data. Instead, you should focus on synthesising a broad range of literature to offer a new perspective on a research problem or question.

The main difference between an extended literature review and a dissertation where primary data is collected, is in the presentation of the methodology, results and discussion sections. This is because extended literature reviews do not actively involve participants or primary data collection, so there is no need to outline a procedure for data collection (the methodology) or to present and interpret ‘data’ (in the form of interview transcripts, numerical data, observations etc.) You will have much more freedom to decide which sections of the dissertation should be combined, and whether new chapters or sections should be added.

Here is an overview of a common structure for an extended literature review:

A structure for the extended literature review, showing the results divided into multiple themed chapters.

Introduction

Provide background information and context to set the ‘backdrop’ for your project.
Explain the value and relevance of your research in this context. Outline what do you hope to contribute with your dissertation.
Clarify a specific area of focus.
Introduce your research aims (or problem) and objectives.

Literature review

You will need to write a short, overview literature review to introduce the main theories, concepts and key research areas that you will explore in your dissertation. This set of texts – which may be theoretical, research-based, practice-based or policies – form your theoretical framework. In other words, by bringing these texts together in the literature review, you are creating a lens that you can then apply to more focused examples or scenarios in your discussion chapters.

Methodology

As you will not be collecting primary data, your methodology will be quite different from a typical dissertation. You will need to set out the process and procedure you used to find and narrow down your literature. This is also known as a search strategy.

Including your search strategy

A search strategy explains how you have narrowed down your literature to identify key studies and areas of focus. This often takes the form of a search strategy table, included as an appendix at the end of the dissertation. If included, this section takes the place of the traditional 'methodology' section.

If you choose to include a search strategy table, you should also give an overview of your reading process in the main body of the dissertation. Think of this as a chronology of the practical steps you took and your justification for doing so at each stage, such as:

Your key terms, alternatives and synonyms, and any terms that you chose to exclude.
Your choice and combination of databases;
Your inclusion/exclusion criteria, when they were applied and why. This includes filters such as language of publication, date, and country of origin;
You should also explain which terms you combined to form search phrases and your use of Boolean searching (AND, OR, NOT);
Your use of citation searching (selecting articles from the bibliography of a chosen journal article to further your search).
Your use of any search models, such as PICO and SPIDER to help shape your approach.
Search strategy template A simple template for recording your literature searching. This can be included as an appendix to show your search strategy.

The discussion section of an extended literature review is the most flexible in terms of structure. Think of this section as a series of short case studies or ‘windows’ on your research. In this section you will apply the theoretical framework you formed in the literature review – a combination of theories, models and ideas that explain your approach to the topic – to a series of different examples and scenarios. These are usually presented as separate discussion ‘chapters’ in the dissertation, in an order that you feel best fits your argument.

Think about an order for these discussion sections or chapters that helps to tell the story of your research. One common approach is to structure these sections by common themes or concepts that help to draw your sources together. You might also opt for a chronological structure if your dissertation aims to show change or development over time. Another option is to deliberately show where there is a lack of chronology or narrative across your case studies, by ordering them in a fragmentary order! You will be able to reflect upon the structure of these chapters elsewhere in the dissertation, explaining and defending your decision in the methodology and conclusion.

A summary of your key findings – what you have concluded from your research, and how far you have been able to successfully answer your research questions.

Recommendations – for improvements to your own study, for future research in the area, and for your field more widely.
Emphasise your contributions to knowledge and what you have achieved.

Alternative structure

Depending on your research aims, and whether you are working with a case-study type approach (where each section of the dissertation considers a different example or concept through the lens established in your literature review), you might opt for one of the following structures:

Splitting the literature review across different chapters:

This structure allows you to pull apart the traditional literature review, introducing it little by little with each of your themed chapters. This approach works well for dissertations that attempt to show change or difference over time, as the relevant literature for that section or period can be introduced gradually to the reader.

Whichever structure you opt for, remember to explain and justify your approach. A marker will be interested in why you decided on your chosen structure, what it allows you to achieve/brings to the project and what alternatives you considered and rejected in the planning process. Here are some example sentence starters:

In qualitative studies, your results are often presented alongside the discussion, as it is difficult to include this data in a meaningful way without explanation and interpretation. In the dsicussion section, aim to structure your work thematically, moving through the key concepts or ideas that have emerged from your qualitative data. Use extracts from your data collection - interviews, focus groups, observations - to illustrate where these themes are most prominent, and refer back to the sources from your literature review to help draw conclusions.

Here's an example of how your data could be presented in paragraph format in this section:

Example from 'Reporting and discussing your findings ', Monash University .

<< Previous: Planning your research
Next: Quantitative research >>
Last Updated: Apr 17, 2024 1:52 PM
URL: https://libguides.shu.ac.uk/researchprojects

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

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

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

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Open access
Published: 11 April 2024

The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare services: a systematic mixed studies review

Sissel Pettersen 1 ,
Hilde Eide 2 &
Anita Berg 1

BMC Health Services Research volume 24 , Article number: 456 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

239 Accesses

Metrics details

Champions play a critical role in implementing technology within healthcare services. While prior studies have explored the presence and characteristics of champions, this review delves into the experiences of healthcare personnel holding champion roles, as well as the experiences of healthcare personnel interacting with them. By synthesizing existing knowledge, this review aims to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of champions as a strategy in technology implementation and guide healthcare personnel in these roles.

A systematic mixed studies review, covering qualitative, quantitative, or mixed designs, was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. The search spanned Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, focusing on studies published from 2012 onwards. The review centered on health personnel serving as champions in technology implementation within healthcare services. Quality assessments utilized the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

From 1629 screened studies, 23 were included. The champion role was often examined within the broader context of technology implementation. Limited studies explicitly explored experiences related to the champion role from both champions’ and health personnel’s perspectives. Champions emerged as promoters of technology, supporting its adoption. Success factors included anchoring and selection processes, champions’ expertise, and effective role performance.

The specific tasks and responsibilities assigned to champions differed across reviewed studies, highlighting that the role of champion is a broad one, dependent on the technology being implemented and the site implementing it. Findings indicated a correlation between champion experiences and organizational characteristics. The role’s firm anchoring within the organization is crucial. Limited evidence suggests that volunteering, hiring newly graduated health personnel, and having multiple champions can facilitate technology implementation. Existing studies predominantly focused on client health records and hospitals, emphasizing the need for broader research across healthcare services.

Conclusions

With a clear mandate, dedicated time, and proper training, health personnel in champion roles can significantly contribute professional, technological, and personal competencies to facilitate technology adoption within healthcare services. The review finds that the concept of champions is a broad one and finds varied definitions of the champion role concept. This underscores the importance of describing organizational characteristics, and highlights areas for future research to enhance technology implementation strategies in different healthcare settings with support of a champion.

Peer Review reports

Digital health technologies play a transformative role in healthcare service systems [ 1 , 2 ]. The utilization of technology and digitalization is essential for ensuring patient safety, delivering high quality, cost-effective, and sustainable healthcare services [ 3 , 4 ]. The implementation of technology in healthcare services is a complex process that demands systematic changes in roles, workflows, and service provision [ 5 , 6 ].

The successful implementation of new technologies in healthcare services relies on the adaptability of health professionals [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Champions have been identified as a key factor in the successful implementation of technology among health personnel [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. However, they have rarely been studied as an independent strategy; instead, they are often part of a broader array of strategies in implementation studies (e.g., Hudson [ 13 ], Gullslett and Bergmo [ 14 ]). Prior research has frequently focused on determining the presence or absence of champions [ 10 , 12 , 15 ], as well as investigating the characteristics of individuals assuming the champion role (e.g., George et al. [ 16 ], Shea and Belden [ 17 ]).

Recent reviews on champions [ 18 , 19 , 20 ] have studied their effects on adherence to guidelines, implementation of innovations and facilitation of evidence-based practice. While these reviews suggest that having champions yields positive effects, they underscore the importance for studies that offer detailed insights into the champion’s role concerning specific types of interventions.

There is limited understanding of the practical role requirements and the actual experiences of health personnel in performing the champion role in the context of technology implementation within healthcare services. Further, this knowledge is needed to guide future research on the practical, professional, and relational prerequisites for health personnel in this role and for organizations to successfully employ champions as a strategy in technology implementation processes.

This review seeks to synthesize the existing empirical knowledge concerning the experiences of those in the champion role and the perspectives of health personnel involved in technology implementation processes. The aim is to contribute valuable insights that enhance our understanding of practical role requirements, the execution of the champion role, and best practices in this domain.

The term of champions varies [ 10 , 19 ] and there is a lack of explicit conceptualization of the term ‘champion’ in the implementation literature [ 12 , 18 ]. Various terms for individuals with similar roles also exist in the literature, such as implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, change agent, superuser and facilitator. For the purpose of this study, we have adopted the terminology utilized in the recent review by Rigby, Redley and Hutchinson [ 21 ] collectively referring to these roles as ‘champions’. This review aims to explore the experiences of health personnel in their role as champions and the experiences of health personnel interacting with them in the implementation of technology in the healthcare services.

Prior review studies on champions in healthcare services have employed various designs [ 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. In this review, we utilized a comprehensive mixed studies search to identify relevant empirical studies [ 22 ]. The search was conducted utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring a transparent and comprehensive overview that can be replicated or updated by others [ 23 ]. The study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022335750), providing a more comprehensive description of the methods [ 24 ]. A systematic mixed studies review, examining research using diverse study designs, is well-suited for synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying gaps by harnessing the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods [ 22 ]. Our search encompassed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods design to capture experiences with the role of champions in technology implementation.

Search strategy and study selection

Search strategy.

The first author, in collaboration with a librarian, developed the search strategy based on initial searches to identify appropriate terms and truncations that align with the eligibility criteria. The search was constructed utilizing a combination of MeSH terms and keywords related to technology, implementation, champion, and attitudes/experiences. Conducted in August/September 2022, the search encompassed four databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, with an updated search conducted in March 2023. The full search strategy for Medline is provided in Appendix 1 . The searches in Embase, CINAHL and Scopus employed the same strategy, with adopted terms and phrases to meet the requirements of each respective database.

Eligibility criteria

We included all empirical studies employing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs that detailed the experiences and/or attitudes of health personnel regarding the champions role in the implementation of technology in healthcare services. Articles in the English language published between 2012 and 2023 were considered. The selected studies involved technology implemented or adapted within healthcare services.

Conference abstract and review articles were excluded from consideration. Articles published prior 2012 were excluded as a result of the rapid development of technology, which could impact the experiences reported. Furthermore, articles involving surgical technology and pre-implementation studies were also excluded, as the focus was on capturing experiences and attitudes from the adoption and daily use of technology. The study also excluded articles that involved champions without clinical health care positions.

Study selection

A total of 1629 studies were identified and downloaded from the selected databases, with Covidence [ 25 ] utilized as a software platform for screening. After removing 624 duplicate records, all team members collaborated to calibrate the screening process utilizing the eligibility criteria on the initial 50 studies. Subsequently, the remaining abstracts were independently screened by two researchers, blinded to each other, to ensure adherence to the eligibility criteria. Studies were included if the title and abstract included the term champion or its synonyms, along with technology in healthcare services, implementation, and health personnel’s experiences or attitudes. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus among all team members. A total of 949 abstracts were excluded for not meeting this inclusion condition. During the initial search, 56 remaining studies underwent full-text screening, resulting in identification of 22 studies qualified for review.

In the updated search covering the period September 2022 to March 2023, 64 new studies were identified. Of these, 18 studies underwent full-text screening, and one study was included in our review. The total number of included studies is 23. The PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1 ) illustrates the process.

Flow Chart illustrating the study selection and screening process

Data extraction

The research team developed an extraction form for the included studies utilizing an Excel spreadsheet. Following data extraction, the information included the Name of Author(s) Year of publication, Country/countries, Title of the article, Setting, Aim, Design, Participants, and Sample size of the studies, Technology utilized in healthcare services, name/title utilized to describe the Champion Role, how the studies were analyzed and details of Attitude/Experience with the role of champion. Data extraction was conducted by SP, and the results were deliberated in a workshop with the other researchers AB, and HE until a consensus was reached. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussions. The data extraction was categorized into three categories: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, in preparation for quality appraisal.

Quality appraisal

The MMAT [ 26 ] was employed to assess the quality of the 23 included studies. Specifically designed for mixed studies reviews, the MMAT allows for the appraisal of the methodological quality of studies falling into five categories. The studies in our review encompassed qualitative, quantitative descriptive, and mixed methods studies. The MMAT begins with two screening questions to confirm the empirical nature of this study. Subsequently, all studies were categorized by type and evaluated utilizing specific criteria based on their research methods, with ratings of ‘Yes,’ ‘No’ or ‘Can’t tell.’ The MMAT discourages overall scores in favor of providing a detailed explanation for each criterion. Consequently, we did not rely on the MMAT’s overall methodical quality scores and continued to include all 23 studies for our review. Two researchers independently scored the studies, and any discrepancies were discussed among all team members until a consensus was reached. The results of the MMAT assessments are provided in Appendix 2 .

Data synthesis

Based on discussions of this material, additional tables were formulated to present a comprehensive overview of the study characteristics categorized by study design, study settings, technology included, and descriptions/characteristics of the champion role. To capture attitudes and experiences associated with the champion role, the findings from the included studies were translated into narrative texts [ 22 ]. Subsequently, the reviewers worked collaboratively to conduct a thematic analysis, drawing inspiration from Braun and Clarke [ 27 ]. Throughout the synthesis process, multiple meetings were conducted to discern and define the emerging themes and subthemes.

The adopting of new technology in healthcare services can be perceived as both an event and a process. According to Iqbal [ 28 ], experience is defined as the knowledge and understanding gained after an event or the process of living through or undergoing an event. This review synthesizes existing empirical knowledge regarding the experiences of occupying the champion role, and the perspectives of health personnel interacting with champions in technology implementation processes.

Study characteristics

The review encompassed a total of 23 studies, and an overview of these studies is presented in Table 1 . Of these, fourteen studies employed a qualitative design, four had quantitative design, and five utilized a mixed method design. The geographical distribution revealed that the majority of studies were conducted in the USA (8), followed by Australia (5), England (4), Canada (2), Norway (2), Ireland (1), and Malaysia (1). In terms of settings, 11 studies were conducted in hospitals, five in primary health care, three in home-based care settings, and four in a mixed settings where two or more settings collaborated. Various technologies were employed across these studies, with client health records (7) and telemedicine (5) being the most frequently utilized. All studies included experiences from champions or health personnel collaborating with champions in their respective healthcare services. Only three studies had the champion role as a main objective [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. The remaining studies described champions as one of the strategies in technology implementation processes, including 10 evaluation studies (including feasibility studies [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] and one cost-benefit study [ 30 ]).

Several studies underscored the importance of champions for successful implementation [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 49 ]. Four studies specifically highlighted champions as a key factor for success [ 34 , 36 , 37 , 43 ], and one study went further to describe champions as the most important factor for successful implementation [ 39 ]. Additionally, one study associated champions with reduced labor cost [ 30 ].

Thin descriptions, yet clear expectations for technology champions’ role and -attributes

The analyses revealed that the concept of champions in studies pertaining to technology implementation in healthcare services varies, primarily as a result of the diversity of terms utilized to describe the role combined with short role descriptions. Nevertheless, the studies indicated clear expectations for the champion’s role and associated attributes.

The term champion

The term champion was expressed in 20 different forms across the 23 studies included in our review. Three studies utilized multiple terms within the same study [ 32 , 47 , 48 ] and 15 different authors [ 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 50 ] employed the term with different compositions (Table 1 ). Furthermore, four authors utilized the term Super user [ 30 , 31 , 49 , 51 ], while four authors employed the terms Facilitator [ 38 ], IT clinician [ 48 ], Leader [ 45 ], and Manager [ 34 ], each in combination with more specific terms (such as local opinion leaders, IT nurse, or practice manager).

Most studies associated champion roles with specific professions. In seven studies, the professional title was explicitly linked to the concept of champions, such as physician champions or clinical nurse champions, or through the strategic selection of specific professions [ 29 , 33 , 36 , 40 , 43 , 47 , 50 ]. Additionally, some studies did not specify professions, but utilized terms like clinicians [ 45 ] or health professionals [ 41 ].

All included articles portray the champion’s role as facilitating implementation and daily use of technology among staff. In four studies, the champion’s role was not elaborated beyond indicating that the individual holding the role is confident with an interest in technology [ 35 , 41 , 42 , 44 ]. The champion’s role was explicitly examined in six studies [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 46 , 50 ]. Furthermore, seven studies described the champion in both the methods and results [ 32 , 36 , 38 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 51 ]. In ten of the studies, champions were solely mentioned in the results [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].

