types of literature review in research methodology

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and resources for conducting different types of literature reviews, online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

AI for Meta Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

• Narrative or traditional literature reviews
• Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
• Scoping reviews
• Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

• The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

• The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).  

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009).  A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017).  How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice.  British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873 

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 5:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters & Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing & Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Systematic Reviews: Types of literature review, methods, & resources

• Types of literature review, methods, & resources
• Protocol and registration
• Search strategy
• Medical Literature Databases to search
• Study selection and appraisal
• Data Extraction/Coding/Study characteristics/Results
• Reporting the quality/risk of bias
• Manage citations using RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• GW Box file storage for PDF's This link opens in a new window

Analytical reviews

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Randomised trials, Systematic reviews, Study protocols, Diagnostic/prognostic studies, Case reports, Clinical practice guidelines, Animal pre-clinical studies, etc). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

When comparing therapies :

PRISMA (Guideline on how to perform and write-up a systematic review and/or meta-analysis of the outcomes reported in multiple clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. PRISMA  replaces the previous QUORUM statement guidelines ):  Liberati, A,, Altman, D,, Moher, D, et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.  Plos Medicine, 6 (7):e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 

When comparing diagnostic methods :

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). CLAIM is modeled after the STARD guideline and has been extended to address applications of AI in medical imaging that include classification, image reconstruction, text analysis, and workflow optimization. The elements described here should be viewed as a “best practice” to guide authors in presenting their research. Reported in Mongan, J., Moy, L., & Kahn, C. E., Jr (2020). Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): A Guide for Authors and Reviewers.  Radiology. Artificial intelligence ,  2 (2), e200029. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2020200029

STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) Statement. (Reporting guidelines for writing up a study comparing the accuracy of competing diagnostic methods)  http://www.stard-statement.org/

When evaluating clinical practice guidelines :

AGREE Research Trust (ART) (2013).  Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE-II) . (A 23-item instrument for as sessing th e quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Used internationally for evaluating or deciding which guidelines could be recommended for use in practice or to inform health policy decisions.)

National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument (2019). (A 15-item instrument using scales of 1-5 to evaluate a guideline's adherence to the Institute of Medicine's standard for trustworthy guidelines. It has good external validity among guideline developers and good interrater reliability across trained reviewers.)

When reviewing genetics studies

Human genetics review reporting guidelines.  Little J, Higgins JPT (eds.). The HuGENet™ HuGE Review Handbook, version 1.0 . 

When you need to re-analyze individual participant data

If you wish to collect, check, and re-analyze individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials addressing a particular research question, you should follow the  PRISMA-IPD  guidelines as reported in  Stewart, L.A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA, 313(16):1657-1665. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 .

When comparing Randomized studies involving animals, livestock, or food:

O’Connor AM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety by modifying the CONSORT statement.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):95-104. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01311.x. PubMed PMID: 20070653.

Sargeant JM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):105-36. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: JVB1312 [pii] 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01312.x. PubMed PMID: 20070652.

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO WRITE UP FOR PUBLICATION THE RESULTS OF ONE QUANTITATIVE CLINICAL TRIAL

When reporting the results of a Randomized Controlled Trial :

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. (2010 reporting guideline for writing up a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial).  http://www.consort-statement.org . Since updated in 2022, see Butcher, M. A., et al. (2022). Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension . JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association, 328(22), 2252–2264. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.21022

Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biology, 8(6), e1000412–e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 (A 20-item checklist, following the CONSORT approach, listing the information that published articles reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used; details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods used to reduce bias.)

Narrative reviews

GUIDELINES  FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT  A  NARRATIVE REVIEW / QUALITATIVE RESEARCH /  OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Campbell, M. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890  (guideline on how to analyse evidence for a narrative review, to provide a recommendation based on heterogenous study types).

Community Preventive Services Task Force (2021).  The Methods Manual for Community Guide Systematic Reviews . (Public Health Prevention systematic review guidelines)

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Observational studies, Qualitative research, Quality improvement studies, and Economic evaluations). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from  https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (Training materials for how to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Cornell University Library (2019). Planning worksheet for structured literature reviews. Retrieved 4/8/22 from  https://osf.io/tnfm7/  (offers a framework for a narrative literature review).

Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006).  Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade . Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3): 101-117. DOI: 10.1016/ S0899-3467 (07)60142-6.  This is a very good article about what to take into consideration when writing any type of narrative review.

When reviewing observational studies/qualitative research :

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. (Reporting guidelines for various types of health sciences observational studies).  http://www.strobe-statement.org 

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192614

RATS Qualitative research systematic review guidelines.  https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/qualitative-research-review-guidelines-rats/

Methods/Guidance

Right Review , this decision support website provides an algorithm to help reviewers choose a review methodology from among 41 knowledge synthesis methods.

The Systematic Review Toolbox , an online catalogue of tools that support various tasks within the systematic review and wider evidence synthesis process. Maintained by the UK University of York Health Economics Consortium, Newcastle University NIHR Innovation Observatory, and University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research.

Institute of Medicine. (2011).  Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews . Washington, DC: National Academies  (Systematic review guidelines from the Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly called the Institute of Medicine)).

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2022).  Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals . Guidance on how to prepare a manuscript for submission to a Medical journal.

Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (International Cochrane Collaboration systematic review guidelines). The various Cochrane review groups comporise around 30,000 physicians around the world working in the disciplines on reviews of interventions with very detailed methods for verifying the validity of the research methods and analysis performed in screened-in Randmized Controlled Clinical Trials. Typically published Cochrane Reviews are the most exhaustive review of the evidence of effectiveness of a particular drug or intervention, and include a statistical meta-analysis. Similar to practice guidelines, Cochrane reviews are periodically revised and updated.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual of Evidence Synthesis . (International systematic review guidelines). Based at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and collaborating with around 80 academic and medical entities around the world. Unlike Cochrane Reviews that strictly focus on efficacy of interventions, JBI offers a broader, inclusive approach to evidence, to accommodate a range of diverse questions and study designs. The JBI manual provides guidance on how to analyse and include both quantitative and qualitative research.

Cochrane Methods Support Unit, webinar recordings on methodological support questions 

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (How to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Center for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, England) (2009).  Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care . (British systematic review guidelines). 

Agency for Health Research & Quality (AHRQ) (2013). Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews . (U.S. comparative effectiveness review guidelines)

Hunter, K. E., et al. (2022). Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers.  BMJ (Clinical research ed.) ,  377 , e068791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068791

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).  The PCORI Methodology Report . (A 47-item methodology checklist for U.S. patient-centered outcomes research. Established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PCORI funds the development of guidance on the comparative effectivess of clinical healthcare, similar to the UK National Institute for Clinical Evidence but without reporting cost-effectiveness QALY metrics). 

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) (2019). Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters . A checklist of N American & international online databases and websites you can use to search for unpublished reports, posters, and policy briefs, on topics including general medicine and nursing, public and mental health, health technology assessment, drug and device regulatory, approvals, warnings, and advisories.

Hempel, S., Xenakis, L., & Danz, M. (2016). Systematic Reviews for Occupational Safety and Health Questions: Resources for Evidence Synthesis. Retrieved 8/15/16 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1463.html . NIOSH guidelines for how to carry out a systematic review in the occupational safety and health domain.

A good source for reporting guidelines is the  NLM's  Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives .

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). (An international group of academics/clinicians working to promote a common approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.) 

Phillips, B., Ball, C., Sackett, D., et al. (2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence. Retrieved 3/20/17 from https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf . (Another commonly used criteria for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, developed in part by EBM guru David Sackett.) 

Systematic Reviews for Animals & Food  (guidelines including the REFLECT statement for carrying out a systematic review on animal health, animal welfare, food safety, livestock, and agriculture)

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. (Describes 14 different types of literature and systematic review, useful for thinking at the outset about what sort of literature review you want to do.)

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health information and libraries journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276  (An updated look at different types of literature review, expands on the Grant & Booth 2009 article listed above).

Garrard, J. (2007).  Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method  (2nd Ed.).   Sudbury, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Publishers. (Textbook of health sciences literature search methods).

Zilberberg, M. (2012).  Between the lines: Finding the truth in medical literature . Goshen, MA: Evimed Research Press. (Concise book on foundational concepts of evidence-based medicine).