Eight studies provided a specific description or definition of the champion [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 38 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. The champion’s role was described as involving training in the specific technology, being an expert on the technology, providing support and assisting peers when needed. In some instance, the champion had a role in leading the implementation [ 50 ], while in other situations, the champion operated as a mediator [ 48 ].

The champions tasks

In the included studies, the champion role encompassed two interrelated facilitators tasks: promoting the technology and supporting others in adopting the technology in their daily practice. Promoting the technology involved encouraging staff adaptation [ 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 49 ], generally described as being enthusiastic about the technology [ 32 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 48 ], influencing the attitudes and beliefs of colleagues [ 42 , 45 ] and legitimizing the introduction of the technology [ 42 , 46 , 48 ]. Supporting others in technology adaption involved training and teaching [ 31 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 51 ], as well as providing technical support [ 30 , 31 , 39 , 43 , 49 ] and social support [ 49 ]. Only four studies reported that the champions received their own training to enable them able to support their colleagues [ 30 , 31 , 39 , 48 ]. Furthermore, eight studies [ 32 , 34 , 38 , 40 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], specified that the champion role included leadership and management responsibilities, mentioning tasks such as planning, organizing, coordinating, and mediating technology adaption without providing further details.

Desirable champion attributes

To effectively fulfill their role, champions should ideally possess clinical expertise and experience [ 29 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 48 ], stay professionally updated [ 37 , 48 ], and possess knowledge of the organization and workflows [ 29 , 34 , 46 ]. They should have the ability to understand and communicate effectively with healthcare personnel [ 31 , 32 , 46 , 49 ] and be proficient in IT language [ 51 ]. Moreover, champions should demonstrate a general technological interest and competence, and competence, along with specific knowledge of the technology to be implemented [ 32 , 37 , 49 ]. It is also emphasized that they should command formal and/or informal respect and authority in the organization [ 36 , 45 ], be accessible to others [ 39 , 43 ], possess leadership qualities [ 34 , 37 , 38 , 46 ], and understand and balance the needs of stakeholders [ 43 ]. Lastly, the champions should be enthusiastic promoters of the technology, engaging and supporting others [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 49 ], while also effectively coping with cultural resistance to change [ 31 , 46 ].

Anchoring and recruiting for the champion role

The champions were organized differently within services, holding various positions in the organizations, and being recruited for the role in different ways.

Anchoring the champion role

The champion’s role is primarily anchored at two levels: the management level and/or the clinical level, with two studies having champions at both levels [ 34 , 49 ]. Those working with the management actively participated in the planning of the technology implementation [ 29 , 36 , 40 , 41 , 45 ]. Serving as advisors to management, they leveraged their clinical knowledge to guide the implementation in alignment with the necessities and possibilities of daily work routines in the clinics. Champions in this capacity experienced having a clear formal position that enabled them to fulfil their role effectively [ 29 , 40 ]. Moreover, these champions served as bridge builders between the management and department levels [ 36 , 45 ], ensuring the necessary flow of information in both directions.

Champions anchored at the clinic level played a pivotal role in the practical implementation and facilitation of the daily use of technology [ 31 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 48 , 51 ]. Additionally, these champions actively participated in meetings with senior management to discuss the technology and its implementation in the clinic. This position conferred potential influence over health personnel [ 33 , 35 ]. Champions at the clinic level facilitated collaboration between employees, management, and suppliers [ 48 ]. Fontaine et al. [ 36 ] identified respected champions at the clinical level, possessing authority and formal support from all leadership levels, as the most important factor for success.

Only one study reported that the champions received additional compensation for their role [ 36 ], while another study mentioned champions having dedicated time to fulfil their role [ 46 ]. The remaining studies did not provide this information.

Recruiting for the role as champion

Several studies have reported different experiences regarding the management’s selection of champions. A study highlighted the distinctions between a volunteered role and an appointed champion’s role [ 31 ]. Some studies underscored that appointed champions were chosen based on technological expertise and skills [ 41 , 48 , 51 ]. Moreover, the selection criteria included champions’ interest in the specific technology [ 42 ] or experiential skills [ 40 ]. The remaining studies did not provide this information.

While the champion role was most frequently held by health personnel with clinical experience, one study deviated by hiring 150 newly qualified nurses as champions [ 30 ] for a large-scale implementation of an Electronic Health Record (EHR). Opting for clinical novices assisted in reducing implementation costs, as it avoided disrupting daily tasks and interfering with daily operations. According to Bullard [ 30 ], these super-user nurses became highly sought after post-implementation as a result of their technological confidence and competence.

Reported experiences of champions and health personnel

Drawing from the experiences of both champions and health personnel, it is essential for a champion to possess a combination of general knowledge and specific champion characteristics. Furthermore, champions are required to collaborate with individuals both within and outside the organization. The subsequent paragraphs delineate these experiences, categorizing them into four subsets: champions’ contextual knowledge and expertise, preferred performance of the champion role, recognizing that a champion alone is insufficient, and distinguishing between reactive and proactive champions.

Champions’ contextual knowledge and know-how

Health personnel with experience interacting with champions emphasized that a champion must be familiar with the department and its daily work routines [ 35 , 40 ]. Knowledge of the department’s daily routines made it easier for champions to facilitate the adaptation of technology. However, there was a divergence of opinions on whether champions were required to possess extensive clinical experience to fulfil their role. In most studies, having an experienced and competent clinician as a champion instilled a sense of confidence among health personnel. Conversely, Bullard’s study [ 30 ] exhibited that health personnel were satisfied with newly qualified nurses in the role of champion, despite their initial skepticism.

It is a generally expected that champions should possess technological knowledge beyond that of other health professionals [ 37 , 41 ]. Some health personnel perceived the champions as uncritical promoters of technology, with the impression that health personnel were being compelled to utilize technology [ 46 ]. Champions could also overestimate the readiness of health personnel to implement a technology, especially during the early phases of the implementation process [ 32 ]. Regardless of whether the champion is at the management level or the clinic level, champions themselves have acknowledged the importance of providing time and space for innovation. Moreover, the recruitment of champions should span all levels of the organization [ 34 , 46 ]. Furthermore, champions must be familiar with daily work routines, work tools, and work surfaces [ 38 , 40 , 43 ].

Preferable performance of the champion role

The studies identified several preferable characteristics of successful champions. Health personnel favored champions utilizing positive words when discussing technology and exhibiting positive attitudes while facilitating and adapting it [ 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 46 ]. Additionally, champions who were enthusiastic and engaging were considered good role models for the adoption of technology. Successful champions were perceived as knowledgeable and adept problem solvers who motivated and supported health personnel [ 41 , 43 , 44 , 48 ]. They were also valued for being available and responding promptly when contacted [ 42 ]. Health professionals noted that champions perceived as competent garnered respect in the organization [ 40 ]. Moreover, some health personnel felt that some certain champions wielded a greater influence based on how they encouraged the use of the system [ 48 ]. It was also emphasized that health personnel needed to feel it was safe to provide feedback to champions, especially when encountering difficulties or uncertainties [ 49 ].

A champion is not enough

The role of champions proved to be more demanding than expected [ 29 , 31 , 38 ], involving tasks such as handling an overwhelming number of questions or actively participating in the installation process to ensure the technology functions effectively in the department [ 29 ]. Regardless of the organizational characteristics or the champion’s profile, appointing the champion as a “solo implementation agent” is deemed unsuitable. If the organization begins with one champion, it is recommended that this individual promptly recruits others into the role [ 42 ].

Health personnel, reliant on champions’ expertise, found it beneficial to have champions in all departments, and these champions had to be actively engaged in day-to-day operations [ 31 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]. Champions themselves also noted that health personnel increased their technological expertise through their role as champions in the department [ 39 ].

Furthermore, the successful implementation of technology requires the collaboration of various professions and support functions, a task that cannot be solely addressed by a champion [ 29 , 43 , 48 ]. In Orchard et. al.‘s study [ 34 ], champions explicitly emphasized the necessity of support from other personnel in the organization, such as those responsible for the technical aspects and archiving routines, to provide essential assistance.

According to health personnel, the role of champions is vulnerable in case they become sick or leave their position [ 42 , 51 ]. In some of the included studies, only one or a few hold the position of champion [ 37 , 38 , 42 , 48 ]. Two studies observed that their implementations were not completed because champions left or reassigned for various reasons [ 32 , 51 ]. The health professionals in the study by Owens and Charles [ 32 ] expressed that champions must be replaced in such cases. Further, the study of Olsen et al., 2021 [ 42 ] highlights the need for quicky building a champion network within the organization.

Reactive and proactive champions

Health personnel and champions alike noted that champions played both a reactive and proactive role. The proactive role entailed facilitating measures such as training and coordination [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 48 , 49 ] as initiatives to generate enthusiasm for the technology [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 49 ]. On the other hand, the reactive role entailed hands-on support and troubleshooting [ 30 , 31 , 39 , 43 , 49 ].

In a study presenting experiences from both health personnel and champions, Yuan et al. [ 31 ] found that personnel observed differences in the assistance provided by appointed and self-chosen champions. Appointed champions demonstrated the technology, answered questions from health personnel, but quickly lost patience and track of employees who had received training [ 31 ]. Health personnel perceived that self-chosen champions were proactive and well-prepared to facilitate the utilization of technology, communicating with the staff as a group and being more competent in utilizing the technology in daily practice [ 31 ]. Health personnel also noted that volunteer champions were supportive, positive, and proactive in promoting the technology, whereas appointed champions acted on request and had a more reactive approach [ 31 ].

This review underscores the breadth of the concept of champion and the significant variation in the champion’s role in implementation of technology in healthcare services. This finding supports the results from previous reviews [ 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. The majority of studies meeting our inclusion criteria did not specifically focus on the experiences of champions and health personnel regarding the champion role, with the exception of studies by Bullard [ 30 ], Gui et al. [ 29 ], Helmer-Smith et al. [ 33 ], Hogan-Murphy et al. [ 46 ], Rea et al. [ 50 ], and Yuan et al. [ 31 ].

The 23 studies encompassed in this review utilized 20 different terms for the champion role. In most studies, the champion’s role was briefly described in terms of the duties it entailed or should entail. This may be linked to the fact that the role of champions was not the primary focus of the study, but rather one of the strategies in the implementation process being investigated. This result reinforces the conclusions drawn by Miech et al. [ 10 ] and Shea et al. [ 12 ] regarding the lack of united understandings of the concept. Furthermore, in Santos et al.‘s [ 19 ] review, champions were only operationalized through presence or absence in 71.4% of the included studies. However, our review finds that there is a consistent and shared understanding that champions should promote and support technology implementation.

Several studies advocate for champions as an effective and recommended strategy for implementing technology [ 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 ]. However, we identified that few studies exclusively explore health personnel`s experiences within the champion role when implementing technology in healthcare services.

This suggests a general lack of information essential for understanding the pros, cons, and prerequisites for champions as a strategy within this field of knowledge. However, this review identifies, on a general basis, the types of support and structures required for champions to perform their role successfully from the perspectives of health personnel, contributing to Shea’s conceptual model [ 12 ].

Regarding the organization of the role, this review identified champions holding both formal appointed and informal roles, working in management or clinical settings, being recruited for their clinical and/or technological expertise, and either volunteering or being hired with specific benefits for the role. Regardless of these variations, anchoring the role is crucial for both the individuals holding the champion role and the health personnel interacting with them. Anchoring, in this context, is associated with the clarity of the role’s content and a match between role expectations and opportunities for fulfilment. Furthermore, the role should be valued by the management, preferably through dedicated time and/or salary support [ 34 , 36 , 46 ]. Additionally, our findings indicate that relying on a “solo champion” is vulnerable to issues such as illness, turnover, excessive workload, and individual champion performance [ 32 , 37 ]. Based on these insights, it appears preferable to appoint multiple champions, with roles at both management and clinical levels [ 33 ].

Some studies have explored the selection of champions and its impact on role performance, revealing diverse experiences [ 30 , 31 ]. Notably, Bullard [ 30 ], stands out for emphasizing long clinical experience, and hiring newly trained nurses as superusers to facilitate the use of electronic health records. Despite facing initial reluctance, these newly trained nurses gradually succeeded in their roles. This underscores the importance of considering contextual factors in the champion selection [ 30 , 52 ]. In Bullard’s study [ 30 ], the collaboration between newly trained nurses as digital natives and clinical experienced health personnel proved beneficial, highlighting the need to align champion selection with the organization’s needs based on personal characteristics. This finding aligns with Melkas et al.‘s [ 9 ] argument that implementing technology requires a deeper understanding of users, access to contextual know-how, and health personnel’s tacit knowledge.

To meet role expectations and effectively leverage their professional and technological expertise, champions should embody personal qualities such as the ability to engage others, take a leadership role, be accessible, supportive, and communicate clearly. These qualities align with the key attributes for change in healthcare champions described by Bonawitz et al. [ 15 ]. These attributes include influence, ownership, physical presence, persuasiveness, grit, and a participative leadership style (p.5). These findings suggest that the active performance of the role, beyond mere presence, is crucial for champions to be a successful strategy in technology implementation. Moreover, the recruitment process is not inconsequential. Identifying the right person for the role and providing them with adequate training, organizational support, and dedicated time to fulfill their responsibilities emerge as an important factor based on the insights from champions and health personnel.

Strengths and limitations

While this study benefits from identifying various terms associated with the role of champions, it acknowledges the possibility of missing some studies as a result of diverse descriptions of the role. Nonetheless, a notable strength of the study lies in its specific focus on the health personnel’s experiences in holding the champion role and the broader experiences of health personnel concerning champions in technology implementation within healthcare services. This approach contributes valuable insights into the characteristics of experiences and attitudes toward the role of champions in implementing technology. Lastly, the study emphasizes the relationship between the experiences with the champion role and the organizational setting’s characteristics.

The champion role was frequently inadequately defined [ 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 51 ], aligning with previous reviews [ 17 , 19 , 21 ]. As indicated by van Laere and Aggestam [ 52 ], this lack of clarity complicates the identification and comparison of champions across studies. Studies that lacking a distinct definition of the champion’s role were consequently excluded. Only studies written in English were included, introducing the possibility of overlooking relevant studies based on our chosen terms for identifying the champion’s role. Most of the included studies focused on technology implementation in a general context, with champions being just one of several measures. This approach resulted in scant descriptions, as champions were often discussed in the results, discussion, or implications sections rather than being the central focus of the research.

As highlighted by Hall et al. [ 18 ]., methodological issues and inadequate reporting in studies of the champion role create challenges for conducting high-quality reviews, introducing uncertainty around the findings. We have adopted a similar approach to Santos et al. [ 19 ], including all studies even when some issues were identified during the quality assessment. Our review shares the same limitations as previous review by Santos et al. [ 19 ] on the champion role.

Practical implications, policy, and future research

The findings emphasize the significance of the relationship between experiences with the champion role and characteristics of organizational settings as crucial factors for success in the champion role. Clear anchoring of the role within the organization is vital and may impact routines, workflows, staffing, and budgets. Despite limited evidence on the experience of the champion’s role, volunteering, hiring newly graduated health personnel, and appointing more than one champion are identified as facilitators of technology implementation. This study underscores the need for future empirical research including clear descriptions of the champion roles, details on study settings and the technologies to be adopted. This will enable the determination of outcomes and success factors in holding champions in technology implementation processes, transferability of knowledge between contexts and technologies as well as enhance the comparability of studies. Furthermore, there is a need for studies to explore experiences with the champion role, preferably from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, as well as focus on the champion role within various healthcare settings.

This study emphasizes that champions can hold significant positions when provided with a clear mandate, dedicated time, and training, contributing their professional, technological, and personal competencies to expedite technology adoption within services. It appears to be an advantage if the health personnel volunteer or apply for the role to facilitate engaged and proactive champions. The implementation of technology in healthcare services demands efforts from the entire service, and the experiences highlighted in this review exhibits that champions can play an important role. Consequently, empirical studies dedicated to the champion role, employing robust designs based current knowledge, are still needed to provide solid understanding of how champions can be a successful initiative when implementing technology in healthcare services.

Data availability

This review relies exclusively on previously published studies. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its supplementary files: Description and characteristics of included studies in Table 1 , Study characteristics. The search strategy is provided in Appendix 1 , and the Critical Appraisal Summary of included studies utilizing MMAT is presented in Appendix 2 .

Abbreviations

Electronic Health Record

Implementation Outcomes Framework

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics and Meta-Analysis

Meskó B, Drobni Z, Bényei É, Gergely B, Győrffy Z. Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare. mHealth. 2017;3:38. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.07 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pérez Sust P, Solans O, Fajardo JC, Medina Peralta M, Rodenas P, Gabaldà J, et al. Turning the crisis into an opportunity: Digital health strategies deployed during the COVID-19 outbreak. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6:e19106. https://doi.org/10.2196/19106 .

Alotaibi YK, Federico F. The impact of health information technology on patient safety. Saudi MedJ. 2017;38:117380. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.12.20631 .

Article Google Scholar

Kuoppamäki S. The application and deployment of welfare technology in Swedish municipal care: a qualitative study of procurement practices among municipal actors. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:918. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06944-w .

Kraus S, Schiavone F, Pluzhnikova A, Invernizzi AC. Digital transformation in healthcare: analyzing the current state-of-research. J Bus Res. 2021;123:557–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.030 .

Frennert S. Approaches to welfare technology in municipal eldercare. JTechnolHum. 2020;38:22646. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2020.1747043 .

Konttila J, Siira H, Kyngäs H, Lahtinen M, Elo S, Kääriäinen M, et al. Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalisation: a systematic review. Clin Nurs. 2019;28:74561. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14710 .

Jacob C, Sanchez-Vazquez A, Ivory C. Social, organizational, and technological factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mobile health tools: systematic literature review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2020;8:e15935. https://doi.org/10.2196/15935 .

Melkas H, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, Kyrki V. Impacts of robot implementation on care personnel and clients in elderly-care institutions. Int J Med Inf. 2020;134:104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104041 .

Miech EJ, Rattray NA, Flanagan ME, Damschroder L, Schmid AA, Damush TM. Inside help: an integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118773261 .

Foong HF, Kyaw BM, Upton Z, Tudor Car L. Facilitators and barriers of using digital technology for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a qualitative systematic review. Int Wound J. 2020;17:126681. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13396 .

Shea CM. A conceptual model to guide research on the activities and effects of innovation champions. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489521990443 .

Hudson D. Physician engagement strategies in health information system implementations. Healthc Manage Forum. 2023;36:86–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704221131921 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Gullslett MK, Strand Bergmo T. Implementation of E-prescription for multidose dispensed drugs: qualitative study of general practitioners’’ experiences. JMIR HumFactors. 2022;9:e27431. https://doi.org/10.2196/27431 .

Bonawitz K, Wetmore M, Heisler M, Dalton VK, Damschroder LJ, Forman J, et al. Champions in context: which attributes matter for change efforts in healthcare? Implement Sci. 2020;15:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01024-9 .

George ER, Sabin LL, Elliott PA, Wolff JA, Osani MC, McSwiggan Hong J, et al. Examining health care champions: a mixed-methods study exploring self and peer perspectives of champions. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221077880 .

Shea CM, Belden CM. What is the extent of research on the characteristics, behaviors, and impacts of health information technology champions? A scoping review. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2016;16:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0240-4 .

Hall AM, Flodgren GM, Richmond HL, Welsh S, Thompson JY, Furlong BM, Sherriff A. Champions for improved adherence to guidelines in long-term care homes: a systematic review. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(1):85–85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00185-y .

Santos WJ, Graham ID, Lalonde M, Demery Varin M, Squires JE. The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):1–80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00315-0 .

Wood K, Giannopoulos V, Louie E, Baillie A, Uribe G, Lee KS, Haber PS, Morley KC. The role of clinical champions in facilitating the use of evidence-based practice in drug and alcohol and mental health settings: a systematic review. Implement Res Pract. 2020;1:2633489520959072–2633489520959072. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489520959072 .

Rigby K, Redley B, Hutchinson AM. Change agent’s role in facilitating use of technology in residential aged care: a systematic review. Int J Med Informatics. 2023;105216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105216 .

Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:29–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 .

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Pettersen S, Berg A, Eide H. Experiences and attitudes to the role of champions in implementation of technology in health services. A systematic review. PROSPERO. 2022. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022335750 . Accessed [15 Feb 2023].

Covidence. Better Syst Rev Manag. https://www.covidence.org/ . 2023;26.

Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34:285–91. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221 .

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 1st ed. SAGE; 2022.

Iqbal MP, Manias E, Mimmo L, Mears S, Jack B, Hay L, Harrison R. Clinicians’ experience of providing care: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05812-3 .

Gui X, Chen Y, Zhou X, Reynolds TL, Zheng K, Hanauer DA. Physician champions’ perspectives and practices on electronic health records implementation: challenges and strategies. JAMIA open. 2020;3:5361. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz051 .

Bullard KL. Cost effective staffing for an EHR implementation. Nurs Econ. 2016;34:726.

Google Scholar

Yuan CT, Bradley EH, Nembhard IM. A mixed methods study of how clinician ‘super users’ influence others during the implementation of electronic health records. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2015;15:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0154-6 .

Owens C, Charles N. Implementation of a text-messaging intervention for adolescents who self-harm (TeenTEXT): a feasibility study using normalisation process theory. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2016;10:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0101-z .

Helmer-Smith M, Fung C, Afkham A, Crowe L, Gazarin M, Keely E, et al. The feasibility of using electronic consultation in long-term care homes. JAm Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:11661170e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.03.003 .

Orchard J, Lowres N, Freedman SB, Ladak L, Lee W, Zwar N, et al. Screening for atrial fibrillation during influenza vaccinations by primary care nurses using a smartphone electrocardiograph (iECG): a feasibility study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487316670255 .

Bee P, Lovell K, Airnes Z, Pruszynska A. Embedding telephone therapy in statutory mental health services: a qualitative, theory-driven analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0761-5 .

Fontaine P, Whitebird R, Solberg LI, Tillema J, Smithson A, Crabtree BF. Minnesota’s early experience with medical home implementation: viewpoints from the front lines. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(7):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3136-y .

Kolltveit B-CH, Gjengedal E, Graue M, Iversen MM, Thorne S, Kirkevold M. Conditions for success in introducing telemedicine in diabetes foot care: a qualitative inquiry. BMC Nurs. 2017;16:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-017-0201-y .

Salbach NM, McDonald A, MacKay-Lyons M, Bulmer B, Howe JA, Bayley MT, et al. Experiences of physical therapists and professional leaders with implementing a toolkit to advance walking assessment poststroke: a realist evaluation. Phys Ther. 2021;101:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab232 .

Schwarz M, Coccetti A, Draheim M, Gordon G. Perceptions of allied health staff of the implementation of an integrated electronic medical record across regional and metropolitan settings. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44:965–72. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19024 .

Stewart J, McCorry N, Reid H, Hart N, Kee F. Implementation of remote asthma consulting in general practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: an evaluation using extended normalisation process theory. BJGP Open. 2022;6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0189 .

Bennett-Levy J, Singer J, DuBois S, Hyde K. Translating mental health into practice: what are the barriers and enablers to e-mental health implementation by aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals? JMed. Internet Res. 2017;19:e1. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6269 .

Olsen J, Peterson S, Stevens A. Implementing electronic health record-based National Diabetes Prevention Program referrals in a rural county. Public Health Nurs (Boston Mass). 2021;38(3):464–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12860 .

Yang L, Brown-Johnson CG, Miller-Kuhlmann R, Kling SMR, Saliba-Gustafsson EA, Shaw JG, et al. Accelerated launch of video visits in ambulatory neurology during COVID-19: key lessons from the Stanford experience. Neurology. 2020;95:305–11. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000010015 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Buckingham SA, Sein K, Anil K, Demain S, Gunn H, Jones RB, et al. Telerehabilitation for physical disabilities and movement impairment: a service evaluation in South West England. JEval Clin Pract. 2022;28:108495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13689 .

Chung OS, Robinson T, Johnson AM, Dowling NL, Ng CH, Yücel M, et al. Implementation of therapeutic virtual reality into psychiatric care: clinicians’ and service managers’’ perspectives. Front Psychiatry. 2022;12:791123. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.791123 .

Hogan-Murphy D, Stewart D, Tonna A, Strath A, Cunningham S. Use of normalization process theory to explore key stakeholders’ perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic systems for medicines management in hospital settings. Res SocialAdm Pharm. 2021;17:398405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.03.005 .

Moss SR, Martinez KA, Nathan C, Pfoh ER, Rothberg MB. Physicians’ views on utilization of an electronic health record-embedded calculator to assess risk for venous thromboembolism among medical inpatients: a qualitative study. TH Open. 2022;6:e33–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742227 .

Yusof MM. A case study evaluation of a critical Care Information System adoption using the socio-technical and fit approach. Int J Med Inf. 2015;84:486–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.001 .

Dugstad J, Sundling V, Nilsen ER, Eide H. Nursing staff’s evaluation of facilitators and barriers during implementation of wireless nurse call systems in residential care facilities. A cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4998-9 .

Rea K, Le-Jenkins U, Rutledge C. A technology intervention for nurses engaged in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Comput Inf Nurs. 2018;36:305–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000429 .

Bail K, Davey R, Currie M, Gibson J, Merrick E, Redley B. Implementation pilot of a novel electronic bedside nursing chart: a mixed-methods case study. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44:672–6. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18231 .

van Laere J, Aggestam L. Understanding champion behaviour in a health-care information system development project – how multiple champions and champion behaviours build a coherent whole. Eur J Inf Syst. 2016;25:47–63. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.5 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the librarian Malin E. Norman, at Nord university, for her assistance in the development of the search, as well as guidance regarding the scientific databases.

This study is a part of a PhD project undertaken by the first author, SP, and funded by Nord University, Norway. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, as well as not-for-profit sectors.

Open access funding provided by Nord University

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord university, P.O. Box 474, N-7801, Namsos, Norway

Sissel Pettersen & Anita Berg

Centre for Health and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, PO Box 7053, N-3007, Drammen, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The first author/SP has been the project manager and was mainly responsible for all phases of the study. The second and third authors HE and AB have contributed to screening, quality assessment, analysis and discussion of findings. Drafting of the final manuscript has been a collaboration between the first/SP and third athor/AB. The final manuscript has been approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sissel Pettersen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This review does not involve the processing of personal data, and given the nature of this study, formal consent is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pettersen, S., Eide, H. & Berg, A. The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare services: a systematic mixed studies review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 456 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10867-7

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2023

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 11 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10867-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Technology implementation
Healthcare personnel
Healthcare services
Mixed methods
Organizational characteristics
Technology adoption
Role definitions
Healthcare settings
Systematic review

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

General enquiries: [email protected]

Systematic review
Open access
Published: 16 April 2024

Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed scoping review

Paul Caltabiano 1 , 2 ,
Jodie Bailie ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-5773 3 , 4 ,
Alison Laycock ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7756-4398 3 ,
Bradley Shea 2 , 3 ,
Sally Hall Dykgraaf ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-1086 5 ,
Nicholas Lennox ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3201-3186 6 ,
Kanchana Ekanayake ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4324-311X 7 &
Ross Bailie ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5966-3368 8

Implementation Science Communications volume 5 , Article number: 39 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

221 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

People with intellectual disability experience poorer health outcomes compared with the general population, partly due to the difficulties of accessing preventive care in primary care settings. There is good evidence that structured annual health assessments can enhance quality of care for people with intellectual disability, and their use has become recommended policy in several high-income countries. However, uptake remains low. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) offers a conceptual structure for understanding barriers to implementation and has been usefully applied to inform implementation of health assessments for other high-need groups, but not for people with intellectual disability. We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using the TDF, to identify barriers and facilitators influencing primary care practitioners’ implementation of annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine primary care practice.

This study was conducted according to the JBI methodological approach for scoping reviews. Searches were conducted in Medline (OVID-SP), Embase (OVID-SP), PsycINFO (OVID-SP), CINHAL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) for relevant peer-reviewed publications up to May 2023. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and mapped to the TDF to identify relevant barriers and facilitators.

The search yielded 1057 publications, with 21 meeting the inclusion criteria. Mapping data to the TDF, the most frequently identified domains were (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion. Predominant factors impacting on implementation included practitioners’ lack of awareness about health assessments and their identified benefits; inadequate training and experience by practitioners in the delivery of health assessments for people with intellectual disability; insufficient time to provide health assessments; and practitioner burnout.

Using a theory-informed behavioural framework, our review aids understanding of the barriers and facilitators to improving the implementation of health assessments as part of routine care for people with intellectual disability. However, there is a clear need for further qualitative research to examine the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general, including views from practitioners who are not currently undertaking health assessments.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

Using a theory-informed behavioural framework, this scoping review systematically identifies and categorises barriers and facilitators affecting primary care practitioners’ implementation of structured annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation were most frequently mapped to the following framework domains: (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion.

There is a need for further qualitative research to examine the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general, and to ensure that the views of primary care practitioners not currently providing health assessments are investigated.

People with intellectual disability experience higher rates of mortality [ 1 ] and morbidity [ 2 ] compared with the general population. These additional health burdens are present across the life-course and are often ineffectively managed or under-recognised [ 3 ]. Inadequate access to preventive care is thought to contribute to inequitable health outcomes for people with intellectual disability [ 4 ].

To address these health disparities, structured comprehensive annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability, delivered in primary care settings, have become a feature of health policies in some high-income countries [ 5 , 6 ]. These assessments are best viewed as a vehicle for improving the delivery of evidence-based preventive care and have been used to target priority population groups, such as people with intellectual disability, the elderly, children and, in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Multiple publications, including a systematic review that synthesised evidence from 80 studies in the UK [ 7 ], have found that health assessments for people with intellectual disability identify new health needs [ 8 , 9 ], improve the management of existing health needs [ 10 , 11 ] and enable the provision of health promotion [ 8 , 12 , 13 ]. Crucially, patients with intellectual disability who receive regular health assessments have a lower mortality rate than those who do not [ 14 ]. Despite this evidence, uptake of annual health assessments in primary care has been low [ 9 , 15 ].

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was initially developed and validated by behavioural scientists to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of evidence-based recommendations among health professionals [ 16 , 17 ]. The TDF, which has 14 theoretical domains and 84 constructs derived through a systematic expert consensus process, provides a basis for understanding the broad set of factors that may influence behaviours (Table 1 ). It has also been used as a framework for synthesising behavioural influences in reviews reporting perceived barriers and facilitators, including: the adoption of prescribing guidelines [ 18 ], the de-implementation of low-value care [ 19 ], and the treatment and transfer of acute stroke patients in emergency care settings [ 20 ].

In addition, the TDF has been used to examine the uptake of health assessments for targeted population groups, such as for people with autism [ 21 ], children [ 22 ] and adults with cardiovascular disease [ 23 ]. However, to date it has not been used to understand determinants of effective implementation of health assessments for people with intellectual disability.

By assessing the published literature against the TDF, we aimed to identify and categorise barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of structured health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine practice in primary care. We anticipate that our review findings will contribute to a greater understanding of implementation barriers and facilitators and how they operate to influence practitioner behaviour.

Scoping review methodology was selected because our purpose was to systematically identify and characterise the breadth of research that exists around implementation factors, and distinguish the barriers and facilitators to implementation of preventive health assessments [ 24 , 25 ]. This review drew on methodological guidance for scoping reviews from JBI [ 26 ], and was conducted in accordance with a published a priori protocol [ 27 ]. Reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [ 28 ]. Critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment were not conducted, consistent with JBI methodology for scoping reviews.

Stage 1: research question

The research question was: ‘What are the barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing comprehensive health assessments as part of routine practice in primary care for people with intellectual disability?’

Stage 2: relevant literature identification

An initial search of Medline (OVID-SP) and Google Scholar was conducted to identify key publications on the topic and develop a list of search terms. A full search strategy for MEDLINE (OVID-SP) was subsequently developed in consultation with an academic librarian (KE) and research experts in the fields of preventive health assessments, primary care and disability (SHD, NL, RB, JB, BS, AL). The search was then systematically repeated in Medline (OVID-SP), Embase (OVID-SP), PsycINFO (OVID-SP), CINHAL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate). Database searches were conducted on 1 May 2023. The final search strategy can be found in Additional file 1 . Grey literature and theses were not searched.

Stage 3: study selection

All identified citations were uploaded into COVIDENCE [ 29 ], a web-based review platform, and duplicates removed. Following a pilot review, we undertook title and abstract screening and then full-text review using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2 ). Two reviewers (PC and JB) independently conducted all stages, with disagreements resolved through discussion.

Stage 4: data extraction

A data extraction template, developed within COVIDENCE and based on the scoping review template by JBI, was utilised. The template considered the methodological and design characteristics of each publication, study setting, and factors influencing uptake or implementation of health assessments. The data extraction tool underwent a pilot phase using two randomly selected publications. Following refinement through discussion, the tool was updated before application to the remaining publications (Additional file 2 ). Data extraction was carried out independently by JB and PC.