Lang, T. (2009). The Value of Systematic Reviews as Research Activities in Medical Education . In: Lang, T. How to write, publish, & present in the health sciences : a guide for clinicians & laboratory researchers. Philadelphia : American College of Physicians.  (This book chapter has a helpful bibliography on systematic review and meta-analysis methods)

Brown, S., Martin, E., Garcia, T., Winter, M., García, A., Brown, A., Cuevas H.,  & Sumlin, L. (2013). Managing complex research datasets using electronic tools: a meta-analysis exemplar . Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 31(6), 257-265. doi:10.1097/NXN.0b013e318295e69c. (This article advocates for the programming of electronic fillable forms in Adobe Acrobat Pro to feed data into Excel or SPSS for analysis, and to use cloud based file sharing systems such as Blackboard, RefWorks, or EverNote to facilitate sharing knowledge about the decision-making process and keep data secure. Of particular note are the flowchart describing this process, and their example screening form used for the initial screening of abstracts).

Brown, S., Upchurch, S., & Acton, G. (2003). A framework for developing a coding scheme for meta-analysis . Western Journal Of Nursing Research, 25(2), 205-222. (This article describes the process of how to design a coded data extraction form and codebook, Table 1 is an example of a coded data extraction form that can then be used to program a fillable form in Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Access).

Elamin, M. B., Flynn, D. N., Bassler, D., Briel, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Karanicolas, P., & ... Montori, V. M. (2009). Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity .  Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology ,  62 (5), 506-510. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016  (This article offers advice on how to decide what tools to use to extract data for analytical systematic reviews).

Riegelman R.   Studying a Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-based Health Research , 6th Edition.  Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012. (Textbook of quantitative statistical methods used in health sciences research).

Rathbone, J., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015). Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers. Systematic Reviews, 480. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6

Guyatt, G., Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users' guides to the medical literature (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Medical.  (This is a foundational textbook on evidence-based medicine and of particular use to the reviewer who wants to learn about the different types of published research article e.g. "what is a case report?" and to understand what types of study design best answer what types of clinical question).

Glanville, J., Duffy, S., Mccool, R., & Varley, D. (2014). Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 102(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.  Systematic Reviews, 5 : 210, DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. http://rdcu.be/nzDM

Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. (2015). Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 103 (4): 184-8. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26512216

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 104 (3):240-3. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. Erratum in: J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366130

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 . PRESS is a guideline with a checklist for librarians to critically appraise the search strategy for a systematic review literature search.

Clark, JM, Sanders, S, Carter, M, Honeyman, D, Cleo, G, Auld, Y, Booth, D, Condron, P, Dalais, C, Bateup, S, Linthwaite, B, May, N, Munn, J, Ramsay, L, Rickett, K, Rutter, C, Smith, A, Sondergeld, P, Wallin, M, Jones, M & Beller, E 2020, 'Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial',  Journal of the Medical Library Association , vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 195-207.

Journal articles describing systematic review methods can be searched for in PubMed using this search string in the PubMed search box: sysrev_methods [sb] . 

Software tools for systematic reviews

• Covidence GW in 2019 has bought a subscription to this Cloud based tool for facilitating screening decisions, used by the Cochrane Collaboration. Register for an account.
• NVIVO for analysis of qualitative research NVIVO is used for coding interview data to identify common themes emerging from interviews with several participants. GW faculty, staff, and students may download NVIVO software.
• RedCAP RedCAP is software that can be used to create survey forms for research or data collection or data extraction. It has very detailed functionality to enable data exchange with Electronic Health Record Systems, and to integrate with study workflow such as scheduling follow up reminders for study participants.
• SRDR tool from AHRQ Free, web-based and has a training environment, tutorials, and example templates of systematic review data extraction forms
• RevMan 5 RevMan 5 is the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews
• Rayyan Free, web-based tool for collecting and screening citations. It has options to screen with multiple people, masking each other.
• GradePro Free, web application to create, manage and share summaries of research evidence (called Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables) for reviews or guidelines, uses the GRADE criteria to evaluate each paper under review.
• DistillerSR Needs subscription. Create coded data extraction forms from templates.
• EPPI Reviewer Needs subscription. Like DistillerSR, tool for text mining, data clustering, classification and term extraction
• SUMARI Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis.
• Dedoose Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis, similar to NVIVO in that it can be used to code interview transcripts, identify word co-occurence, cloud based.
• Meta-analysis software for statistical analysis of data for quantitative reviews SPSS, SAS, and STATA are popular analytical statistical software that include macros for carrying out meta-analysis. Himmelfarb has SPSS on some 3rd floor computers, and GW affiliates may download SAS to your own laptop from the Division of IT website. To perform mathematical analysis of big data sets there are statistical analysis software libraries in the R programming language available through GitHub and RStudio, but this requires advanced knowledge of the R and Python computer languages and data wrangling/cleaning.
• PRISMA 2020 flow diagram generator The PRISMA Statement website has a page listing example flow diagram templates and a link to software for creating PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams using R software.

GW researchers may want to consider using Refworks to manage citations, and GW Box to store the full text PDF's of review articles. You can also use online survey forms such as Qualtrics, RedCAP, or Survey Monkey, to design and create your own coded fillable forms, and export the data to Excel or one of the qualitative analytical software tools listed above.

Forest Plot Generators

• RevMan 5 the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews.
• Meta-Essentials a free set of workbooks designed for Microsoft Excel that, based on your input, automatically produce meta-analyses including Forest Plots. Produced for Erasmus University Rotterdam joint research institute.
• Neyeloff, Fuchs & Moreira Another set of Excel worksheets and instructions to generate a Forest Plot. Published as Neyeloff, J.L., Fuchs, S.C. & Moreira, L.B. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 5, 52 (2012). https://doi-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-52
• For R programmers instructions are at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/forestplot/vignettes/forestplot.html and you can download the R code package from https://github.com/gforge/forestplot
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Protocol and registration >>

• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/systematic_review

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2850
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

Which review is that? A guide to review types.

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool
• Critical Review
• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review

Methodological Review

• Systematic Search and Review

A methodological review is a type of systematic secondary research (i.e., research synthesis) which focuses on summarising the state-of-the-art methodological practices of research in a substantive field or topic" (Chong et al, 2021).

Methodological reviews "can be performed to examine any methodological issues relating to the design, conduct and review of research studies and also evidence syntheses". Munn et al, 2018)

Further Reading/Resources

Clarke, M., Oxman, A. D., Paulsen, E., Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Appendix A: Guide to the contents of a Cochrane Methodology protocol and review. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . Full Text PDF

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2023). Best-Practice Recommendations for Producers, Evaluators, and Users of Methodological Literature Reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 46-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943281 Full Text

Jha, C. K., & Kolekar, M. H. (2021). Electrocardiogram data compression techniques for cardiac healthcare systems: A methodological review. IRBM . Full Text

References Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology , 18 (1), 1-9. Full Text Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2021). A methodological review of qualitative research syntheses in CALL: The state-of-the-art. System , 103 , 102646. Full Text

• << Previous: Technology Assessment Review
• Next: Systematic Search and Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Teaching and Research guides

Literature reviews.

• Introduction
• Plan your search
• Where to search
• Refine and update your search
• Finding grey literature
• Writing the review
• Referencing

Research methods overview

Finding literature on research methodologies, sage research methods online.

• Get material not at RMIT
• Further help

What are research methods?

Research methodology is the specific strategies, processes, or techniques utilised in the collection of information that is created and analysed.

The methodology section of a research paper, or thesis, enables the reader to critically evaluate the study’s validity and reliability by addressing how the data was collected or generated, and how it was analysed.

Types of research methods

There are three main types of research methods which use different designs for data collection.  

(1) Qualitative research

Qualitative research gathers data about lived experiences, emotions or behaviours, and the meanings individuals attach to them. It assists in enabling researchers to gain a better understanding of complex concepts, social interactions or cultural phenomena. This type of research is useful in the exploration of how or why things have occurred, interpreting events and describing actions.

Examples of qualitative research designs include:

• focus groups
• observations
• document analysis
• oral history or life stories  

(2) Quantitative research

Quantitative research gathers numerical data which can be ranked, measured or categorised through statistical analysis. It assists with uncovering patterns or relationships, and for making generalisations. This type of research is useful for finding out how many, how much, how often, or to what extent.

Examples of quantitative research designs include:

• surveys or questionnaires
• observation
• document screening
• experiments  

(3) Mixed method research

Mixed Methods research integrates both Qualitative research and Quantitative research. It provides a holistic approach combining and analysing the statistical data with deeper contextualised insights. Using Mixed Methods also enables triangulation, or verification, of the data from two or more sources.

Sometimes in your literature review, you might need to discuss and evaluate relevant research methodologies in order to justify your own choice of research methodology.

When searching for literature on research methodologies it is important to search across a range of sources. No single information source will supply all that you need. Selecting appropriate sources will depend upon your research topic.

Developing a robust search strategy will help reduce irrelevant results. It is good practice to plan a strategy before you start to search.