Stage 5: data analysis and presentation

As data were extracted, JB and PC independently deductively coded according to the single most relevant TDF domain. To do this, JB and PC read the whole publication, and then line-by-line considered the relevance to the definitions of each domain, attributing the data to the most relevant domain. To guide the data extraction and coding we developed a code book a priori . This code book was updated iteratively throughout the data extraction and analysis process by PC and JB. To facilitate consensus for coding extracted data to the most relevant TDF domain, JB and PC articulated their understanding of the coded text (i.e. key meaning) and justified their rationale for selecting the TDF domain by writing notes. JB and PC meet regularly, and resolved through discussion any differences in understanding of the most relevant domain the data should be coded to. Examples of data coded and categorised is provided in Table 3 .

Data coded to TDF domains were analysed in a recursive process that followed the steps of content analysis outlined by Elo and Kyngas [ 35 ]. Specifically:

PC and JB independently immersed themselves in the extracted data, reading and re-reading publications to get a sense of the whole, primarily to gain a general understanding of the data that had been deductively coded to TDF domains.

Within each TDF domain, PC and JB coded data as barriers or facilitators, writing notes and headings describing the content. ‘Barriers’ were defined as behaviours that impeded the implementation of health assessments, and ‘facilitators’ those that promoted health assessments. Examples of coded data categorised as a barrier or facilitator are detailed in Table 3 .

Building on the initial categorisation of barriers and facilitators, PC and JB developed higher level ‘factors’ that described the barrier/and or facilitator.

Through a process of comparison, rereading and revisiting source publications to review context, PC and JB refined the barriers, facilitators, and factors within each TDF domain.

During analysis it became apparent that study participants within some publications perceived the same factor differently. Consequently, a TDF domain could be mapped as both a barrier and a facilitator for the same publication. For example, some practitioners within a publication had known of or were already implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability, whereas others within the same publications were unaware. Throughout this process, PC and JB conferred to resolve any differences in categorisation or perceptions of relevance. This included reflection sessions between PC and JB, and collaboration with authors RB and AL. To ensure consistency, all authors, drawing on their experience, checked the results against their understanding of how targeted preventive health interventions were implemented in primary care, any access barriers to primary care for people with intellectual disability and the TDF itself.

Search results and publication selection

The search yielded 1057 publications. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, 21 publications were included as depicted in Fig. 1 .

PRISMA-ScR flow diagram

Characteristics of included studies

The characteristics of the 21 included publications, derived from 20 studies, are presented in Table 4 . The majority were qualitative study designs ( n =12). All included publications were undertaken in one of four high-income countries, presented here in descending order by frequency: United Kingdom ( n =14) [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], Australia ( n =3) [ 30 , 31 , 44 ], Canada ( n =3) [ 12 , 42 , 47 ], and the Netherlands ( n =1) [ 32 ]. Most were published between 2011 and 2023 ( n =15), with the remaining ( n =6) published between 1996 and 2002. The majority did not specify the rurality of the study setting, but five did include regional or rural perspectives [ 31 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Some publications had the primary care practice as the unit of analysis ( n =8), whereas others included perspectives solely from individual general medical practitioners (GPs) ( n =7), both GPs and practice nurses ( n =5), or practice nurses alone ( n =1). Most publications ( n =13) were set in primary care practices that were already implementing health assessments. Two publications from one study included people with intellectual disability as part of the research team [ 48 , 49 ].

Barriers and facilitators to implementation

In our review of the barriers and facilitators influencing practitioners’ behaviour regarding the implementation of health assessments, data were most frequently coded to the following TDF domains: a) environmental context and resources, b) skills, c) knowledge, and d) emotion. The frequency of each TDF domain is presented in Table 5 .

Domain 1: Knowledge

Factors identified within 13 publications corresponded to the knowledge domain. In the context of this review, this domain encompasses the awareness, or lack thereof, of vital information regarding people with intellectual disability and health assessments. Some practitioners expressed a lack of awareness regarding the adverse health outcomes experienced by people with intellectual disability [ 12 , 32 , 48 ], a lack of understanding about the assessments themselves [ 12 , 31 , 36 ] and unfamiliarity with their proven health benefits [ 30 , 31 , 33 , 45 , 46 , 50 ]. Although some GPs questioned the need for any screening at all in this patient group [ 45 ], others were aware of [ 12 , 30 , 43 , 44 ], and acknowledged the existence [ 31 , 45 ] and benefits of, health assessments [ 30 , 34 ]. More specific barriers included a lack of knowledge regarding precise codes in clinical information systems to identify patients with intellectual disability [ 32 , 50 ], and of evidence-based preventive care guidelines [ 31 ].

Domain 2: Skills

Sixteen publications identified factors corresponding to the skills domain, which in the context of this review refers to practitioners’ perspectives about possessing the training and skills required to perform the health assessments. Communication difficulties as a primary obstacle in conducting the health assessments were identified in six publications [ 30 , 32 , 34 , 41 , 48 ]. For example, practitioners may rely on support workers to communicate with the patient, which has the potential for diminishing the patient’s autonomy and ability to communicate effectively [ 40 ]. Conversely, this same publication suggested that interacting directly with the patient establishes both respect for, and empowerment of, the patient. One practice attempted to overcome barriers to communication by assigning all contact with patients to the member of their staff who had the most skills in, and comfort with, communicating with people with intellectual disability [ 42 ].

Other barriers mapped included both inadequate exposure to people with intellectual disability, and not enough relevant curriculum content throughout medical school as well as a lack of advanced training in this area [ 12 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 45 , 47 , 48 ]. Practitioners also recommended further education on the delivery of care to people with intellectual disability [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 44 , 47 , 50 ], and on how to conduct their health assessments [ 33 , 34 , 36 ]. There were a number of GPs who expressed the belief that all patients should be treated the same, which simply highlights the lack of training about the need for reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disability and targeted interventions to ensure access to care [ 12 , 48 , 50 ].

Domain 3: Social/professional role and identity

Factors identified within 10 publications corresponded to the social/professional role and identity domain, which in the context of this review covers the recognition that it is the practitioners’ responsibility to conduct health assessments. While most GPs acknowledged their responsibility to provide medical care to people with intellectual disability, some did not feel that it was their responsibility to undertake a yearly health assessment [ 37 , 43 , 45 ]. Others sought further clarity about the role before committing, as they felt out of their depth [ 30 , 34 ]. Conversely, several practitioners acknowledged that since people with intellectual disability live in the community, the initiation and management of medical care falls within the remit of general practice [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 45 , 47 , 50 ]. There were contradictory views regarding whose role it was to follow up any abnormal findings or referrals required as part of the health assessment. Some practitioners felt themselves to be responsible in ensuring that these plans are followed up and monitored [ 50 ], whereas others were confused as to whose role this was [ 47 ].

Domain 4: Beliefs about capabilities

Factors identified within seven publications corresponded to the beliefs about capabilities domain, which in the context of this review encompasses practitioners’ level of confidence in their ability to conduct health assessments. Practitioners at times felt unprepared, incompetent and/or lacked confidence in their ability to perform all aspects of the health assessments, thereby creating a barrier to their implementation [ 12 , 32 , 39 , 46 ]. However, as identified in four publications, some practitioners felt comfortable with caring for people with intellectual disability [ 34 ] and believed themselves to be capable of providing adequate care without having a special interest in the patient population [ 12 , 31 , 47 ].

Domain 5: Optimism

Factors identified within nine publications corresponded to the optimism domain, which in the context of this review refers to the general belief that health assessments are worthwhile, without specifying any expected outcomes. Barriers to implementing the health assessments were identified in six publications, specifically practitioners’ scepticism about the value of screening [ 31 , 34 , 45 , 46 , 48 ] and their inability to perceive any associated benefits from providing the assessments [ 30 ]. Conversely, a sense of optimism among practitioners that assessments were beneficial for patients was identified in seven publications [ 12 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 47 , 48 ].

Domain 6: Beliefs about consequences

Factors identified within 10 publications corresponded to the beliefs about consequences domain, which in the context of this review relates to understanding the potential outcomes of providing health assessments. The majority of publications identified the provision of health assessments as a facilitating factor both for practitioners [ 12 , 32 , 47 ] and for support workers [ 30 ] to gain further knowledge on how best to care for patients with intellectual disability. The assessments were also seen as a means of building collaboration between the parties involved [ 44 , 47 ], and of further developing the practitioner–patient relationship through enhanced continuity of care [ 32 , 47 , 48 ]. Furthermore, there was a common belief among practitioners that assessments specifically lead to an improvement in health outcomes for those patients who utilise them [ 30 , 32 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 ]. However, a perception that more evidence on the benefits of health assessments was required to support their implementation was identified in three publications [ 31 , 32 , 43 ].

Domain 7: Reinforcement

Factors identified within seven publications corresponded to the reinforcement domain, which in the context of this review looks at the incentives needed to influence the implementation of health assessments. Five publications indicated that practitioners believed there is insufficient financial compensation for the extra time required to prepare for and provide these assessments [ 12 , 32 , 38 , 47 , 48 ]. However, in two other publications, these sentiments were contradicted, with participants claiming that there was adequate compensation both to implement health assessments [ 31 ] and to attend the necessary training [ 42 ].

Domain 8: Intentions

Factors identified within nine publications corresponded to the intentions domain, which in the context of this review relates to how inclined practitioners are to provide health assessments to people with intellectual disability. Barriers to this included a perceived lack of willingness to do so [ 47 ], an explicit admission that the provision of health assessments was not a priority [ 42 ] and a general lack of interest in providing care for people with intellectual disability at all [ 30 ]. Additionally, some practices had practitioners attempting to conduct the assessment within a 15-min consultation, thereby demonstrating a lack of intent to provide a comprehensive service [ 36 , 48 ]. Practitioners who were facilitating the implementation of health assessments were driven either by a personal interest [ 33 , 45 , 50 ] or a practice-wide focus [ 42 ]. Practices that intended to implement reasonable adjustments—including the offer of home visits [ 48 ], weekend clinics [ 36 ], greater choice in appointment times, reduced wait times [ 50 ] and the provision of Easy Read heath information [ 39 ]—were identified in four publications.

Domain 9: Goals

A factor identified within one publication corresponded to the goals domain, which indicated that a practice had set a specific goal of providing health assessments to 75% of its patients with intellectual disability within an 18-month period [ 42 ]. This facilitating factor demonstrated a commitment to the goal of promoting the delivery of health assessments and to improving the quality of care to people with intellectual disability.

Domain 10: Memory, attention and decision processes

Factors identified within seven publications corresponded to the memory, attention and decision processes domain. In the context of this review, this domain relates to the ability to remember, or to pay attention to, the relevant information needed to make informed decisions relating to health assessments. Barriers identified in seven publications were associated with actually identifying people with intellectual disability due to the lack of a sufficient pre-existing registry or list of eligible patients on clinical information systems [ 32 , 33 , 36 , 42 , 43 , 48 , 50 ]. One of the publications described a practice that utilised an alert system to inform practitioners about upcoming health assessments. Timely reminders such as this are an excellent mechanism to enhance memory and attention [ 42 ].

Domain 11: Environmental context and resources

Factors identified within 18 publications corresponded to the environmental context and resources domain. In the context of this review, this domain refers to the availability of the resources needed to encourage or discourage the implementation of health assessments. Concerns were raised about the ability of support workers and advocates to contribute effectively to the assessment process due to a lack of clarity about their roles [ 30 ], their unfamiliarity with the patients [ 31 ] and even that their involvement could result in disempowering the patients [ 40 ] or practitioner [ 41 ]. However, the important role that support workers play, both in making patients feel comfortable and in encouraging their acceptance of recommended health interventions, was also recognised [ 31 , 33 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 48 , 50 ]. Some practitioners reported that a lack of support workers [ 30 , 38 ], allied health staff or specialist service providers [ 31 , 32 , 37 , 48 ] posed a barrier to conducting health assessments. These professionals were valued for their ability to enhance the process and reduce the time required to perform health assessments [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 43 , 45 ]. There was a suggestion from several GPs that physicians who specialise in treating patients with intellectual disability could aid in the identification of patients requiring assessment [ 32 ].

A general lack of resources and inadequate time to support the implementation of health assessments were other barriers indicated by practitioners, as assessments not only take longer than standard consultations but also require additional preparation and training [ 12 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 48 ]. Patient-related barriers identified as acting as a deterrent included the perceived lack of demand for health assessments from people with intellectual disability [ 46 ], their limited access to general practice [ 30 ], practitioners’ difficulties in contacting patients [ 48 ] and the need for longer appointments [ 42 ]. Easy access to patient histories [ 31 , 34 ] and to health assessment template scripts [ 30 , 44 , 47 , 48 ], along with electronic compatibility of these templates with existing information systems, were identified as facilitators [ 42 , 47 ].

Domain 12: Social influence

Factors identified within five publications corresponded to the social influence domain, all of which were mapped as facilitators. In the context of this review, this domain relates to interpersonal processes and relationships that influence the implementation of health assessments, such as the encouragement received from colleagues who shared good practices and provided positive reinforcement [ 50 ]. Additional support for practices to conduct the health assessments came from stakeholder groups [ 37 , 47 ] and communities [ 31 , 44 ] and was also mapped as a motivating factor in their implementation.

Domain 13: Emotion

Factors identified within 12 publications corresponded to the emotion domain, which in the context of this review encompasses the complex feelings and attitudes of practitioners regarding the provision of health assessments. Emotions coded as barriers were identified in nine of these publications with burn-out, the most commonly mentioned, appearing in six [ 34 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 45 , 46 ]. Practitioners with an already high workload expressed concerns about feeling overwhelmed by the additional work required to provide health assessments. Conversely, within six publications facilitating factors were identified with the most frequently mentioned being eagerness to perform assessments [ 32 , 47 , 48 , 50 ] and satisfaction with the care that practitioners were able to provide [ 33 , 34 , 47 ]. Other less commonly identified barriers included anxiety about performing health assessments [ 33 ] and an aversion to completing the checklists [ 32 ], along with the fear of stigmatising patients, particularly if they had not yet received a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability [ 32 , 42 ].

Domain 14: Behavioural regulation

Factors identified within five publications corresponded to the behavioural regulation domain, which in the context of this review refers to the self-monitoring and management of implementation strategies that will continuously improve the health assessment process. Barriers relating to organisational factors were identified in two publications. One highlighted the coordination issues that arise from the regular scheduling of these periodic assessments [ 30 ], while the other described a practice’s difficulties in scheduling patients due to the limitations of its clinical information system [ 50 ]. Facilitating factors identified in two publications included the recruitment of a coordinator to a practice to handle the organisation and uptake of health assessments [ 36 , 50 ] and a proposal by another practice to automate its computer system to prompt staff when a patient was due for their next assessment [ 42 ]. Other facilitating factors mapped related to whether practices actively sought [ 33 , 42 ] or responded to feedback from patients and their families. Feedback that was thought to improve the implementation of health assessments was identified in three publications [ 50 ].

This scoping review identified a range of barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of health assessments in primary care for people with intellectual disability. These were mapped to each of the 14 TDF domains. Potential barriers and facilitators were identified within each domain. The most commonly identified barriers were a lack of awareness regarding the availability and advantages of health assessments specifically targeting individuals with intellectual disability, and concerns about a perceived deficiency in the training and experience of the health care professionals conducting these assessments. Time constraints, lack of availability of staff to support health assessment processes, and practitioner burnout given already high workloads also emerged as barriers. A further barrier to implementation was the inability of many practices to identify the records of patients with intellectual disability in primary care clinical information systems.

Conversely, several facilitators were identified and mapped. Primary care professionals recognised their role in providing health assessments to people with intellectual disability and an eagerness to provide preventive health care. Also identified was a belief in the overall effectiveness of assessments in improving health outcomes, and the potential for these health assessments to facilitate care coordination among practitioners, support personnel and others. Access to resources such as health assessment template scripts, complemented by the electronic compatibility of these templates with existing information systems, was highlighted as pivotal in supporting successful implementation.

The most frequently mapped TDF domains were as follows: (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion. The predominance of the environmental context and resources domain identified in this review is consistent with other studies that have utilised the TDF to assess barriers and facilitators to accessing preventive health care [ 22 , 23 , 51 ]. It is also in line with contemporary evidence about the importance of taking a systems perspective when implementing interventions [ 52 ]. Under-reported in our review were the domains of (a) goals, (b) behavioural regulation and (c) social influences. Similarly, Atkins and colleagues [ 23 ] undertook a systematic review using the TDF to examine the uptake of health assessments for people aged 40–74 years in the UK and found a paucity of reporting of the TDF domains related to goals and behavioural regulation. Interestingly, our study differed with Atkins and colleagues [ 23 ] in that we found a deficit in the reporting of barriers and facilitators related to social influences whereas they did not. There is a need for further inquiry into these three TDF domains to ensure that primary care practices have a nuanced understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementation of health assessments for people with an intellectual disability.