Search tips

(1) free text keywords.

Free text searching is the use of natural language words to conduct your search. Use selective free text keywords such as: phenomenological, "lived experience", "grounded theory", "life experiences", "focus groups", interview, quantitative, survey, validity, variance, correlation and statistical.

To locate books on your desired methodology, try LibrarySearch . Remember to use  refine  options such as books, ebooks, subject, and publication date.  

(2) Subject headings in Databases

Databases categorise their records using subject terms, or a controlled vocabulary (thesaurus). These subject headings may be useful to use, in addition to utilising free text keywords in a database search.

Subject headings will differ across databases, for example, the PubMed database uses 'Qualitative Research' whilst the CINHAL database uses 'Qualitative Studies.'  

(3) Limiting search results

Databases enable sets of results to be limited or filtered by specific fields, look for options such as Publication Type, Article Type, etc. and apply them to your search.  

(4) Browse the Library shelves

To find books on  research methods  browse the Library shelves at call number  001.42

• SAGE Research Methods Online SAGE Research Methods Online (SRMO) is a research tool supported by a newly devised taxonomy that links content and methods terms. It provides the most comprehensive picture available today of research methods (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) across the social and behavioural sciences.

SAGE Research Methods Overview  (2:07 min) by SAGE Publishing  ( YouTube ) 

• << Previous: Referencing
• Next: Get material not at RMIT >>

• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 1:34 PM
• URL: https://rmit.libguides.com/literature-review

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews

Prabhakar veginadu.

1 Department of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo Victoria, Australia

Hanny Calache

2 Lincoln International Institute for Rural Health, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln UK

Akshaya Pandian

3 Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai Tamil Nadu, India

Mohd Masood

Associated data.

APPENDIX B: List of excluded studies with detailed reasons for exclusion

APPENDIX C: Quality assessment of included reviews using AMSTAR 2

The aim of this overview is to identify and collate evidence from existing published systematic review (SR) articles evaluating various methodological approaches used at each stage of an SR.

The search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception to November 2020 and updated in February 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and APA PsycINFO. Title and abstract screening were performed in two stages by one reviewer, supported by a second reviewer. Full‐text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist.

The search retrieved 41,556 unique citations, of which 9 SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion in final synthesis. Included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches used for defining the review scope and eligibility, literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal in the SR process. Limited evidence supports the following (a) searching multiple resources (electronic databases, handsearching, and reference lists) to identify relevant literature; (b) excluding non‐English, gray, and unpublished literature, and (c) use of text‐mining approaches during title and abstract screening.

The overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process, as well as some methodological modifications currently used in expedited SRs. Overall, findings of this overview highlight the dearth of published SRs focused on SR methodologies and this warrants future work in this area.

1. INTRODUCTION

Evidence synthesis is a prerequisite for knowledge translation. 1 A well conducted systematic review (SR), often in conjunction with meta‐analyses (MA) when appropriate, is considered the “gold standard” of methods for synthesizing evidence related to a topic of interest. 2 The central strength of an SR is the transparency of the methods used to systematically search, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence. 3 Several guidelines, developed by various organizations, are available for the conduct of an SR; 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 among these, Cochrane is considered a pioneer in developing rigorous and highly structured methodology for the conduct of SRs. 8 The guidelines developed by these organizations outline seven fundamental steps required in SR process: defining the scope of the review and eligibility criteria, literature searching and retrieval, selecting eligible studies, extracting relevant data, assessing risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, synthesizing results, and assessing certainty of evidence (CoE) and presenting findings. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7

The methodological rigor involved in an SR can require a significant amount of time and resource, which may not always be available. 9 As a result, there has been a proliferation of modifications made to the traditional SR process, such as refining, shortening, bypassing, or omitting one or more steps, 10 , 11 for example, limits on the number and type of databases searched, limits on publication date, language, and types of studies included, and limiting to one reviewer for screening and selection of studies, as opposed to two or more reviewers. 10 , 11 These methodological modifications are made to accommodate the needs of and resource constraints of the reviewers and stakeholders (e.g., organizations, policymakers, health care professionals, and other knowledge users). While such modifications are considered time and resource efficient, they may introduce bias in the review process reducing their usefulness. 5

Substantial research has been conducted examining various approaches used in the standardized SR methodology and their impact on the validity of SR results. There are a number of published reviews examining the approaches or modifications corresponding to single 12 , 13 or multiple steps 14 involved in an SR. However, there is yet to be a comprehensive summary of the SR‐level evidence for all the seven fundamental steps in an SR. Such a holistic evidence synthesis will provide an empirical basis to confirm the validity of current accepted practices in the conduct of SRs. Furthermore, sometimes there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the resource availability and the need to synthesize the evidence in the best way possible, given the constraints. This evidence base will also inform the choice of modifications to be made to the SR methods, as well as the potential impact of these modifications on the SR results. An overview is considered the choice of approach for summarizing existing evidence on a broad topic, directing the reader to evidence, or highlighting the gaps in evidence, where the evidence is derived exclusively from SRs. 15 Therefore, for this review, an overview approach was used to (a) identify and collate evidence from existing published SR articles evaluating various methodological approaches employed in each of the seven fundamental steps of an SR and (b) highlight both the gaps in the current research and the potential areas for future research on the methods employed in SRs.

An a priori protocol was developed for this overview but was not registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), as the review was primarily methodological in nature and did not meet PROSPERO eligibility criteria for registration. The protocol is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This overview was conducted based on the guidelines for the conduct of overviews as outlined in The Cochrane Handbook. 15 Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement. 3

2.1. Eligibility criteria

Only published SRs, with or without associated MA, were included in this overview. We adopted the defining characteristics of SRs from The Cochrane Handbook. 5 According to The Cochrane Handbook, a review was considered systematic if it satisfied the following criteria: (a) clearly states the objectives and eligibility criteria for study inclusion; (b) provides reproducible methodology; (c) includes a systematic search to identify all eligible studies; (d) reports assessment of validity of findings of included studies (e.g., RoB assessment of the included studies); (e) systematically presents all the characteristics or findings of the included studies. 5 Reviews that did not meet all of the above criteria were not considered a SR for this study and were excluded. MA‐only articles were included if it was mentioned that the MA was based on an SR.

SRs and/or MA of primary studies evaluating methodological approaches used in defining review scope and study eligibility, literature search, study selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, data synthesis, and CoE assessment and reporting were included. The methodological approaches examined in these SRs and/or MA can also be related to the substeps or elements of these steps; for example, applying limits on date or type of publication are the elements of literature search. Included SRs examined or compared various aspects of a method or methods, and the associated factors, including but not limited to: precision or effectiveness; accuracy or reliability; impact on the SR and/or MA results; reproducibility of an SR steps or bias occurred; time and/or resource efficiency. SRs assessing the methodological quality of SRs (e.g., adherence to reporting guidelines), evaluating techniques for building search strategies or the use of specific database filters (e.g., use of Boolean operators or search filters for randomized controlled trials), examining various tools used for RoB or CoE assessment (e.g., ROBINS vs. Cochrane RoB tool), or evaluating statistical techniques used in meta‐analyses were excluded. 14

2.2. Search

The search for published SRs was performed on the following scientific databases initially from inception to third week of November 2020 and updated in the last week of February 2022: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and American Psychological Association (APA) PsycINFO. Search was restricted to English language publications. Following the objectives of this study, study design filters within databases were used to restrict the search to SRs and MA, where available. The reference lists of included SRs were also searched for potentially relevant publications.

The search terms included keywords, truncations, and subject headings for the key concepts in the review question: SRs and/or MA, methods, and evaluation. Some of the terms were adopted from the search strategy used in a previous review by Robson et al., which reviewed primary studies on methodological approaches used in study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal steps of SR process. 14 Individual search strategies were developed for respective databases by combining the search terms using appropriate proximity and Boolean operators, along with the related subject headings in order to identify SRs and/or MA. 16 , 17 A senior librarian was consulted in the design of the search terms and strategy. Appendix A presents the detailed search strategies for all five databases.

2.3. Study selection and data extraction

Title and abstract screening of references were performed in three steps. First, one reviewer (PV) screened all the titles and excluded obviously irrelevant citations, for example, articles on topics not related to SRs, non‐SR publications (such as randomized controlled trials, observational studies, scoping reviews, etc.). Next, from the remaining citations, a random sample of 200 titles and abstracts were screened against the predefined eligibility criteria by two reviewers (PV and MM), independently, in duplicate. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus. This step ensured that the responses of the two reviewers were calibrated for consistency in the application of the eligibility criteria in the screening process. Finally, all the remaining titles and abstracts were reviewed by a single “calibrated” reviewer (PV) to identify potential full‐text records. Full‐text screening was performed by at least two authors independently (PV screened all the records, and duplicate assessment was conducted by MM, HC, or MG), with discrepancies resolved via discussions or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data related to review characteristics, results, key findings, and conclusions were extracted by at least two reviewers independently (PV performed data extraction for all the reviews and duplicate extraction was performed by AP, HC, or MG).