Consistent with our review, common findings across studies that have used the TDF to examine uptake of health assessments for other targeted population groups have included the perception that practitioners are inadequately trained in the delivery of comprehensive health assessments [ 22 , 23 ] the belief that screening and preventive care should be performed by specialists in the respective patient population’s field [ 22 , 23 ] and a perceived lack of knowledge about relevant health information relating to the patient group [ 21 , 22 ].

A key finding in our review was that many practitioners identified a lack of skills, knowledge and confidence in providing preventive health care to people with intellectual disability. This is unsurprising given that audits of medical and nursing curricula in Australia revealed that, on average, less than 6 h of teaching time was devoted to intellectual disability throughout any of the degree programmes, with the majority of nursing schools providing none [ 53 , 54 ]. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, established in 2019, found that Australian health professionals often do not have the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for addressing the health needs of people with intellectual disability [ 55 , 56 ]. However, research indicates that those health professionals who have received training in disability-related knowledge and communication skills feel more positive and confident in delivering care to those with disability [ 57 ].

Although this review included international literature with no date limits applied, there were only 21 publications, derived from 20 studies that met the eligibility criteria. This limited amount of literature also only comes from four high-income countries—the UK, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. This is likely to be because these countries have policy settings related to the implementation of structured annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine practice in primary care, as well as the resources to investigate their impact. For example, in the UK and Australia, there are specific policy directives to strengthen the uptake of health assessments, such as Australia’s National Roadmap to Improve Health Outcomes for People with Intellectual Disability [ 5 ] and the UK’s Direct Enhanced Service [ 6 ].

The need to improve health outcomes for people with intellectual disability is gaining increasing attention. However, even though interventions or actions designed to address known barriers to quality care are more likely to produce change, there have been few interventions based on a systematic assessment of barriers [ 58 , 59 ]. As such, this review provides a foundation for future primary research regarding relevant behavioural change interventions [ 60 ]. In addition, there is a need for more qualitative research that examines the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding the implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general and that includes the views of primary care practitioners who are not currently undertaking health assessments.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of our review are as follows: 1) a published a priori protocol; and 2) the rigour of having two reviewers independently conducting screening, full text review and data extraction. Review limitations include: 1) the risk of language bias as only publications in English were included; 2) potentially missing relevant evidence as we excluded grey literature and theses; 3) possible selection bias as more than half of the publications involved practitioners who were already implementing health assessments and so would potentially be more motivated to conduct them; 4) all publications were from high-income countries—potentially reflecting where the policy initiatives have driven related investigation.

The comprehensiveness of our review is contingent upon the scope of the incorporated studies, and these have not all taken a comprehensive approach to investigating barriers and facilitators that hinder or support the implementation of health assessments. Consequently, the insights only present a partial picture of influences on behaviours. To clarify, when a TDF domain is indicated as irrelevant to a certain behaviour, it could stem from the fact that no investigation into the barriers and facilitators related to that domain was conducted in the study, rather than from concrete evidence suggesting its irrelevance. A further limitation is that our coding of the barriers and enablers to the most predominant domain does not account for potential relevance of barriers and enablers across domains.

Conclusions

Using a well-established theory-based framework, this scoping review provides a synthesis of the current literature describing barriers and enablers that impact on the implementation of comprehensive health assessments for people with intellectual disability in the primary care setting. Further inquiry into the TDF domains of (a) goals, (b) behavioural regulations and (c) social influences may be warranted to ensure a comprehensive understanding of what drives and constrains the implementation of health assessments for people with intellectual disability in primary care. These insights provide a foundation for future research to improve the delivery and accessibility of preventive care for people with intellectual disability.

Availability of data and materials

Available on request, by contacting the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

Theoretical Domains Framework

Trollor J, Srasuebkul P, Xu H, Howlett S. Cause of death and potentially avoidable deaths in Australian adults with intellectual disability using retrospective linked data. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e013489. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013489 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Cooper SA, McLean G, Guthrie B, McConnachie A, Mercer S, Sullivan F, et al. Multiple physical and mental health comorbidity in adults with intellectual disabilities: population-based cross-sectional analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0329-3 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lennox N, Bain C, Rey-Conde T, Purdie D, Bush R, Pandeya N. Effects of a comprehensive health assessment programme for Australian adults with intellectual disability: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(1):139–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl254 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Weise J, Pollack AJ, Britt H, Trollor JN. Who provides primary health care for people with an intellectual disability: General practitioner and general practice characteristics from the BEACH dataset. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;42(4):416–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1250252 .

Article Google Scholar

Australian Goverment Department of Health and Aged Care. National Roadmap for Improving the Health of People with Intellectual Disability. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2021. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/national-roadmap-for-improving-the-health-of-people-with-intellectual-disability . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

Google Scholar

National Health Service. Primary Medical Services (Directed Enhanced Services) Directions. NHS England; 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/primary-medical-services-directed-enhanced-services-directions . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

Cantrell A, Croot E, Johnson M, Wong R, Chambers D, Baxter SK, et al. Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2020; https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08050 .

Cooper SA, Morrison J, Allan LM, McConnachie A, Greenlaw N, Melville CA, et al. Practice nurse health checks for adults with intellectual disabilities: a cluster-design, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(7):511–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(14)00078-9 .

Bakker-van Gijssel E, Lucassen P, Hartman TO, Van Son L, Assendelft W, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H. Health assessment instruments for people with intellectual disabilities—A systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;64:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.03.002 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Byrne JH, Lennox NG, Ware RS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of primary healthcare interventions on health actions in people with intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2016;41(1):66–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2015.1105939 .

Carey IM, Shah SM, Hosking FJ, DeWilde S, Harris T, Beighton C, et al. Health characteristics and consultation patterns of people with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional database study in English general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(645):e264-ee70. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X684301 .

Durbin J, Selick A, Casson I, Green L, Perry A, Chacra MA, et al. Improving the quality of primary care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Value of the periodic health examination. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(Suppl 1):S66-s72.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Byrne JH, Ware RS, Lennox NG. Health actions prompted by health assessments for people with intellectual disability exceed actions recorded in general practitioners’ records. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(3):317–20. https://doi.org/10.1071/py14007 .

Kennedy N, Brophy S, Kennedy J, Kerr M. Mortality in adults with learning disabilities with and without a health check: A cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394:S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32824-7 .

Koritsas S, Iacono T, Davis R. Australian general practitioner uptake of a remunerated Medicare health assessment for people with intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2012;37(2):151–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2012.676636 .

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 .

Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):77.

Paksaite P, Crosskey J, Sula E, West C, Watson M. A systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to the adoption of prescribing guidelines. Int J Pharm Pract. 2021;29(1):3–11.

Gangathimmaiah V, Evans R, Moodley N, Sen Gupta T, Drever N, Cardona M, et al. Identification of barriers, enablers and interventions to inform deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice: A protocol for a mixed methods scoping review informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e062755.

Craig LE, McInnes E, Taylor N, Grimley R, Cadilhac DA, Considine J, et al. Identifying the barriers and enablers for a triage, treatment, and transfer clinical intervention to manage acute stroke patients in the emergency department: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):157.

Davies J, Remington A, Buckley C, et al. “It seems like a luxury to be able to offer that”: Factors influencing the implementation of annual health checks for autistic people in England. Autism. 2023;2023:13623613231182012. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231182011 .

Alexander KE, Brijnath B, Mazza D. Barriers and enablers to delivery of the Healthy Kids Check: an analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-60 .

Atkins L, Stefanidou C, Chadborn T, Thompson K, Michie S, Lorencatto F. Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1359. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09365-2 .

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, McLnerney P, Godfrey CM, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4).

Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

Caltabiano P, Bailie J, Laycock A, Shea B, Lennox N, Ekanayake K, et al. Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of comprehensive health assessments for people with an intellectual disability in primary care: a scoping review protocol. OSF; 2023. https://osf.io/7zbwm/ . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

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

Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation; 2020. Available from www.covidence.org . Accessed 14 Apr 2024.

Lennox NG, Brolan CE, Dean J, Ware RS, Boyle FM, Taylor Gomez M, et al. General practitioners’ views on perceived and actual gains, benefits and barriers associated with the implementation of an Australian health assessment for people with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(10):913–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01586.x .

Burton H, Walters L. Access to Medicare-funded annual comprehensive health assessments for rural people with intellectual disability. Rural Remote Health. 2013;13(3):2278. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH2278z .

Bakker-van Gijssel EJ, Olde Hartman TC, Lucassen PL, van den Driessen MF, Dees MK, Assendelft WJ, et al. GPs’ opinions of health assessment instruments for people with intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(654):e41-ee8. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X688585 .

Bollard M. Improving primary health care for people with learning disabilities. Br J Nurs. 1999;8(18):1216. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.1999.8.18.6484 .

Macdonald S, Morrison J, Melville CA, Baltzer M, MacArthur L, Cooper SA. Embedding routine health checks for adults with intellectual disabilities in primary care: practice nurse perceptions. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2018;62(4):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12475 .

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x .

Anderson K, Jones J. Improving annual health checks for service users. Learn Disabil Pract. 2015;18(9):18. https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.18.9.18.s24 .

Bond L, Kerr M, Dunstan F, Thapar A. Attitudes of general practitioners towards health care for people with intellectual disability and the factors underlying these attitudes. J Intellect Disabil Res. 1997;41(Pt 5):391–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1997.tb00726.x .

Chambers R, Milsom G, Evans N, Lucking A, Campbell I. The primary care workload and prescribing costs associated with patients with learning disability discharged from long-stay care to the community. Br J Learn Disabil. 1998;26(1):9–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.1998.tb00039.x .

Chinn D. An empirical examination of the use of Easy Read health information in health consultations involving patients with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2020;33(2):232–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12657 .

Chinn D, Rudall D. Who is Asked and Who Gets to Answer the Health-Care Practitioner’s Questions When Patients with Intellectual Disabilities Attend UK General Practice Health Checks with Their Companions? Health Commun. 2021;36(4):487–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700440 .

Chinn D. “I Have to Explain to him”: How Companions Broker Mutual Understanding Between Patients with Intellectual Disabilities and Health Care Practitioners in Primary Care. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(8–9):1215–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221089875 .

Durbin J, Selick A, Casson I, Green L, Spassiani N, Perry A, et al. Evaluating the Implementation of Health Checks for Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Primary Care: The Importance of Organizational Context. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2016;54(2):136–50. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.2.136 .

Kerr M, Dunstan F, Thapar A. Attitudes of general practitioners to caring for people with learning disability. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(403):92–4.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lennox NG, Green M, Diggens J, Ugoni A. Audit and comprehensive health assessment programme in the primary healthcare of adults with intellectual disability: a pilot study. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2001;45(Pt 3):226–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00303.x .

McConkey R, Moore G, Marshall D. Changes in the Attitudes of GPs to the Health Screening of Patients with Learning Disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2002;6(4):373–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/146900470200600404 .

McConkey R, Taggart L, Kane M. Optimizing the uptake of health checks for people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil. 2015;19(3):205–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629514568437 .

Shooshtari S, Temple B, Waldman C, Abraham S, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Lennox N. Stakeholders’ Perspectives towards the Use of the Comprehensive Health Assessment Program (CHAP) for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in Manitoba. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2017;30(4):672–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12261 .

Walmsley J. An investigation into the implementation of annual health checks for people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil. 2011;15(3):157–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629511423722 .

Michell B. Checking Up On Des: My Life My Choice's research into annual health checks for people with learning disabilities in Oxfordshire. Br J Learn Disabil. 2012;40 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2012.00742.x .

Wigham S, Bourne J, McKenzie K, Rowlands G, Petersen K, Hackett S. Improving access to primary care and annual health checks for people who have a learning disability: a multistakeholder qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e065945. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065945 .

Sethu S, Lawrenson JG, Kekunnaya R, Ali R, Borah RR, Suttle C. Barriers and enablers to access childhood cataract services across India. A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behaviour change. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0261308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261308 .

Whelan J, Fraser P, Bolton KA, Love P, Strugnell C, Boelsen-Robinson T, et al. Combining systems thinking approaches and implementation science constructs within community-based prevention: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):85.

Trollor JN, Ruffell B, Tracy J, Torr JJ, Durvasula S, Iacono T, et al. Intellectual disability health content within medical curriculum: an audit of what our future doctors are taught. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0625-1 .

Trollor JN, Eagleson C, Turner B, Salomon C, Cashin A, Iacono T, et al. Intellectual disability health content within nursing curriculum: An audit of what our future nurses are taught. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;45:72–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.011 .

Royal Commission into Violence Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Public hearing report: public hearing 10 education and training of health professionals in relation to people with cognitive disability. 2022. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/public-hearing-10 . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

Royal Commission into Violence Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Final report of the royal commission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability. 2023. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report . Accessed 17 Feb 2024 .

Smith SE, McCann HP, Dykens EM, Hodapp RM. Chapter six - The disability-training needs of healthcare professionals: Scoping review and new initiatives. Int Rev Res Dev Disabil. 2020;58:219–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irrdd.2020.07.003 .

Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub3 .

Gagliardi AR, Alhabib S. Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0247-8 .

Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel. In: A guide to designing interventions. 1st ed. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing; 2014. p. 1003–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Jane Yule for editing and proof-reading support and thank Professor Megan Passey for her comments on an early draft of the manuscript.

This project was completed as a course requirement for the Doctor of Medicine at The University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine and Health. JB is supported by the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Disability Health, grant #1116385 and NHMRC Synergy Grant ‘Developing interventions for better life-time mental health for young Australians (aged 15 to 24 years) with disability’, grant #2010290.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Dubbo, Australia

Paul Caltabiano

Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

Paul Caltabiano & Bradley Shea

University Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Lismore, Australia

Jodie Bailie, Alison Laycock & Bradley Shea

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

Jodie Bailie

Rural Clinical School, Australian National University, ACT, Canberra, Australia

Sally Hall Dykgraaf

Queensland Centre for Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Mater Research Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Nicholas Lennox

University of Sydney Library, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

Kanchana Ekanayake

School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

Ross Bailie

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JB conceived of the study; PC and JB designed the study; JB, PC, KE and RB developed the search terms and database searches with input from NL, SHD and BS. PC and JB independently screened the papers and undertook data extraction, with conflicts resolved through discussion between PC and JB; PC led the analysis and writing of the manuscript. AL provided expert advice regarding the TDF. PC, JB, AL, BS, SHD, NL, KE and RB critically reviewed draft versions of the manuscript, revisions were made in response to their input. PC, JB, AL, BS, SHD, NL, KE and RB gave final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jodie Bailie .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethics approval was required and consent to participate is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The University of Queensland owns one particular targeted preventive health assessment for people with intellectual disability, which is generically mentioned in this manuscript. The university receives licensing fees from organisations using this health assessment. One third of these fees are paid to Professor Nicholas Lennox.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., 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.

Caltabiano, P., Bailie, J., Laycock, A. et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed scoping review. Implement Sci Commun 5 , 39 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00579-8

Download citation

Received : 29 September 2023

Accepted : 05 April 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00579-8

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

Health assessments
Intellectual disability
Primary care
Implementation
Theoretical domains framework
Scoping review

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

Starting Literature Review in Qualitative Research: An Illustration Using the Mirror Effect

First Online: 05 January 2019

Cite this chapter

Wing Yee Ho 4

1118 Accesses

1 Citations

Mirroring is a group phenomenon. Through action, people can recognize themselves, or a characteristic of themselves (usually the repressed side), reflected in the verbal and nonverbal behaviors in others as if they were looking into a mirror. It is a fundamental process in the development of the ego. By distinguishing themselves from others, clients discover their own identity, which is what makes them individual. Positive, benign mirroring is implemented as a way to develop new self-image through the “constructive act of recognizing self in others, and others in self….

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

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Amsterdam, B. (1972). Mirror self-image reactions before age two. Developmental Psychology, 5 (4), 297–305.

Article Google Scholar

Asendorpf, J. B., & Baudonnaiere, P. M. (1993). Self-awareness and other-awareness: Mirror self-recognition and synchronic imitation among unfamiliar peers. Developmental Psychology, 29 (1), 88–95.

Berger, M. (2012). The dynamics of mirror reactions and their impact on the analytic group. In J. L. Kleinberg (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of group psychotherapy (pp. 197–216). Madlen: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Bertenthal, B. I., & Longo, M. R. (2007). Is there evidence of a mirror system from birth? Developmental Science, 10 (5), 526–529.

Blatner, A. (2000). Foundations of psychodrama: History, theory, and practice (4th ed.). New York: Springer.

Bolton, G. (1984). Drama as Education . London: Longman.

Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, 27 (4), 651–677.

Chazan, R. (2001). The group as therapist . London: Jessica Kingsley.

Comer, J. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2013). Methodology, design, and evaluation in psychotherapy research. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th ed., pp. 21–48). New York, NY: Wiley.

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2014). Psychology: Modules for active learning (13th ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.

Cottrell, R., & McKenzie, J. F. (2011). Health promotion and education research methods: Using the five-chapter thesis/dissertation model . Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

de Hamilton, A. F. C. (2008). Emulation and mimicry for social interaction: a theoretical approach to imitation in autism. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (1), 101–115.

Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91, 176–180.

Djurić, Z., Veljković, J., & Tomić, M. (2006). Psychodrama: A beginner’s guide . London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Farmer, C., & Geller, M. (2003). Applying psychodrama in the family systems therapy of Bowen. In J. Gershoni (Ed.), Psychodrama in the 21st century: Clinical and educational applications (pp. 31–48). New York: Springer.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Gallese, V., Rochat, M. J., & Berchio, C. (2013). The mirror mechanism and its potential role in autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55 (1), 15–22.

Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self recognition. Science, 167 (3914), 86–87.

Karp, M. (2003). An introduction to psychodrama. In M. Karp, P. Holmes, & K. B. Tauvon (Eds.), The handbook of psychodrama (pp. 3–13). London, New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Katagiri, M., Inada, N., & Kamio, Y. (2010). Mirroring effect in 2- and 3-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4 (3), 474–478.

Kellermann, P. F. (2000). The therapeutic aspects of psychodrama with traumatized people. In P. F. Kellermann & M. K. Hudgins (Eds.), Psychodrama with trauma survivors: Acting out your pain (pp. 23–40). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Kellermann, P. F. (2007). Let’s face it: Mirroring in psychodrama. In C. Baim, J. Burmeister, & M. Maciel (Eds.), Psychodrama: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 83–95). London: Routledge.

Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners (4th ed.). New Delhi, India: Sage.

Lacoboni, M. (2009). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others . New York: Picador.

Leveton, E. (2001). A clinician’s guide to psychodrama (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.

Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self . New York: Plenum Press.

Book Google Scholar

Lewis, M., & Ramsay, D. (2004). Development of self-recognition, personal pronoun use, and pretend play during the 2nd year. Child Development, 75 (6), 1821–1831.

Lichtenberg, J. D. (1982). Reflections on the first year of life. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 1 (4), 695–729.

Lichtenberg, J. D. (1985). Mirrors and mirroring: Developmental experiences. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 5 (2), 199–210.

Lichtenberg, J. D. (1989). Psychoanalysis and motivation . Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.

Lo, T. W., & Ho, W. Y. (2012). Action therapy: Application of psychodrama in teaching counseling in Hong Kong tertiary education. DaTEAsia, 3, 93–110. [In Chinese].

Lousada, O. (2005). The three-layered cake, butter with everything. In M. Karp, P. Holmes, & K. B. Tauvon (Eds.), The handbook of psychodrama (pp. 213–236). London, New York: Brunner-Routledge.

McGarry, L. M., & Russo, F. A. (2011). Mirroring in dance/movement therapy: Potential mechanisms behind empathy enhancement. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 38 (3), 178–184.

Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama: First volume . Beacon: Beacon House.

Moreno, J. L., & Moreno, Z. T. (1969). Psychodrama: Third volume, action therapy and principles of practice . Beacon: Beacon House.

Nolte, J. (2012). Non-clinical psychodrama: Lawyers and the psychodramatic method. The Journal of Psychodrama, Sociometry and Group Psychotherapy, 60 (2), 7–14.

Oberman, L. M., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2009). Reflections on the mirror neuron system: Their evolutionary functions beyond motor representation. In J. A. Pineda (Ed.), Mirror neuron systems the role of mirroring processes in social cognition (pp. 39–62). New York, NY: Humana Press.

Pan, M. L. (2008). Literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale: Pryezak Publishing.

Paul, O. (2012). Succeeding with your literature review: A handbook for students . New York: Open University Press.

Peterson, J. (2003). The synergism of art therapy and psychodrama. In J. Gershoni (Ed.), Psychodrama in the 21st century: Clinical and educational applications (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer.

Povinelli, D. J., & Prince, C. G. (1998). In M. Ferrari & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its nature and development (pp. 39–108). New York: The Guilford Press.

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.

Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2006). Mirrors in the mind. Scientific American, 295 (5), 54–61.

Rosen, L. H., & Patterson, M. M. (2011). The self and identity. In M. K. Underwood & L. H. Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (pp. 73–100). New York: The Guilford Press.

Tauvon, K. B. (2003). Principles of psychodrama. In M. Karp, P. Holmes, & K. B. Tauvon (Eds.), The handbook of psychodrama (pp. 29–46). London, New York: Routledge.

Tolson, E. R., Reid, W. J., & Garvin, C. D. (2003). Generalist practice: A task-centred approach . New York: Columbia University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China

Wing Yee Ho

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wing Yee Ho .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Kwok Kuen Tsang

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

School of Humanities, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Ho, W.Y. (2019). Starting Literature Review in Qualitative Research: An Illustration Using the Mirror Effect. In: Tsang, K., Liu, D., Hong, Y. (eds) Challenges and Opportunities in Qualitative Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5811-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5811-1_2

Published : 05 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-5810-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-5811-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Open access
Published: 18 April 2024

Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of palliative care clinicians’ experiences

Alexandra Guité-Verret 1 , 2 ,
Jessica Boivin 2 , 3 , 4 ,
Andrew M. R. Hanna 5 ,
James Downar 5 , 6 ,
Shirley H. Bush 5 , 6 , 7 ,
Isabelle Marcoux 2 , 8 ,
Diane Guay 2 , 9 ,
Diane Tapp 2 , 4 , 10 ,
Julie Lapenskie 5 , 7 &
Bruno Gagnon 2 , 4 , 5 , 11

BMC Palliative Care volume 23 , Article number: 104 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation.

This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians’ experiences with continuous palliative sedation.

We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions.

Setting/participants

We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death.

Conclusions

Interaction with the patient’s family, uncertainty about the patient’s prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice.

Peer Review reports

Focused on accompanying dying individuals and their families, palliative care aims to relieve the suffering of patients at a physical, psychological, social, and existential level. When patients continue to experience severe uncontrollable symptoms despite optimal palliative care, continuous sedation, i.e., the reduction of the patient’s consciousness through sedatives until death, becomes a last-resort option [ 1 ]. Important discrepancies in practicing continuous sedation are reported in the literature, leading to a varying prevalence worldwide and a lack of a consensus on its definition [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Validated instruments exist for assessing sedation effects in palliative care, but recent systematic reviews highlight the need for clearer guidelines on identifying patients who may benefit from continuous sedation [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In addition, guideline recommendations are not always aligned with the reality of palliative care practice. [ 1 , 7 , 8 ] This dissonance is particularly evident in home care settings, where the applicability of guidelines is called into question. [ 9 , 10 ] It is crucial to explicitly define and critically examine palliative sedation, including its potential risks and ethical considerations, to ensure the quality of palliative care [ 11 ].

The most common indications for continuous sedation are agitated delirium, pain and dyspnea, [ 4 , 12 , 13 ] while its use for existential suffering is controversial [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. The indications for continuous sedation are linked to clinicians’ intention to offer a “good” death for the patient and their family [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Palliative care clinicians also encounter challenges in providing quality sedation, including fear that continuous sedation hastens death, conflicting wishes between patients and families, and disagreements within care teams [ 13 , 23 , 24 , 25 ].

Another aspect that arises from the literature is the evolving nature of continuous sedation in light of the legalization of assisted death, also known as “medical assistance in dying” in Canada. In Western Europe and North America, assisted death has impacted continuous sedation practice, particularly regarding patients’ requests, clinicians’ intentions, and decision-making [ 26 ]. Patients and families tend to be more familiar with assisted death than continuous sedation, [ 26 , 27 ] reflecting the limited public understanding of palliative care [ 28 , 29 , 30 ].

The aforementioned are primarily based on literature reviews and studies conducted in the past decade. There is a need for new empirical data that can provide insights into the quality of palliative sedation from the perspective of palliative care clinicians [ 4 ]. It is important to study what they consider to be the recent challenges they face in their practice.

The aim of this study was (1) to describe the experiences of clinicians from various palliative care settings in using continuous sedation, and (2) to explore how assisted death influences palliative sedation practices. This study is part of a wider research project aimed at developing a palliative care educational module for healthcare professionals.

Methodological approach and position

This qualitative study followed the approach and guidelines of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis [ 31 ], with theoretical underpinnings from phenomenology and hermeneutics. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis aims to interpret participants’ personal experiences. [ 31 , 32 ] It is based on a constructivist methodological position [ 33 ]. This position shapes our ontological and epistemological stance, assuming that reality is constructed by the context, including participants’ lived experiences, the social environment, and the interaction between participants and researchers [ 33 ]. We chose Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis for our research because it enabled us to understand the meaning of palliative care clinicians’ work and their ways of caring according to current practices and social context.

To ensure rigor of this study, we adhered to Tracy’s quality criteria in qualitative research [ 34 ] (see Table 1 ).

Participants and recruitment

Participants comprised 28 palliative care clinicians, including 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula, working in various care settings across Canada (see Table 2 ). We recruited participants via four palliative care organizations and snowball sampling and contacted them by e-mail. Eligibility criteria were: (a) be a healthcare professional; (b) provide continuous palliative sedation or have been involved in the care of at least one adult patient who received continuous palliative sedation when death was imminent; (c) work in a palliative care setting in Canada. No exclusion criteria were identified. In line with qualitative and phenomenological research recommendations [ 31 ], we recruited a small sample to describe clinicians’ lived experience in their specific care settings. We aimed for a total of 25 to 30 participants, forming four to six focus groups of four to eight individuals each. Recruitment ceased when the predetermined number of participants was reached.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec-Université Laval, where the study was conducted (no. 2023–6462, approved on July 9, 2022). All study participants provided written informed consent for study participation, data analysis, and publication.

Data collection

Participants were invited to partake in one focus group to discuss their experiences of continuous palliative sedation. A focus group design was used to explore people’s knowledge and experiences, as it creates a space to reflect and share multiple views [ 35 ]. Group interactions are an integral part of this method, as they facilitate participants in clarifying their perceptions and understanding of the topic. [ 35 , 36 ] A semi-structured interview guide was developed for this study by our research team for use in the focus groups.

Six semi-structured qualitative focus groups were conducted virtually using an online platform from October 2022 to March 2023. Each participant took part in only one of the six focus groups. Each focus group was conducted in either English ( n = 5) or French ( n = 1), by grouping participants according to their language. Focus groups consisted of 4 to 8 participants, with discussions lasting from 68 to 124 min. The interviewer started with the focus group with the following statement so that participants have a common definition to discuss: “We are referring only to continuous palliative sedation when death is imminent. Intermittent sedation and withdrawal or withholding or life-sustaining treatments are not intended topics of discussion for our focus group”. Through a series of open-ended questions, the interviewer elicited information on how the participants define continuous palliative sedation, their experiences, and any impact of assisted death and the COVID-19 pandemic on their practice (see Table 3 ). Focus groups were video recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

Focus groups data analysis was conducted using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis methodology, according to the following steps: (1) data immersion by reading the first case (i.e., the first focus group); (2) developing emergent themes and associate them to participants’ quotes; (3) searching for connections across the emergent themes; (4) repeating steps 1 to 3 with each case; (5) looking for patterns across cases; (6) presenting a general structure of meaning [ 31 ]. This inductive method allowed the researchers to go beyond the initial themes and uncover the latent meaning, enabling an interpretative understanding of the data [ 37 ].

Participants shared a common understanding of continuous sedation, despite variations in terminology, attitudes, and practices. Continuous sedation was described as: (a) a last resort intervention for patients whose symptoms can no longer be controlled despite trying all available palliative therapy options (see Tables 4 and 5 ); (b) an intervention provided when the clinical prognosis is less than two weeks; (c) an intervention that focuses on identifying and alleviating refractory and intolerable symptoms to provide comfort to the patient, their family, and the multidisciplinary team; (d) an intervention that induces unconsciousness in the patient until death; (e) a care that aims not to hasten death, but acknowledges the possibility; (f) an intervention that aims to achieve a good death, as perceived by patient, family, and clinicians.

Through analysis, six themes emerged, capturing the meaning of continuous sedation for the participants: (1) responding to suffering; (2) grappling with uncertainty; (3) adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; (4) grounding clinical practice in ethics; (5) combining medical, relational, and reflexive abilities; (6) offering an alternative to assisted dying. These themes are presented below with supporting participant quotes.

Responding to suffering

Continuous sedation addresses the suffering of the patient, the family and, to a certain extent, the palliative care team. Participants primarily perceive continuous sedation as a means to ease the suffering of both the patient and their family, who form a unit of care. The practice surrounding the use of continuous sedation thus involves the observation, the recognition, and the assessment of the experiences of patients and their families:

That’s the big question in palliative care: Whose suffering are we treating? The patient or the family? When we decide to treat death rattle, we don’t treat it for the patients, we treat it for the family. In palliative care, we also see that the interest of the patient often passes through the interest of the family and that it is difficult to separate them completely. Palliative sedation must be seen that way. The quality of care we offer to one is inseparable from the quality of care we offer to the other. (P8, physician)

Alleviating the patient’s suffering can help ease the family’s distress. Families often take the initiative to request continuous sedation when they perceive the patient’s suffering as unbearable. Conversely, they sometimes postpone sedation to ensure the patient remains conscious. Therefore, the family’s experience and consent is at the center of clinicians’ evaluation of suffering. Many participants shared how difficult it can be to challenge the family’s perceptions of the patient’s condition and needs, primarily due to their acknowledgment that the family’s knowledge and experience are legitimate:

I’m going to be humble and say that maybe five minutes before I walked into the room, the patient was agitated, and then he calmed down all of a sudden. The family is going to report that to me and then maybe I won’t have seen it, maybe the nurse won’t have seen it and I’m going to have to believe the family and I’m going to adjust the medication because of that. (P6, physician)

Participants described their exposure to human suffering on a daily basis. This affects them and contributes to their own suffering. Introducing continuous sedation into the patient’s care trajectory offers the possibility of a death free from suffering and therefore is a source of comfort:

There’s a great sense of relief. I don’t know if the right word is satisfaction… It’s hard to watch somebody suffer. To be short of breath, be in pain, to be agitated. And continuous palliative sedation is a nice way to go. It’s a good death. (P3, nurse)

Participants evaluated the quality of continuous sedation in terms of the quality of their response to the suffering of the patient, the family, and the care team:

What would I describe as a good death? Families are all comfortable with the decision. The medical resident is comfortable with the decision. The staff are competent. The symptoms are alleviated fairly quickly, comfortably. Everybody spends quality time together. We have a good debriefing. When death does occur, everybody, you know, they’re sad but they’re happy because it was a peaceful death. Versus it was hard to get the symptoms. We tried so many different interventions to alleviate all the different symptoms the patient was experiencing, and it was really rough getting the sedation going. And they suffered, and there was a lot of screaming. It was upsetting other patients because they were in so much agony. It distressed the staff, it distressed everybody. (P13, physician)

Nevertheless, all participants placed the patient at the center of their concerns and established a hierarchy:

Primarily, relief of the patient’s suffering. And secondarily, relief of the family’s and team’s suffering. (P24, nurse)

Grappling with uncertainty

For all participants, a prognosis of two weeks or less plays a central role in the decision-making process for continuous sedation. This timeframe not only defines the intent of care but also shapes how palliative sedation is explained to patients and families. However, participants expressed an important level of uncertainty regarding prognosis, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of death and the individualized nature of each case:

Usually, I find I’m pretty good at prognostication if it’s kind of within hours, for sure. Within days, you know, it’s kind of hit or miss sometimes, depending on the situation. (P9, physician)

Clinicians’ uncertainty about prognosis manifested as a form of recognition of their professional limitations. However, this uncertainty did not undermine their confidence in their practice. They maintained a strong sense of obligation based on intention – to alleviate suffering without hastening death – rather than focusing on the potential consequences of their actions:

I like the idea that you kind of convince yourself that the initiation of palliative sedation is not going to hasten things for this person that you’ve started it for irretractable symptoms. (P11, physician) I think within our group, we all have different comfort levels with palliative sedation. We all say the same thing, but it means a little different things to each of us. (P19, nurse)

Clinicians recognized the importance of making an accurate prognosis as a crucial aspect of providing quality continuous sedation, but errors in timing, whether administering continuous sedation too early or too late, can result in a sense of professional and, to some extent, personal failure:

Statistically, we’ll never get it right. Two weeks of life is still legitimate, but a month… If it becomes very long, it’s very exhausting for families and it’s very difficult in terms of philosophy and explaining what’s going on. (P5, nurse)