2.4. Quality assessment of included reviews

The quality assessment of the included SRs was performed using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). The tool consists of a 16‐item checklist addressing critical and noncritical domains. 18 For the purpose of this study, the domain related to MA was reclassified from critical to noncritical, as SRs with and without MA were included. The other six critical domains were used according to the tool guidelines. 18 Two reviewers (PV and AP) independently responded to each of the 16 items in the checklist with either “yes,” “partial yes,” or “no.” Based on the interpretations of the critical and noncritical domains, the overall quality of the review was rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low. 18 Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

2.5. Data synthesis

To provide an understandable summary of existing evidence syntheses, characteristics of the methods evaluated in the included SRs were examined and key findings were categorized and presented based on the corresponding step in the SR process. The categories of key elements within each step were discussed and agreed by the authors. Results of the included reviews were tabulated and summarized descriptively, along with a discussion on any overlap in the primary studies. 15 No quantitative analyses of the data were performed.

From 41,556 unique citations identified through literature search, 50 full‐text records were reviewed, and nine systematic reviews 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion. The flow of studies through the screening process is presented in Figure  1 . A list of excluded studies with reasons can be found in Appendix B .

Study selection flowchart

3.1. Characteristics of included reviews

Table  1 summarizes the characteristics of included SRs. The majority of the included reviews (six of nine) were published after 2010. 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Four of the nine included SRs were Cochrane reviews. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 The number of databases searched in the reviews ranged from 2 to 14, 2 reviews searched gray literature sources, 24 , 25 and 7 reviews included a supplementary search strategy to identify relevant literature. 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 Three of the included SRs (all Cochrane reviews) included an integrated MA. 20 , 21 , 23

Characteristics of included studies

SR = systematic review; MA = meta‐analysis; RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial; N/R = not reported.

The included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches (26 in total) used across five steps in the SR process; 8 SRs evaluated 6 approaches, 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 while 1 review evaluated 18 approaches. 14 Exclusion of gray or unpublished literature 21 , 26 and blinding of reviewers for RoB assessment 14 , 23 were evaluated in two reviews each. Included SRs evaluated methods used in five different steps in the SR process, including methods used in defining the scope of review ( n  = 3), literature search ( n  = 3), study selection ( n  = 2), data extraction ( n  = 1), and RoB assessment ( n  = 2) (Table  2 ).

Summary of findings from review evaluating systematic review methods

There was some overlap in the primary studies evaluated in the included SRs on the same topics: Schmucker et al. 26 and Hopewell et al. 21 ( n  = 4), Hopewell et al. 20 and Crumley et al. 19 ( n  = 30), and Robson et al. 14 and Morissette et al. 23 ( n  = 4). There were no conflicting results between any of the identified SRs on the same topic.

3.2. Methodological quality of included reviews

Overall, the quality of the included reviews was assessed as moderate at best (Table  2 ). The most common critical weakness in the reviews was failure to provide justification for excluding individual studies (four reviews). Detailed quality assessment is provided in Appendix C .

3.3. Evidence on systematic review methods

3.3.1. methods for defining review scope and eligibility.

Two SRs investigated the effect of excluding data obtained from gray or unpublished sources on the pooled effect estimates of MA. 21 , 26 Hopewell et al. 21 reviewed five studies that compared the impact of gray literature on the results of a cohort of MA of RCTs in health care interventions. Gray literature was defined as information published in “print or electronic sources not controlled by commercial or academic publishers.” Findings showed an overall greater treatment effect for published trials than trials reported in gray literature. In a more recent review, Schmucker et al. 26 addressed similar objectives, by investigating gray and unpublished data in medicine. In addition to gray literature, defined similar to the previous review by Hopewell et al., the authors also evaluated unpublished data—defined as “supplemental unpublished data related to published trials, data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration  or other regulatory websites or postmarketing analyses hidden from the public.” The review found that in majority of the MA, excluding gray literature had little or no effect on the pooled effect estimates. The evidence was limited to conclude if the data from gray and unpublished literature had an impact on the conclusions of MA. 26

Morrison et al. 24 examined five studies measuring the effect of excluding non‐English language RCTs on the summary treatment effects of SR‐based MA in various fields of conventional medicine. Although none of the included studies reported major difference in the treatment effect estimates between English only and non‐English inclusive MA, the review found inconsistent evidence regarding the methodological and reporting quality of English and non‐English trials. 24 As such, there might be a risk of introducing “language bias” when excluding non‐English language RCTs. The authors also noted that the numbers of non‐English trials vary across medical specialties, as does the impact of these trials on MA results. Based on these findings, Morrison et al. 24 conclude that literature searches must include non‐English studies when resources and time are available to minimize the risk of introducing “language bias.”

3.3.2. Methods for searching studies

Crumley et al. 19 analyzed recall (also referred to as “sensitivity” by some researchers; defined as “percentage of relevant studies identified by the search”) and precision (defined as “percentage of studies identified by the search that were relevant”) when searching a single resource to identify randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, as opposed to searching multiple resources. The studies included in their review frequently compared a MEDLINE only search with the search involving a combination of other resources. The review found low median recall estimates (median values between 24% and 92%) and very low median precisions (median values between 0% and 49%) for most of the electronic databases when searched singularly. 19 A between‐database comparison, based on the type of search strategy used, showed better recall and precision for complex and Cochrane Highly Sensitive search strategies (CHSSS). In conclusion, the authors emphasize that literature searches for trials in SRs must include multiple sources. 19

In an SR comparing handsearching and electronic database searching, Hopewell et al. 20 found that handsearching retrieved more relevant RCTs (retrieval rate of 92%−100%) than searching in a single electronic database (retrieval rates of 67% for PsycINFO/PsycLIT, 55% for MEDLINE, and 49% for Embase). The retrieval rates varied depending on the quality of handsearching, type of electronic search strategy used (e.g., simple, complex or CHSSS), and type of trial reports searched (e.g., full reports, conference abstracts, etc.). The authors concluded that handsearching was particularly important in identifying full trials published in nonindexed journals and in languages other than English, as well as those published as abstracts and letters. 20

The effectiveness of checking reference lists to retrieve additional relevant studies for an SR was investigated by Horsley et al. 22 The review reported that checking reference lists yielded 2.5%–40% more studies depending on the quality and comprehensiveness of the electronic search used. The authors conclude that there is some evidence, although from poor quality studies, to support use of checking reference lists to supplement database searching. 22

3.3.3. Methods for selecting studies

Three approaches relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers involved in the screening process were highlighted in an SR by Robson et al. 14 Based on the retrieved evidence, the authors recommended that two independent, experienced, and unblinded reviewers be involved in study selection. 14 A modified approach has also been suggested by the review authors, where one reviewer screens and the other reviewer verifies the list of excluded studies, when the resources are limited. It should be noted however this suggestion is likely based on the authors’ opinion, as there was no evidence related to this from the studies included in the review.

Robson et al. 14 also reported two methods describing the use of technology for screening studies: use of Google Translate for translating languages (for example, German language articles to English) to facilitate screening was considered a viable method, while using two computer monitors for screening did not increase the screening efficiency in SR. Title‐first screening was found to be more efficient than simultaneous screening of titles and abstracts, although the gain in time with the former method was lesser than the latter. Therefore, considering that the search results are routinely exported as titles and abstracts, Robson et al. 14 recommend screening titles and abstracts simultaneously. However, the authors note that these conclusions were based on very limited number (in most instances one study per method) of low‐quality studies. 14

3.3.4. Methods for data extraction

Robson et al. 14 examined three approaches for data extraction relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers (similar to the study selection step). Although based on limited evidence from a small number of studies, the authors recommended use of two experienced and unblinded reviewers for data extraction. The experience of the reviewers was suggested to be especially important when extracting continuous outcomes (or quantitative) data. However, when the resources are limited, data extraction by one reviewer and a verification of the outcomes data by a second reviewer was recommended.

As for the methods involving use of technology, Robson et al. 14 identified limited evidence on the use of two monitors to improve the data extraction efficiency and computer‐assisted programs for graphical data extraction. However, use of Google Translate for data extraction in non‐English articles was not considered to be viable. 14 In the same review, Robson et al. 14 identified evidence supporting contacting authors for obtaining additional relevant data.