Adapting care to ensure its ongoing quality

Participants perceived continuous sedation as more of a process than a single act. They emphasized the need to constantly adapt care to the situation to ensure its ongoing quality. If participants worked with protocols, they expressed the importance of flexibility in order to accommodate the needs of patients and families, and their own comfort zones:

It’s the art and science of medicine, right? You have to use your clinical judgment, but every individual is unique. You have to modify things based on your good assessments, your gut feeling, your experience. You talk to your team members. (P13, physician) I use palliative sedation guidelines, just as a matter of course. But often, palliative sedation may be something that I see on the horizon, depending on my history with the patient. Things that I’ve seen, past history. (P21, nurse)

The major impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was clinicians’ inability to properly adapt their practice to the patient-family unit. Due to visitation restrictions, family members were either not present, which undermined clinicians’ ability to respond effectively to patients’ suffering and hindered access to continuous sedation, often initiated by the family:

During COVID-19, probably the biggest challenge was associated with patients and families being physically separated. If a patient was incapable, the family members couldn’t see their loved one to participate in discussions around sedation. So, that became a major barrier to patients who had refractory delirium or respiratory failure or pain being able to access continuous sedation. (P2, physician)

Participants working in home care settings highlighted the need for additional adaptation on the part of families who are involved in sedation at home. The challenge for these families is to adjust the patient’s medication according to clinicians’ instructions:

What we’ve done is maybe put in a PCA [patient-controlled analgesia] pump so the family can readjust the dose as we go, on the hours that there’s maybe no nurse available. So, we’re looking into little projects like that to try to help facilitate things for families. And so that we don’t end up waiting too long to readjust the medication dose. It’s always the continuous conversation that we have with families. (P20, physician)

Grounding clinical practice in ethics

Participants understood continuous sedation as a care based on ethical thinking and communication. They recounted being confronted with ethical dilemmas, knowing their decisions are fraught with consequences (e.g., causing suffering, modifying life span):

Family members have distress of their own, and it’s very understandable. But as a clinician, there’s always this internal struggle. Is the sedation too soon? Does the family understand what this means? Have I explained it in a way that they understand? How much is too much? How little is too little? Am I prolonging suffering? Have I done enough to get to the point where this is a reasonable intervention? This is the stuff that I think, as clinicians, we do lose sleep over, at times. (P21, nurse)

Communication emerged as an essential aspect of continuous sedation practice. While participants demonstrated respect for the experiences of others, they recognized that continuous sedation entails the confrontation of values, which can give rise to conflicts, misunderstandings, or discomfort:

Patient, family culture versus our own beliefs and our own ethics. It becomes almost a little dilemma at times. And we’ve had multiple arguments and issues about that. (P20, physician)

Conflicts stemming from divergent values and clinical judgments within multidisciplinary teams can also arise, potentially leading to a breakdown of trust among colleagues or within the care practice:

The nurses felt like they knew what was the right thing for the patient, but it wasn’t. Physically, it might’ve been the right thing for her, but from a family, emotional perspective. It was probably one of the most difficult situations I’ve been in. Not because of the patient and the family, but you know, that dynamic with my team, who would not listen to me. It didn’t matter what I said. Things really fell apart quite a bit then. (P19, nurse)

Most participants voiced ethical concerns regarding the use of continuous sedation for patients primarily suffering from existential distress:

We do have other patients who really are awake, alert, compos mentis, and just have tremendous existential suffering. The challenging thing in that scenario is that the degree of existential suffering does not always correlate with prognosis. (P2, physician) When it’s more kind of psychosocial or existential, then decision making can be a little bit more difficult. And perhaps more controversial. Although, I mean, suffering is suffering. Can you really say that physical suffering should take greater priority over psychosocial or existential? (P9, physician)

Combining medical, relational, and reflexive abilities

Participants seemed to experience continuous sedation as a combination of medical expertise (e.g., selecting medications, establishing prognosis, using tools and guidelines), relational tact (e.g., opening a dialogue, cultivating presence), and reflexive abilities (e.g., ethical questioning, confronting values):

Sometimes, we think we have to use all these fancy measures and we get these quantitative measures. And then you’re saying, you know, the qualitative. Like that, what did people say? What are the stories that they shared, good or bad? And you get that rich understanding of what happened. Much different than a numerical kind of a measurement. (P13, physician)

Combining medical, relational, and reflexive abilities is a way to provide good care that goes beyond medical sedation:

That’s our accompaniment, right? You can have very good sedation, but that will leave people with a somewhat traumatic grief because it is an end of life that was quite traumatic. This is the opposite purpose of continuous sedation, so there is work to be done. (P8, physician)

Isolation measures and visitor restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic had a greater impact on clinicians’ relational and reflexive abilities compared to their medical skills. The quality of continuous sedation was affected more than its quantity, as the clinical understanding became somewhat detached from the realms of affect and communication. This appeared to reduce the ethical and relational scope of continuous sedation during the pandemic:

It’s very hard when a family can’t see their loved one and know what’s going on, to have that kind of conversation with them over the phone. It’s really hard to have people who only know from an intellectual perspective what’s happening with their loved one to understand that maybe we’ve come to that point. (P19, nurse)

Offering an alternative to assisted death

The legalization of assisted death in Canada has changed the ecosystem of palliative care. It appears that clinicians and patients viewed continuous sedation as an alternative to assisted death. The majority of participants understood that continuous sedation was different from assisted death in terms of prognosis and intention (i.e., to respect the natural rhythm of dying). They reported having the additional responsibility to educate patients, families, and non-expert healthcare professionals about the distinction between continuous sedation and assisted death.

Other participants understood continuous sedation practice in continuity with assisted death, indicating that these interventions are not mutually exclusive. They believed that offering continuous sedation to certain patients is a suitable compromise that upholds the intention to relieve suffering:

Where I find that palliative sedation is most frequently used are patients who would consider medical assistance in dying, but are now probably too late to get the ball rolling for the application process. So, that’s an interesting middle ground I find for patients who have intractable symptoms, who have intolerable symptoms, and don’t want to be conscious anymore, or can’t be conscious anymore because they’re too agitated. We can sedate people up until their medical assistance in dying procedure. (P1, physician)

Participants’ perception of continuous sedation as an alternative to assisted death was part of a “culture of acceptance” of assisted death among patients, families, and healthcare professionals, reflecting a notable shift in medical and societal norms. However, a disparity arises between the intentions of clinicians practicing continuous sedation and the understanding of patients and families who do not necessarily differentiate between continuous sedation and assisted death:

With some patients, it’s really, “Well, so let me get this straight. As far as I’m concerned, both of them are the same. I go to sleep and I die in my sleep. Sedation, you could do it this afternoon, right? I want that one.” And these are for patients who have limited prognoses. So, I think the cultural acceptance, which in turn, influences patients but also our willingness to discuss it and our competency in discussing it. (P2, physician)

Overall, participants acknowledged a positive impact of the legalization of assisted death. The public debate surrounding it has increased awareness about the realities of end-of-life experiences and fostered conversations about death and palliative care, including continuous sedation:

I think that one of the pluses for palliative care that came out of medical assistance in dying is that we’re talking about palliative care more. All of the aspects of palliative care, so people can make a more informed decision. (P24, nurse)

Main findings

Our findings show that continuous sedation practice is centered around addressing and assessing the suffering experienced by patients, families, and clinicians. According to the idea that individual experiences are intertwined, two sources of distress justify continuous sedation: that of the patient, resulting from physical, psychological, and/or existential suffering, and that of the family and clinicians, resulting from witnessing the patient’s suffering. Participants perceive continuous sedation as a form of quality care when they are able to effectively respond to and alleviate suffering. This entails recognizing, understanding, adapting to, and mitigating the patient’s suffering. In line with previous research, this study shows that some clinicians prioritize the patient’s suffering as a critical factor, even above considerations of life expectancy alone [ 7 ].

Our findings highlight that the suffering of families and clinicians is not peripheral but rather central to continuous sedation practice. On one hand, the family can experience suffering as they witness their loved one’s suffering on a daily basis. Clinicians acknowledge this suffering and strive to alleviate it by providing sedation to the patient. On the other hand, clinicians themselves experience suffering due to their continuous exposure to suffering and death, as well as the challenges they face in aligning their care with their own values. [ 7 , 8 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 25 ] Thus, palliative care clinicians adopt strategies to mitigate workplace suffering and share the moral burden, such as supporting each other and deliberating [ 38 ]. This suggests that continuous sedation practice is undermined by inadequate care of the patient’s family and insufficient recognition of the emotional and moral experiences of staff members [ 11 , 39 ].

This dynamic understanding of suffering among palliative care clinicians is consistent with the abilities they wish to develop. Our study provides a description of continuous sedation practice as a combination of three abilities: medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity. It appears essential for clinicians to support objective monitoring tools with subjective observations and collective discussions [ 13 ]. Clinical evaluation should be supported by a process of exchanging, sharing, interpreting, and confronting perceptions. [ 17 , 40 , 41 ] Going beyond medical technique allows clinicians to provide holistic care and better adapt to complex symptoms and complex human components.

Findings also support the idea that palliative care clinicians encounter ethical concerns when practicing continuous sedation. [ 16 , 18 , 24 , 25 , 40 ] First, our results confirm that clinicians have difficulty making a prognosis although they know it is a selection criterion for continuous sedation [ 7 , 21 , 38 ]. Continuous sedation practice calls into question the death of patients as “natural” [ 42 ]. According to our study, palliative care clinicians experience the uncertainty related to prognosis as professional and personal limits to providing a good and natural death. However, they embrace uncertainty as part of their practice and can tolerate uncertainty by connecting with their primary intention and trusting the nature of their act as morally good. The uncertainty related to prognosis may even keep alive an ethical thinking about the use of continuous sedation, since it requires an acute awareness of the legal framework and a rigorous evaluation of patients and families.

Second, our results confirm that pain, delirium, and dyspnea are commonly accepted indications for continuous sedation, while existential suffering is more controversial [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Existential distress is perceived by clinicians as a symptom with different issues than pain or delirium, possibly because it is considered outside the medical field, requiring specific ethical, psychological, and spiritual assessments. [ 11 , 16 , 43 , 44 ] It is not clear for clinicians how to address existential suffering. This points to the need for closer collaboration with other professionals (e.g., psychologists) and improved training [ 4 , 15 ]. Empathy with the patient’ suffering or positive attitudes towards sedation may lead clinicians to treat existential suffering using continuous sedation despite the ethical issues it raises [ 7 , 23 , 43 ]. Therefore, continuous sedation practice could depend more on clinicians’ beliefs and tolerance regarding existential suffering than on proper knowledge or clear guidelines [ 14 ]. Continuous sedation, which aims to relieve the patient’s total pain [ 45 ], cannot be optimal if it does not reach beyond patients’ physical symptoms to address also existential issues [ 4 , 46 ].

In line with previous studies, we also found that many palliative care clinicians perceive the relationship between palliative sedation and assisted death as fluid or interchangeable. [ 26 , 27 , 43 , 44 , 47 ] Palliative sedation is shaped by patients’ desire to hasten death or explicit demands for assisted death, and clinicians themselves understand continuous sedation as an alternative to assisted death for people who are near to death but cannot consent or do not have access to it. The media coverage of assisted death may also result in increased opportunities for clinicians to engage in discussions about continuous sedation [ 48 ]. Far from decreasing, there has been a strong growth in palliative sedation in Canada following the legalization of assisted death [ 19 ].

Cultural interpretation of the findings

The technical, medical, relational, and moral dimensions of palliative sedation are linked to its institutional and cultural dimensions. Palliative care clinicians are aware of the context in which they work and make sure to keep in mind the social issues surrounding end-of-life care. Continuous sedation practice reflects factors outside the care setting such as cultural meaning-making around death and dying [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. The way clinicians experience the use of continuous sedation and assisted death is an indication of the importance of achieving a “good death”, which has been characterized by the absence of suffering and agitation and the search for individual control [ 18 , 27 , 52 ]. It appears cultural constructions of “good dying” imbue the experiences of palliative care clinicians, and as a result, influence continuous sedation norms.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This study provides new phenomenological data on palliative care clinicians’ experience of continuous palliative sedation and enhances understanding of the interplay between continuous palliative sedation and assisted death. This may improve knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease.

This study has limitations. The results cannot be generalized to all palliative care clinicians, or to countries where assisted death is not legal. Composed almost exclusively of nurses and physicians, our sample is also limited in terms of interdisciplinarity. In addition, as end-of-life practices are a source of public debate, the focus group topic was sensitive. The data collection could have led to a reluctance to share some experiences and values.

This study provides novel insights into continuous palliative sedation as a response to the suffering experienced by patients, families, and palliative care clinicians. Additionally, it highlights the central role of family and clinician suffering within the context of continuous palliative sedation practice, rather than considering it as peripheral. This study also enhances understanding of the interplay between continuous palliative sedation and assisted dying, describing how palliative care clinicians educate others about the differences between the two interventions, while also utilizing sedation as an alternative to assisted dying. In addition, this study indicates that palliative care physicians and nurses often struggle to explore, understand, and/or address existential suffering. Therefore, its treatment may depend more on clinicians’ beliefs and tolerance rather than on proper knowledge or guidelines. Its treatment may also depend on the lack of psychological and spiritual care providers in palliative care teams.

Data availability

Data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abarshi E, Rietjens J, Robijn L, et al. International variations in clinical practice guidelines for palliative sedation: a systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017;7:223–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2016-001159 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Kremling A, Schildmann J. What do you mean by palliative sedation? Pre-explicative analyses as preliminary steps towards better definitions. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(147):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00635-9 .

Article Google Scholar

Tomczyk M, Jaques C, Jox RJ. Clinical practice guidelines on Palliative Sedation around the World: a systematic review. J Palliat Care. 2022;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597221138674 .

Arantzamendi M, Belar A, Payne S, et al. Clinical aspects of palliative sedation in prospective studies. A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2021;61:831–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022 .

Belar A, Arantzamendi M, Payne S, et al. How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review. Palliat Med. 2021;35:295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216320974264 .

Robjin L, Deliens L, Scherrens AL, et al. A systematic review of quality improvement initiatives for continuous sedation until death. Palliat Med. 2021;35(4):670–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216321996990 .

Reitjens JAC, Buiting HM, Pasman HRW, et al. Deciding about continuous deep sedation: physicians’ perspectives. A focus group study. Palliat Med. 2009;23:410–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216309104074 .

Twycross R. Reflections on palliative sedation. Palliat Care. 2019;12:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178224218823511 .

Meesters S, Bazata J, Handtke V, et al. It’s pretty much flying blind in the home care setting: a qualitative study on the influence of home care specific circumstances on sedation in specialist palliative home care. Palliat Med. 2023;37:140–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221128938 .

Sercu M, Pype P, Christiaens T, et al. Belgian General practitioners’ perspectives on the Use of Palliative Sedation in End-of-Life Home Care: a qualitative study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;47(6):1054–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.06.016 .

Cherny N, Radbruch L, The Board of the European Association for Palliative Care. European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care. Palliat Med. 2009;23(7):581–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216309107024 .

Schildmann E, Pörnbacher S, Kalies A, et al. Palliative sedation’? A retrospective cohort study on the use and labelling of continuously administered sedatives on a palliative care unit. Palliat Med. 2018;32(7):1189–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216318764095 .

Vivat B, Bemand-Qureshi L, Harrington J, et al. Palliative care specialists in hospice and hospital/community teams predominantly use low doses of sedative medication at the end of life for patient comfort rather than sedation: findings from focus groups and patient records for I-CAN-CARE. Palliat Med. 2019;33(6):578–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319826007 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Amonoo HL, Harris JH, Murphy WS, et al. The physician’s role in responding to Existential suffering: what does it Mean to Comfort Always? J Palliat Care. 2020;35:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0825859719839332 .

Bruce A, Boston P. Relieving existential suffering through palliative sedation: discussion of an uneasy practice. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(12):2732–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05711.x .

Ciano AL, Mirza RM, Ciano AA, et al. The Use of Palliative Sedation to treat existential suffering: a scoping review on practices, ethical considerations, and guidelines. J Palliat Med. 2020;30:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0825859719827585 .

Rodrigues P, Ostyn J, Mroz S, et al. Palliative care physicians’ decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering: a Belgian nationwide qualitative study. Palliat Support Care. 2022;1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951522001559 .

De Vries K, Plaskota M. Ethical dilemmas faced by hospice nurses when administering palliative sedation to patients with terminal cancer. Palliat Support Care. 2017;15:148–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951516000419 .

Nolen A, Olwi R, Debbie S. Impact of legalization of medical assistance in dying on the Use of Palliative Sedation in a Tertiary Care Hospital: a Retrospective Chart Review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2022;39(4):442–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091211030443 .

Seymour J, Rietjens J, Bruinsma S, et al. Using continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study of physicians’ and nurses’ practice in three European countries. Palliat Med. 2015;29:48–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216314543319 .

Vieille M, Dany L, Le Coz P, et al. Perception, beliefs, and attitudes regarding Sedation practices among Palliative Care Nurses and Physicians: a qualitative study. Palliat Med Rep. 2021;2:160–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2021.0022 .

Vissers S, Dierickx S, Robijn L, et al. Physicians’ experiences and perceptions of environmental factors affecting their practices of continuous deep sedation until death: a secondary qualitative analysis of an interview study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095472 .

Abarshi EA, Papavasiliou ES, Preston N, et al. The complexity of nurses’ attitudes and practice of sedation at the end of life: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;47:915–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.06.011 .

Vissers S, Robijn L, Dierickx S, et al. Control Measures for Continuous Deep Sedation until Death: a framing analysis of the views of Physicians. Qual Health Res. 2021;31(13):2390–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211037648 .

Ziegler S, Merker H, Schmid M, et al. The impact of the inpatient practice of continuous deep sedation until death on health care professionals’ emotional well-being: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0205-0 .

Anquinet L, Raus K, Sterckx S, et al. Similarities and differences between continuous sedation until death and euthanasia – professional caregivers’ attitudes and experiences: a focus group study. Palliat Med. 2012;27(6):553–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216312462272 .

Hanssen Koksvik G, Richards N, Gerson SM, et al. Medicalisation, suffering and control at the end of life: the interplay of deep continuous palliative sedation and assisted dying. Health. 2022;26(4):512–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459320976746 .

Lane T, Ramadurai D, Simonetti J. Public awareness and perceptions of palliative and comfort care. Am J Med. 2019;132(2):129–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.07.032 .

McIlfatrick S, Noble H, McCorry NK, et al. Exploring public awareness and perceptions of palliative care: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2014;28:273–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313502372 .

Shalev A, Phongtankuel V, Kozlov E, et al. Awareness and misperceptions of Hospice and Palliative Care: a Population-based Survey Study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(3):431–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909117715215 .

Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Theory, method and research. London: Sage; 2009.

Google Scholar

Tuffour I. A critical overview of interpretative phenomenological analysis: a contemporary qualitative approach. J Health Commun. 2017;2(4):52–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-1654.100093 .

Ponterotto JG. Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):126–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126 .

Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight big-Tent criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121 .

Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2014.

Smith JA. Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2007; 2(1): 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482620601016120 .

Leboul D, Aubry R, Peter JM, et al. Palliative sedation challenging the professional competency of health care providers and staff: a qualitative focus group and personal written narrative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0198-8 .

Vachon M, Guité-Verret A. From powerlessness to recognition: the meaning of palliative care clinicians’ experience of suffering. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2020;15:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1852362 .

Heino L, Stolt M, Haavisto E. The practices of nurses about palliative sedation on palliative care wards: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78:3733–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15350 .

Robijn L, Seymour J, Deliens L, et al. The involvement of cancer patients in the four stages of decision-making preceding continuous sedation until death: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2018;32(7):1198–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216318770342 .

Raus K, Sterckx S, Mortier F. Is continuous sedation at the end of life an ethically preferable alternative to physician-assisted suicide? Am J Bioeth. 2011;11(6):32–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.577510 .

Dumont S, Blondeau D, Turcotte V, et al. The use of palliative sedation: a comparison of attitudes of french-speaking physicians from Quebec and Switzerland. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(4):839–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951514000364 .

Reich M, Bondenet X, Rambaud L, et al. Refractory psycho-existential distress and continuous deep sedation until death in palliative care: the French perspective. Palliat Support Care. 2019;18:486–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951519000816 .

Wood JC, Saunders. Total Pain and emotional evidence at the end of life. Med Humanit. 2022;48:411–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2020-012107 .

Boston P, Bruce A, Schreiber R. Existential suffering in the Palliative Care setting: an Integrated Literature Review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41(3):604–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.05.010 .

Hurst SA, Mauron A. The ethics of palliative care and euthanasia: exploring common values. Palliat Med. 2016;20(2):107–12. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269216306pm1109oa .

Mills A, Nolen A, Qureshi F, et al. Use of palliative sedation following medical assistance in dying (MAiD) legislation: a mixed-methods study of palliative care providers. Palliat Support Care. 2023;1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951523000706 .

Richards N, Krawczyk M. What is the cultural value of dying in an era of assisted dying? Med Humanit. 2021;47:61–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011621 .

Seymour JE, Janssens R, Broeckaert B. Relieving suffering at the end of life: practitioners’ perspectives on palliative sedation from three European countries. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:1679–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.030 .

Seale C, Raus K, Bruinsma S, et al. The language of sedation in end-of-life care: the ethical reasoning of care providers in three countries. Health. 2015;19(4):339–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459314555377 .

Cottrell L, Duggleby W. The good death: an integrative literature review. Palliat Support Care. 2016;14:686–712. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951515001285 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jaya Rastogi of the Bruyère Research Institute for assisting in data collection. The authors also thank Pan-Canadian Palliative Care Research Collaborative (PCPCRC), Réseau Québécois de Recherche en Soins Palliatifs et de Fin de Vie (RQSPAL), Pallium Canada, Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP), and Société Québécoise des Médecins de Soins Palliatifs (SQMDSP) for their support in recruiting palliative care clinicians across Canada. SHB receives an Academic Protected Time Award from the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. The authors also thank Anton Savin for his assistance with data entry and analysis of the sociodemographic table. This research was funded by a contribution from Health Canada, Health Care Policy and Strategies Program. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Health Canada.

This research was funded by a contribution from Health Canada’s Health Care Policy and Strategies Program. The funder has no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Alexandra Guité-Verret

Réseau Québécois de Recherche en Soins Palliatifs et de fin de vie, Québec, Canada

Alexandra Guité-Verret, Jessica Boivin, Isabelle Marcoux, Diane Guay, Diane Tapp & Bruno Gagnon

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

Jessica Boivin

CHU Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Québec, Canada

Jessica Boivin, Diane Tapp & Bruno Gagnon

Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Andrew M. R. Hanna, James Downar, Shirley H. Bush, Julie Lapenskie & Bruno Gagnon

Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

James Downar & Shirley H. Bush

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Shirley H. Bush & Julie Lapenskie

Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Isabelle Marcoux

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

Faculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

Bruno Gagnon

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.B. and A.M.R.H. designed the study, which was conceived by B.G. J.B. carried out the data collection. A.G.V. led the data analysis, with the contribution of J.B., and the writing of the manuscript. B.G. contributed to the creation of the interview guide, gave feedback on initial themes and reviewed the manuscript. J.B., A.M.R.H., J.D., S.H.B., I.M., D.G., D.T. and J.L. contributed to the interview guide and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Gagnon .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Guité-Verret, A., Boivin, J., Hanna, A.M.R. et al. Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of palliative care clinicians’ experiences. BMC Palliat Care 23 , 104 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01426-2

Download citation

Received : 21 September 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01426-2

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

Continuous palliative sedation
Deep sedation
Palliative care
End-of-life care
Assisted dying
Medical assistance in dying
Qualitative

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

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

A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care

Affiliations.

1 PhD candidate, School of Nursing and Midwifey, Monash University, and Clinical Nurse Specialist, Adult and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
2 Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
3 Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
PMID: 26790142
DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12134

Background: The qualitative systematic review is a rapidly developing area of nursing research. In order to present trustworthy, high-quality recommendations, such reviews should be based on a review protocol to minimize bias and enhance transparency and reproducibility. Although there are a number of resources available to guide researchers in developing a quantitative review protocol, very few resources exist for qualitative reviews.

Aims: To guide researchers through the process of developing a qualitative systematic review protocol, using an example review question.

Methodology: The key elements required in a systematic review protocol are discussed, with a focus on application to qualitative reviews: Development of a research question; formulation of key search terms and strategies; designing a multistage review process; critical appraisal of qualitative literature; development of data extraction techniques; and data synthesis. The paper highlights important considerations during the protocol development process, and uses a previously developed review question as a working example.

Implications for research: This paper will assist novice researchers in developing a qualitative systematic review protocol. By providing a worked example of a protocol, the paper encourages the development of review protocols, enhancing the trustworthiness and value of the completed qualitative systematic review findings.

Linking evidence to action: Qualitative systematic reviews should be based on well planned, peer reviewed protocols to enhance the trustworthiness of results and thus their usefulness in clinical practice. Protocols should outline, in detail, the processes which will be used to undertake the review, including key search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methods used for critical appraisal, data extraction and data analysis to facilitate transparency of the review process. Additionally, journals should encourage and support the publication of review protocols, and should require reference to a protocol prior to publication of the review results.

Keywords: guidelines; meta synthesis; qualitative; systematic review protocol.

Evidence-Based Practice / standards*
Information Seeking Behavior
Nursing / methods
Qualitative Research*
Research Design / standards*
Systematic Reviews as Topic*
Writing / standards*

IMAGES

15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
literature review article examples Sample of research literature review
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
Role Of Literature Review In Qualitative Research
Literature Review For Qualitative Research
Literature Review For Qualitative Research

VIDEO

Literature review Qual vs Quan
What is Literature Review
Research Methodology in English Education /B.Ed. 4th Year/ Syllabus
Qualitative Research Reporting Standards: How are qualitative articles different from quantitative?
Research Methodology
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
A literature review is a survey of scholarly knowledge on a topic. Our guide with examples, video, and templates can help you write yours. ... 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 ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Qualitative Research: Literature Review
In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students, Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17). Included are the following points: Historical background for the research; Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;" Theories and concepts related to your research;
Chapter 9. Reviewing the Literature
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. It includes both articles and books—and in some cases reports—relevant to a particular area of research. Ideally, one's research question follows from the reading of what has already been produced. For example, you are interested in studying sports injuries ...
Writing a Literature Review
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 ...
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research, Criteria, etc. The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science.
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: What is a Literature 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 ...
PDF Qualitative Analysis Techniques for the Review of the Literature
Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2008) presented a typology for qualitative data analysis wherein qualitative data were conceptualized as representing one of four major sources; namely, talk, observations, drawings/photographs/videos, and documents. We believe that all four source types serve as relevant literature review sources.
Methodological Approaches to Literature Review
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review: Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context, it refers to a combination of review approaches, for example, combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies. 6.
Planning Qualitative Research: Design and Decision Making for New
While many books and articles guide various qualitative research methods and analyses, there is currently no concise resource that explains and differentiates among the most common qualitative approaches. We believe novice qualitative researchers, students planning the design of a qualitative study or taking an introductory qualitative research course, and faculty teaching such courses can ...
PDF Literature Review: An Overview
The literature review provides a way for the novice researcher to convince the proposal the reviewers that she is knowledgeable about the related research and the "intellectual traditions" that support the proposed study. The literature review provides the researcher with an opportunity to identify any gaps that may exist in the body of ...
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Literature review is an essential feature of academic research. Fundamentally, knowledge advancement must be built on prior existing work. To push the knowledge frontier, we must know where the frontier is. By reviewing relevant literature, we understand the breadth and depth of the existing body of work and identify gaps to explore.
How to Operate Literature Review Through Qualitative and ...
3.5 Step 5: Qualitative Analysis. The literature review is an essential part of the research process. There are several types of the literature review [44, 45]. However, in general, the literature review is a process of questioning. It is intended to answer some questions about a particular topic: What are the primary literature sources?
Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding
A qualitative systematic review brings together research on a topic, systematically searching for research evidence from primary qualitative studies and drawing the findings together. There is a debate over whether the search needs to be exhaustive. 1 , 2 Methods for systematic reviews of quantitative research are well established and explicit ...
Literature Review
Nonetheless, literature review is a continuous sense-making process -- you need to review the literature continuously in order to organize your thoughts and refine your analysis. A good literature review should be able to: Connect to your research questions; Connect to your choice of methods and research design; Support your data analysis
Qualitative research
Literature review. You will need to write a short, overview literature review to introduce the main theories, concepts and key research areas that you will explore in your dissertation. This set of texts - which may be theoretical, research-based, practice-based or policies - form your theoretical framework.
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations. EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
(PDF) Literature review on qualitative methods and standards for
This paper identifies and evaluates qualitative methods appropriate for use in conducting policy-relevant research on the experiences, motivations, agency and life histories of autonomous and semi ...
Is literature review a qualitative research method?
Literature review is not qualitative research. A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so ...
A scoping review examining patient experience and what matters to
The most frequent domains and core values that emerged upon review of the literature for PEH healthcare experiences were 'accessible and timely', 'person-centred', 'dignity and respect' and 'kindness with compassion'. ... We recognise the intrinsic value, richness and depth provided by qualitative research, which is insightful ...
The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare
The studies in our review encompassed qualitative, quantitative descriptive, and mixed methods studies. The MMAT begins with two screening questions to confirm the empirical nature of this study. Subsequently, all studies were categorized by type and evaluated utilizing specific criteria based on their research methods, with ratings of 'Yes ...
Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners
Scoping review methodology was selected because our purpose was to systematically identify and characterise the breadth of research that exists around implementation factors, and distinguish the barriers and facilitators to implementation of preventive health assessments [24, 25].This review drew on methodological guidance for scoping reviews from JBI [], and was conducted in accordance with a ...
Critical Analysis: The Often-Missing Step in Conducting Literature
Literature reviews are essential in moving our evidence-base forward. "A literature review makes a significant contribution when the authors add to the body of knowledge through providing new insights" (Bearman, 2016, p. 383).Although there are many methods for conducting a literature review (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, qualitative synthesis), some commonalities in ...
Starting Literature Review in Qualitative Research: An Illustration
A literature review is "a synthesis of the literature on a topic" (Pan, 2008, p. 1), which can provide reasons for initiating research. After developing the research question, the author tries to explore existing research literature, to check if the question has been adequately and convincingly answered, and to search for other studies that ...
Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of
Background The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. Aim This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians' experiences with continuous palliative sedation ...
A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance
Methodology: The key elements required in a systematic review protocol are discussed, with a focus on application to qualitative reviews: Development of a research question; formulation of key search terms and strategies; designing a multistage review process; critical appraisal of qualitative literature; development of data extraction ...
Sustainability
The methodology entails conducting a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of publications from 2022 onwards. The approach involves qualitative deductive coding methods, descriptive statistical analysis, and thematic analysis. ... The qualitative research findings emphasized several challenges and ethical considerations in implementing AI in smart ...
PDF Stressors and lessons for future support for healthcare staff facing
went on to carry out a systematic review of the wider qualitative literature that we report here to better explore our initial observations. METHOD ... Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the systematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. M Medical Research Methodology 2008; 8(45):1-10
Value co-destruction in tourism and hospitality: a systematic
Methods. A SLR method was used to synthesise the research on VCD across the fields of tourism and hospitality. The aim of this method is to minimise bias in the review of literature with a wide variety of different combinations of topic, subject matter, location and variables (Pickering & Byrne, Citation 2014).An SLR maps what is known, and thus pinpoints gaps on what is yet to be known ...

Archer Library

Exploring the literature review

Your Literature Review

1. Select a Topic

Consider Purpose

★ Schedule a research appointment

2. Search the Literature

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Newspapers: Databases & Internet

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

Overview of boolean terms

Database Search Limiters

★ Truncating Search Terms

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Researching in an EBSCO database?

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Defining Literature Review

Recommended Reading

About this page

Archer Librarians

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Literature

Examples of Literature Reviews

Reader-Friendly Example: The Power of Peers

Authoritative Academic Journal Example: Working Class Students’ College Expectations

Embracing Theory

Helpful Tips

Where to Start Looking for Literature

Keep a List of Your Keywords

Think Laterally

Read Outside the Canon

Consider Multiple Uses for Literature

Describing Gaps in the Literature

Use Concept Mapping

Ask Yourself, “How Is This Sociology (or Political Science or Public Policy, Etc.)?”

Don’t Treat This as a Chore

Supplement: Two More Literature Review Examples

”Changing Dispositions among the Upwardly Mobile” by Curl, Lareau, and Wu ( 2018 )

Further Readings

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

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

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature Review

A good literature review should be able to:

Selecting your literature with a purpose

Nature of literatures:

Dissertations and research projects

Developing a theoretical framework

Why do I need a theoretical framework?

How do I choose the 'right' approach?

Introduction

Literature review

Methodology

A summary of your key findings – what you have concluded from your research, and how far you have been able to successfully answer your research questions.

Alternative structure

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

9.1. Introduction

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

9.4. Summary

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In this Page

Related information

Recent Activity

The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare services: a systematic mixed studies review

Conclusions

Search strategy and study selection

Eligibility criteria