3.3.5. Methods for RoB assessment

Two SRs examined the impact of blinding of reviewers for RoB assessments. 14 , 23 Morissette et al. 23 investigated the mean differences between the blinded and unblinded RoB assessment scores and found inconsistent differences among the included studies providing no definitive conclusions. Similar conclusions were drawn in a more recent review by Robson et al., 14 which included four studies on reviewer blinding for RoB assessment that completely overlapped with Morissette et al. 23

Use of experienced reviewers and provision of additional guidance for RoB assessment were examined by Robson et al. 14 The review concluded that providing intensive training and guidance on assessing studies reporting insufficient data to the reviewers improves RoB assessments. 14 Obtaining additional data related to quality assessment by contacting study authors was also found to help the RoB assessments, although based on limited evidence. When assessing the qualitative or mixed method reviews, Robson et al. 14 recommends the use of a structured RoB tool as opposed to an unstructured tool. No SRs were identified on data synthesis and CoE assessment and reporting steps.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. summary of findings.

Nine SRs examining 24 unique methods used across five steps in the SR process were identified in this overview. The collective evidence supports some current traditional and modified SR practices, while challenging other approaches. However, the quality of the included reviews was assessed to be moderate at best and in the majority of the included SRs, evidence related to the evaluated methods was obtained from very limited numbers of primary studies. As such, the interpretations from these SRs should be made cautiously.

The evidence gathered from the included SRs corroborate a few current SR approaches. 5 For example, it is important to search multiple resources for identifying relevant trials (RCTs and/or CCTs). The resources must include a combination of electronic database searching, handsearching, and reference lists of retrieved articles. 5 However, no SRs have been identified that evaluated the impact of the number of electronic databases searched. A recent study by Halladay et al. 27 found that articles on therapeutic intervention, retrieved by searching databases other than PubMed (including Embase), contributed only a small amount of information to the MA and also had a minimal impact on the MA results. The authors concluded that when the resources are limited and when large number of studies are expected to be retrieved for the SR or MA, PubMed‐only search can yield reliable results. 27

Findings from the included SRs also reiterate some methodological modifications currently employed to “expedite” the SR process. 10 , 11 For example, excluding non‐English language trials and gray/unpublished trials from MA have been shown to have minimal or no impact on the results of MA. 24 , 26 However, the efficiency of these SR methods, in terms of time and the resources used, have not been evaluated in the included SRs. 24 , 26 Of the SRs included, only two have focused on the aspect of efficiency 14 , 25 ; O'Mara‐Eves et al. 25 report some evidence to support the use of text‐mining approaches for title and abstract screening in order to increase the rate of screening. Moreover, only one included SR 14 considered primary studies that evaluated reliability (inter‐ or intra‐reviewer consistency) and accuracy (validity when compared against a “gold standard” method) of the SR methods. This can be attributed to the limited number of primary studies that evaluated these outcomes when evaluating the SR methods. 14 Lack of outcome measures related to reliability, accuracy, and efficiency precludes making definitive recommendations on the use of these methods/modifications. Future research studies must focus on these outcomes.

Some evaluated methods may be relevant to multiple steps; for example, exclusions based on publication status (gray/unpublished literature) and language of publication (non‐English language studies) can be outlined in the a priori eligibility criteria or can be incorporated as search limits in the search strategy. SRs included in this overview focused on the effect of study exclusions on pooled treatment effect estimates or MA conclusions. Excluding studies from the search results, after conducting a comprehensive search, based on different eligibility criteria may yield different results when compared to the results obtained when limiting the search itself. 28 Further studies are required to examine this aspect.

Although we acknowledge the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for methodological study designs, we adhered to the Cochrane criteria for identifying SRs in this overview. This was done to ensure consistency in the quality of the included evidence. As a result, we excluded three reviews that did not provide any form of discussion on the quality of the included studies. The methods investigated in these reviews concern supplementary search, 29 data extraction, 12 and screening. 13 However, methods reported in two of these three reviews, by Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al., 13 have also been examined in the SR by Robson et al., 14 which was included in this overview; in most instances (with the exception of one study included in Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al. 13 each), the studies examined in these excluded reviews overlapped with those in the SR by Robson et al. 14

One of the key gaps in the knowledge observed in this overview was the dearth of SRs on the methods used in the data synthesis component of SR. Narrative and quantitative syntheses are the two most commonly used approaches for synthesizing data in evidence synthesis. 5 There are some published studies on the proposed indications and implications of these two approaches. 30 , 31 These studies found that both data synthesis methods produced comparable results and have their own advantages, suggesting that the choice of the method must be based on the purpose of the review. 31 With increasing number of “expedited” SR approaches (so called “rapid reviews”) avoiding MA, 10 , 11 further research studies are warranted in this area to determine the impact of the type of data synthesis on the results of the SR.

4.2. Implications for future research

The findings of this overview highlight several areas of paucity in primary research and evidence synthesis on SR methods. First, no SRs were identified on methods used in two important components of the SR process, including data synthesis and CoE and reporting. As for the included SRs, a limited number of evaluation studies have been identified for several methods. This indicates that further research is required to corroborate many of the methods recommended in current SR guidelines. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Second, some SRs evaluated the impact of methods on the results of quantitative synthesis and MA conclusions. Future research studies must also focus on the interpretations of SR results. 28 , 32 Finally, most of the included SRs were conducted on specific topics related to the field of health care, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other areas. It is important that future research studies evaluating evidence syntheses broaden the objectives and include studies on different topics within the field of health care.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first overview summarizing current evidence from SRs and MA on different methodological approaches used in several fundamental steps in SR conduct. The overview methodology followed well established guidelines and strict criteria defined for the inclusion of SRs.

There are several limitations related to the nature of the included reviews. Evidence for most of the methods investigated in the included reviews was derived from a limited number of primary studies. Also, the majority of the included SRs may be considered outdated as they were published (or last updated) more than 5 years ago 33 ; only three of the nine SRs have been published in the last 5 years. 14 , 25 , 26 Therefore, important and recent evidence related to these topics may not have been included. Substantial numbers of included SRs were conducted in the field of health, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some method evaluations in the included SRs focused on quantitative analyses components and MA conclusions only. As such, the applicability of these findings to SR more broadly is still unclear. 28 Considering the methodological nature of our overview, limiting the inclusion of SRs according to the Cochrane criteria might have resulted in missing some relevant evidence from those reviews without a quality assessment component. 12 , 13 , 29 Although the included SRs performed some form of quality appraisal of the included studies, most of them did not use a standardized RoB tool, which may impact the confidence in their conclusions. Due to the type of outcome measures used for the method evaluations in the primary studies and the included SRs, some of the identified methods have not been validated against a reference standard.

Some limitations in the overview process must be noted. While our literature search was exhaustive covering five bibliographic databases and supplementary search of reference lists, no gray sources or other evidence resources were searched. Also, the search was primarily conducted in health databases, which might have resulted in missing SRs published in other fields. Moreover, only English language SRs were included for feasibility. As the literature search retrieved large number of citations (i.e., 41,556), the title and abstract screening was performed by a single reviewer, calibrated for consistency in the screening process by another reviewer, owing to time and resource limitations. These might have potentially resulted in some errors when retrieving and selecting relevant SRs. The SR methods were grouped based on key elements of each recommended SR step, as agreed by the authors. This categorization pertains to the identified set of methods and should be considered subjective.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process. Limited evidence was also identified on some methodological modifications currently used to expedite the SR process. Overall, findings highlight the dearth of SRs on SR methodologies, warranting further work to confirm several current recommendations on conventional and expedited SR processes.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

APPENDIX A: Detailed search strategies

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first author is supported by a La Trobe University Full Fee Research Scholarship and a Graduate Research Scholarship.

Open Access Funding provided by La Trobe University.

Veginadu P, Calache H, Gussy M, Pandian A, Masood M. An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews . J Evid Based Med . 2022; 15 :39–54. 10.1111/jebm.12468 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

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

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

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

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

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

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

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Advertisement

Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review

• LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Published: 02 March 2022

Cite this article

• Cecilia Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-601X 1 ,
• Luca Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-899X 2 ,
• Michela Piccarozzi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-9462 1 &
• Alessandro Ruggieri 1  

2853 Accesses

11 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2022

This article has been updated

The implementation of sustainability and circular economy (CE) models in agri-food production can promote resource efficiency, reduce environmental burdens, and ensure improved and socially responsible systems. In this context, indicators for the measurement of sustainability play a crucial role. Indicators can measure CE strategies aimed to preserve functions, products, components, materials, or embodied energy. Although there is broad literature describing sustainability and CE indicators, no study offers such a comprehensive framework of indicators for measuring sustainability and CE in the agri-food sector.

Starting from this central research gap, a systematic literature review has been developed to measure the sustainability in the agri-food sector and, based on these findings, to understand how indicators are used and for which specific purposes.

The analysis of the results allowed us to classify the sample of articles in three main clusters (“Assessment-LCA,” “Best practice,” and “Decision-making”) and has shown increasing attention to the three pillars of sustainability (triple bottom line). In this context, an integrated approach of indicators (environmental, social, and economic) offers the best solution to ensure an easier transition to sustainability.

Conclusions

The sample analysis facilitated the identification of new categories of impact that deserve attention, such as the cooperation among stakeholders in the supply chain and eco-innovation.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the temporal distribution of the articles under analysis

Source: Authors’ elaborations. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of articles from the three major journals

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the composition of the sample according to the three clusters identified by the analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of articles over time by cluster

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the network visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the overlay visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles by scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Article classification based on their cluster to which they belong and scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of items over time based on TBL

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the Pareto diagram highlighting the most used indicators in literature for measuring sustainability in the agri-food sector

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution over time of articles divided into conceptual and empirical

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles, divided into conceptual and empirical, in-depth analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the geographical distribution of the authors

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of publication of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Sustainability measurement indicators and impact categories of LCA, S-LCA, and LCC tools should be integrated in order to provide stakeholders with best practices as guidelines and tools to support both decision-making and measurement, according to the circular economy approach

Similar content being viewed by others

Common Methods and Sustainability Indicators

Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions

Hamid El Bilali

Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: where are food security and nutrition?

Change history, 24 march 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02038-9

Acero AP, Rodriguez C, Ciroth A (2017) LCIA methods: impact assessment methods in life cycle assessment and their impact categories. Version 1.5.6. Green Delta 1–23

Accorsi R, Versari L, Manzini R (2015) Glass vs. plastic: Life cycle assessment of extra-virgin olive oil bottles across global supply chains. Sustain 7:2818–2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032818

Adjei-Bamfo P, Maloreh-Nyamekye T, Ahenkan A (2019) The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Aivazidou E, Tsolakis N, Vlachos D, Iakovou E (2015) Water footprint management policies for agrifood supply chains: a critical taxonomy and a system dynamics modelling approach. Chem Eng Trans 43:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543020

Alhaddi H (2015) Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review. Bus Manag Stud 1:6–10

Allaoui H, Guo Y, Sarkis J (2019) Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod 229:761–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.367

Alshqaqeeq F, Amin Esmaeili M, Overcash M, Twomey J (2020) Quantifying hospital services by carbon footprint: a systematic literature review of patient care alternatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104560

Anwar F, Chaudhry FN, Nazeer S et al (2016) Causes of ozone layer depletion and its effects on human: review. Atmos Clim Sci 06:129–134. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2016.61011

Aquilani B, Silvestri C, Ruggieri A (2016). A Systematic Literature Review on Total Quality Management Critical Success Factors and the Identification of New Avenues of Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0003

Aramyan L, Hoste R, Van Den Broek W et al (2011) Towards sustainable food production: a scenario study of the European pork sector. J Chain Netw Sci 11:177–189. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2011.Qpork8

Arfini F, Antonioli F, Cozzi E et al (2019) Sustainability, innovation and rural development: the case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO. Sustain 11:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184978

Assembly UG (2005) Resolution adopted by the general assembly. New York, NY

Avilés-Palacios C, Rodríguez-Olalla A (2021) The sustainability of waste management models in circular economies. Sustain 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137105

Azevedo SG, Silva ME, Matias JCO, Dias GP (2018) The influence of collaboration initiatives on the sustainability of the cashew supply chain. Sustain 10:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062075

Bajaj S, Garg R, Sethi M (2016) Total quality management: a critical literature review using Pareto analysis. Int J Product Perform Manag 67:128–154

Banasik A, Kanellopoulos A, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Claassen GDH (2019) Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: a case study for mushroom production planning. J Clean Prod 216:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.153

Barth H, Ulvenblad PO, Ulvenblad P (2017) Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Sustain 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620

Bastas A, Liyanage K (2018) Sustainable supply chain quality management: a systematic review

Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20:481–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W

Belaud JP, Prioux N, Vialle C, Sablayrolles C (2019) Big data for agri-food 4.0: application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput Ind 111:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.06.006

Bele B, Norderhaug A, Sickel H (2018) Localized agri-food systems and biodiversity. Agric 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8020022

Bilali H El, Calabrese G, Iannetta M et al (2020) Environmental sustainability of typical agro-food products: a scientifically sound and user friendly approach. New Medit 19:69–83. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2002e

Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F et al (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: an integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092475

Bloemhof JM, van der Vorst JGAJ, Bastl M, Allaoui H (2015) Sustainability assessment of food chain logistics. Int J Logist Res Appl 18:101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015508

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L (2018) Deconstructing criteria and assessment tools to build agri-sustainability indicators and support farmers’ decision-making process. J Clean Prod 182:1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.055

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L, Pérez-Mesa JC (2019) Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.054

Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Hug SE (2018) Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 114:427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8

Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. New York, 1-17

Bracquené E, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2020) Measuring the performance of more circular complex product supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104608

Burck J, Hagen U, Bals C et al (2021) Climate Change Performance Index

Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917

Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM et al (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408

Capitanio F, Coppola A, Pascucci S (2010) Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness 26:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20239

Caputo P, Zagarella F, Cusenza MA et al (2020) Energy-environmental assessment of the UIA-OpenAgri case study as urban regeneration project through agriculture. Sci Total Environ 729:138819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138819

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chabowski BR, Mena JA, Gonzalez-Padron TL (2011) The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. J Acad Mark Sci 39:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus M et al (2017) A comparison between two main academic literature collections : Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc Sci 9:18–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Chams N, Guesmi B, Gil JM (2020) Beyond scientific contribution: assessment of the societal impact of research and innovation to build a sustainable agri-food sector. J Environ Manage 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110455

Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Jayamaha NP, Ramilan T (2019) Absolute sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach to operate agri-food systems within the 2°C global carbon budget. J Ind Ecol 23:906–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12830

Chaparro-Africano AM (2019) Toward generating sustainability indicators for agroecological markets. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:40–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1566192

Colicchia C, Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review

Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2021) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672

Coppola A, Ianuario S, Romano S, Viccaro M (2020) Corporate social responsibility in agri-food firms: the relationship between CSR actions and firm’s performance. AIMS Environ Sci 7:542–558. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2020034

Corona B, Shen L, Reike D et al (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

Correia MS (2019) Sustainability: An overview of the triple bottom line and sustainability implementation. Int J Strateg Eng 2:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103

Coteur I, Marchand F, Debruyne L, Lauwers L (2019) Structuring the myriad of sustainability assessments in agri-food systems: a case in Flanders. J Clean Prod 209:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.066

CREA (2020) L’agricoltura italiana conta 2019

Crenna E, Sala S, Polce C, Collina E (2017) Pollinators in life cycle assessment: towards a framework for impact assessment. J Clean Prod 140:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058

D’Eusanio M, Serreli M, Zamagni A, Petti L (2018) Assessment of social dimension of a jar of honey: a methodological outline. J Clean Prod 199:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.157

Dania WAP, Xing K, Amer Y (2018) Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 186:851–864

De Pascale A, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczyńska K et al (2021) A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J Clean Prod 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942

De Schoenmakere M, Gillabel J (2017) Circular by design: products in the circular economy

Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.083

Del Borghi A, Strazza C, Magrassi F et al (2018) Life cycle assessment for eco-design of product–package systems in the food industry—the case of legumes. Sustain Prod Consum 13:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.001

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan B (ed) The sage handbook of organization research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Cornwall, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dietz T, Grabs J, Chong AE (2019) Mainstreamed voluntary sustainability standards and their effectiveness: evidence from the Honduran coffee sector. Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12239

Dixon-Woods M (2011) Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 9:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-39

do Canto NR, Bossle MB, Marques L, Dutra M, (2020) Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a qualitative investigation of food supply chains in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual an Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0275

dos Santos RR, Guarnieri P (2020) Social gains for artisanal agroindustrial producers induced by cooperation and collaboration in agri-food supply chain. Soc Responsib J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2019-0323

Doukidis GI, Matopoulos A, Vlachopoulou M, Manthou V, Manos B (2007) A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Manag an Int Journal 12:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710742491

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag 53:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12145

Durán-Sánchez A, Álvarez-García J, Río-Rama D, De la Cruz M (2018) Sustainable water resources management: a bibliometric overview. Water 10:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091191

Duru M, Therond O (2015) Livestock system sustainability and resilience in intensive production zones: which form of ecological modernization? Reg Environ Chang 15:1651–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0722-9

Edison Fondazione (2019) Le eccellenze agricole italiane. I primati europei e mondiali dell’Italia nei prodotti vegetali. Milan (IT)

Ehrenfeld JR (2005) The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46(2)46:23–25

Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford

Esposito B, Sessa MR, Sica D, Malandrino O (2020) Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12187401

European Commission (2018) Agri-food trade in 2018

European Commission (2019) Monitoring EU agri-food trade: development until September 2019

Eurostat (2018) Small and large farms in the EU - statistics from the farm structure survey

FAO (2011) Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Italy, Rome

FAO (2012) Energy-smart food at FAO: an overview. Italy, Rome

FAO (2014) Food wastage footprint: fool cost-accounting

FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture climate change, agriculture and food security. Italy, Rome

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Italy, Rome

FAO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome, Italy

Fassio F, Tecco N (2019) Circular economy for food: a systemic interpretation of 40 case histories in the food system in their relationships with SDGs. Systems 7:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030043

Fathollahi A, Coupe SJ (2021) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) of road drainage systems for sustainability evaluation: quantifying the contribution of different life cycle phases. Sci Total Environ 776:145937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145937

Ferreira VJ, Arnal ÁJ, Royo P et al (2019) Energy and resource efficiency of electroporation-assisted extraction as an emerging technology towards a sustainable bio-economy in the agri-food sector. J Clean Prod 233:1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.030

Fiksel J (2006) A framework for sustainable remediation. JOM 8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202595w

Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research

Franciosi C, Voisin A, Miranda S et al (2020) Measuring maintenance impacts on sustainability of manufacturing industries : from a systematic literature review to a framework proposal. J Clean Prod 260:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121065

Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Meuwissen MPM, Oude AGJML (2017) Total factor productivity: a framework for measuring agri-food supply chain performance towards sustainability. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 39:259–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppw008

Galdeano-Gómez E, Zepeda-Zepeda JA, Piedra-Muñoz L, Vega-López LL (2017) Family farm’s features influencing socio-economic sustainability: an analysis of the agri-food sector in southeast Spain. New Medit 16:50–61

Gallopín G, Herrero LMJ, Rocuts A (2014) Conceptual frameworks and visual interpretations of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev 17:298–326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2014.064183

Gallopín GC (2003) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. Cepal, LATIN AMERICA

Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 72:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947

Garofalo P, D’Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M et al (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains in Italy: the case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assessment methodology. J Food Eng 200:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.12.007

Gava O, Bartolini F, Venturi F et al (2018) A reflection of the use of the life cycle assessment tool for agri-food sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010071

Gazzola P, Querci E (2017) The connection between the quality of life and sustainable ecological development. Eur Sci J 7881:1857–7431

Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy low and the economic process. Harward University Press, Cambridge Mass

Book   Google Scholar  

Gerbens-Leenes PW, Moll HC, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM (2003) Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems. Ecol Econ 46:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00140-X

Gésan-Guiziou G, Alaphilippe A, Aubin J et al (2020) Diversity and potentiality of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for agri-food research. Agron Sustain Dev 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00650-3

Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Godoy-Durán Á, Galdeano- Gómez E, Pérez-Mesa JC, Piedra-Muñoz L (2017) Assessing eco-efficiency and the determinants of horticultural family-farming in southeast Spain. J Environ Manage 204:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.037

Gold S, Kunz N, Reiner G (2017) Sustainable global agrifood supply chains: exploring the barriers. J Ind Ecol 21:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12440

Goucher L, Bruce R, Cameron DD et al (2017) The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat Plants 3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.12

Green A, Nemecek T, Chaudhary A, Mathys A (2020) Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Sec 26:100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100406

Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future †. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v

Guiomar N, Godinho S, Pinto-Correia T et al (2018) Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: towards a better picture. Land Use Policy 75:784–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.012

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87:333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468

Hamam M, Chinnici G, Di Vita G et al (2021) Circular economy models in agro-food systems: a review. Sustain 13

Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Aziz NIHA (2021) An LCA-based environmental performance of rice production for developing a sustainable agri-food system in Malaysia. Environ Manage 67:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7

Harvey M, Pilgrim S (2011) The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36:S40–S51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.009

Hawkes C, Ruel MT (2006) Understanding the links between agriculture and health. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, USA

Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science (80)344:1109LP–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361

Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C (2015) Private agri-food governance and greenhouse gas abatement: constructing a corporate carbon economy. Geoforum 66:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.012

Hill T (1995) Manufacturing strategy: text and cases., Macmillan

Hjeresen DD, Gonzales R (2020) Green chemistry promote sustainable agriculture?The rewards are higher yields and less environmental contamination. Environemental Sci Techonology 103–107

Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Australia

Horton P, Koh L, Guang VS (2016) An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems. J Clean Prod 120:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.092

Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0130-4

Huffman T, Liu J, Green M et al (2015) Improving and evaluating the soil cover indicator for agricultural land in Canada. Ecol Indic 48:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.008

Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002

Ingrao C, Faccilongo N, Valenti F et al (2019) Tomato puree in the Mediterranean region: an environmental life cycle assessment, based upon data surveyed at the supply chain level. J Clean Prod 233:292–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.056

Iocola I, Angevin F, Bockstaller C et al (2020) An actor-oriented multi-criteria assessment framework to support a transition towards sustainable agricultural systems based on crop diversification. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135434

Irabien A, Darton RC (2016) Energy–water–food nexus in the Spanish greenhouse tomato production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1076-9

ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework

ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines

ISO 15392:2008 (2008) Sustainability in building construction–general principles

Istat (2019) Andamento dell’economia agricola

Jaakkola E (2020) Designing conceptual articles : four approaches. AMS Rev 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q (2019) Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt KH (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375

Jorgensen SE, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Twenty volumes of ecological indicators-an accounting short review. Ecol Indic 28:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.018

Joshi S, Sharma M, Kler R (2020) Modeling circular economy dimensions in agri-tourism clusters: sustainable performance and future research directions. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci 5:1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.080

Kamilaris A, Gao F, Prenafeta-Boldu FX, Ali MI (2017) Agri-IoT: a semantic framework for Internet of Things-enabled smart farming applications. In: 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2016. pp 442–447

Karuppusami G, Gandhinathan R (2006) Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total quality management: a literature review and analysis. TQM Mag 18:372–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610671048

Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444

Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Moustakas K et al (2021) Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing olive wastes to biofuel, phosphate salts, natural antioxidant, and an oxygenated fuel additive (triacetin). J Clean Prod 278:123916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123916

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500

Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod 175:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111

Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H (2017) Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: agriculture leaks worst. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008

Laso J, Hoehn D, Margallo M et al (2018) Assessing energy and environmental efficiency of the Spanish agri-food system using the LCA/DEA methodology. Energies 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123395

Lee KM (2007) So What is the “triple bottom line”? Int J Divers Organ Communities Nations Annu Rev 6:67–72. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/cgp/v06i06/39283

Lehmann RJ, Hermansen JE, Fritz M et al (2011) Information services for European pork chains - closing gaps in information infrastructures. Comput Electron Agric 79:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.09.002

León-Bravo V, Caniato F, Caridi M, Johnsen T (2017) Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: a multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 9:1253

Lepage A (2009) The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. TQM J 21:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938119

Li CZ, Zhao Y, Xiao B et al (2020) Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. J Clean Prod 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458

Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8:305–316. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.721

Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1

Luo J, Ji C, Qiu C, Jia F (2018) Agri-food supply chain management: bibliometric and content analyses. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051573

Lynch J, Donnellan T, Finn JA et al (2019) Potential development of Irish agricultural sustainability indicators for current and future policy evaluation needs. J Environ Manage 230:434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.070

MacArthur E (2013) Towards the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 2:23–44

MacArthur E (2017) Delivering the circular economy a toolkit for policymakers, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

MacInnis DJ (2011) A framework for conceptual. J Mark 75:136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

Mangla SK, Luthra S, Rich N et al (2018) Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 203:379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.012

Marotta G, Nazzaro C, Stanco M (2017) How the social responsibility creates value: models of innovation in Italian pasta industry. Int J Glob Small Bus 9:144–167. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2017.088923

Martucci O, Arcese G, Montauti C, Acampora A (2019) Social aspects in the wine sector: comparison between social life cycle assessment and VIVA sustainable wine project indicators. Resources 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020069

Mayring P (2004) Forum : Qualitative social research Sozialforschung 2. History of content analysis. A Companion to Qual Res 1:159–176

McKelvey B (2002) Managing coevolutionary dynamics. In: 18th EGOS Conference. Barcelona, Spain, pp 1–21

McMichael AJ, Butler CD, Folke C (2003) New visions for addressing sustainability. Science (80- ) 302:1191–1920

Mehmood A, Ahmed S, Viza E et al (2021) Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri-food supply chain: a review. Bus Strateg Dev 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.171

Mella P, Gazzola P (2011) Sustainability and quality of life: the development model. In: Kapounek S (ed) Enterprise and competitive environment. Mendel University: Brno, Czechia. 542–551

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy ? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A et al (2020) Recycled fibers in reinforced concrete: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 248:119207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119207

Miglietta PP, Morrone D (2018) Managing water sustainability: virtual water flows and economic water productivity assessment of the wine trade between Italy and the Balkans. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020543

Mitchell MGE, Chan KMA, Newlands NK, Ramankutty N (2020) Spatial correlations don’t predict changes in agricultural ecosystem services: a Canada-wide case study. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.539892

Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure?. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045

Morrissey JE, Dunphy NP (2015) Towards sustainable agri-food systems: the role of integrated sustainability and value assessment across the supply-chain. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 6:41–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2015070104

Moser G (2009) Quality of life and sustainability: toward person-environment congruity. J Environ Psychol 29:351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.002

Muijs D (2010) Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London

Muller MF, Esmanioto F, Huber N, Loures ER (2019) A systematic literature review of interoperability in the green Building Information Modeling lifecycle. J Clean Prod 223:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.114

Muradin M, Joachimiak-Lechman K, Foltynowicz Z (2018) Evaluation of eco-efficiency of two alternative agricultural biogas plants. Appl Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112083

Naseer MA, ur R, Ashfaq M, Hassan S, et al (2019) Critical issues at the upstream level in sustainable supply chain management of agri-food industries: evidence from Pakistan’s citrus industry. Sustain 11:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051326

Nattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M (2020) Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8

Nazari-Sharabian M, Ahmad S, Karakouzian M (2018) Climate change and eutrophication: a short review. Eng Technol Appl Sci Res 8:3668–3672. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2532694

Nazir N (2017) Understanding life cycle thinking and its practical application to agri-food system. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7:1861–1870. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.7.5.3578

Negra C, Remans R, Attwood S et al (2020) Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol Indic 110:105851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105851

Newsham KK, Robinson SA (2009) Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 15:2574–2589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01944.x

Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012

Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002

Nikolaou IE, Tsagarakis KP (2021) An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain Prod Consum 28:600–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017

Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.007

Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Monforti F (2017) Energy flows and greenhouses gases of EU (European Union) national breads using an LCA (life cycle assessment) approach. J Clean Prod 140:455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.150

Opferkuch K, Caeiro S, Salomone R, Ramos TB (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: a review of organisational approaches. Bus Strateg Environ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854

Padilla-Rivera A, do Carmo BBT, Arcese G, Merveille N, (2021) Social circular economy indicators: selection through fuzzy delphi method. Sustain Prod Consum 26:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015

Pagotto M, Halog A (2016) Towards a circular economy in Australian agri-food industry: an application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. J Ind Ecol 20:1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12373

Parent G, Lavallée S (2011) LCA potentials and limits within a sustainable agri-food statutory framework. Global food insecurity. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 161–171

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pattey E, Qiu G (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canadian agriculture. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 62:737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.672058

Pauliuk S (2018) Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019

Peano C, Migliorini P, Sottile F (2014) A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: an application to the slow food presidia project. Ecol Soc 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06972-190424

Peano C, Tecco N, Dansero E et al (2015) Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustain 7:6721–6741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066721

Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts

Pelletier N (2018) Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustain 10:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051601

Peña C, Civit B, Gallego-Schmid A et al (2021) Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z

Perez Neira D (2016) Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its contribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 112:2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.003

Pérez-Neira D, Grollmus-Venegas A (2018) Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Landsc Urban Plan 172:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.001

Pérez-Pons ME, Plaza-Hernández M, Alonso RS et al (2021) Increasing profitability and monitoring environmental performance: a case study in the agri-food industry through an edge-iot platform. Sustain 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010283

Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J Clean Prod 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

Polit DF, Beck CT (2004) Nursing research: principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

Porkka M, Gerten D, Schaphoff S et al (2016) Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environ Res Lett 11:015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/015001

Prajapati H, Kant R, Shankar R (2019) Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 211:503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.187

Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2020) Policy recommendations for enabling transition towards sustainable agriculture in India. Land Use Policy 96:104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104718

Pronti A, Coccia M (2020) Multicriteria analysis of the sustainability performance between agroecological and conventional coffee farms in the East Region of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Renew Agric Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000332

Rabadán A, González-Moreno A, Sáez-Martínez FJ (2019) Improving firms’ performance and sustainability: the case of eco-innovation in the agri-food industry. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590

Raut RD, Luthra S, Narkhede BE et al (2019) Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector. J Clean Prod 215:926–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.139

Recanati F, Marveggio D, Dotelli G (2018) From beans to bar: a life cycle assessment towards sustainable chocolate supply chain. Sci Total Environ 613–614:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.187

Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281

Rezaei M, Soheilifard F, Keshvari A (2021) Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach. Energy Sources. Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 1–16

Rigamonti L, Mancini E (2021) Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2

Risku-Norja H, Mäenpää I (2007) MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecol Econ 60:700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.001

Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy – integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Roos Lindgreen E, Mondello G, Salomone R et al (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01972-4

Roselli L, Casieri A, De Gennaro BC et al (2020) Environmental and economic sustainability of table grape production in Italy. Sustain 12.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093670

Ross RB, Pandey V, Ross KL (2015) Sustainability and strategy in U.S. agri-food firms: an assessment of current practices. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 18:17–48

Royo P, Ferreira VJ, López-Sabirón AM, Ferreira G. (2016) Hybrid diagnosis to characterise the energy and environmental enhancement of photovoltaic modules using smart materials. Energy 101:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.101

Ruggerio CA (2021) Sustainability and sustainable development: a review of principles and definitions. Sci Total Environ 786:147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481

Ruiz-Almeida A, Rivera-Ferre MG (2019) Internationally-based indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Secur 11:1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00964-5

Ryan M, Hennessy T, Buckley C et al (2016) Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Irish J Agric Food Res 55:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijafr-2016-0011

Saade MRM, Yahia A, Amor B (2020) How has LCA been applied to 3D printing ? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies. J Clean Prod 244:118803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803

Saitone TL, Sexton RJ (2017) Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. Eur Rev Agric Econ 44:634–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx003

Salim N, Ab Rahman MN, Abd Wahab D (2019) A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 209:1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Salimi N (2021) Circular economy in agri-food systems BT - strategic decision making for sustainable management of industrial networks. In: International S (ed) Rezaei J. Publishing, Cham, pp 57–70

Salomone R, Ioppolo G (2012) Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a life cycle assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J Clean Prod 28:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.004

Sánchez AD, Río DMDLC, García JÁ (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 23:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001

Saputri VHL, Sutopo W, Hisjam M, Ma’aram A (2019) Sustainable agri-food supply chain performance measurement model for GMO and non-GMO using data envelopment analysis method. Appl Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061199

Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy performance assessment methods : a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019

Schiefer S, Gonzalez C, Flanigan S (2015) More than just a factor in transition processes? The role of collaboration in agriculture. In: Sutherland LA, Darnhofer I, Wilson GA, Zagata L (eds) Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe, CPI Group. Croydon, UK, pp. 83

Seuring S, Muller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Silvestri C, Silvestri L, Forcina A, et al (2021) Green chemistry contribution towards more equitable global sustainability and greater circular economy: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126137

Smetana S, Schmitt E, Mathys A (2019) Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 144:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.042

Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F (2010) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

Soussana JF (2014) Research priorities for sustainable agri-food systems and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 73:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.061

Soylu A, Oruç C, Turkay M et al (2006) Synergy analysis of collaborative supply chain management in energy systems using multi-period MILP. Eur J Oper Res 174:387–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.042

Spaiser V, Ranganathan S, Swain RB, Sumpter DJ (2017) The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 24:457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624

Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strateg Environ 27:1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048

Stillitano T, Spada E, Iofrida N et al (2021) Sustainable agri-food processes and circular economy pathways in a life cycle perspective: state of the art of applicative research. Sustain 13:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052472

Stone J, Rahimifard S (2018) Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Manag 23:207–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2017-0201

Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Clean Prod 19:1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014

Su B, Heshmati A, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020

Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271

Svensson G, Wagner B (2015) Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability. Manag Environ Qual an Int Journal 26:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099

Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: an LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. J Clean Prod 140:725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.170

Tassielli G, Notarnicola B, Renzulli PA, Arcese G (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy. J Clean Prod 171:184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.227

Teixeira R, Pax S (2011) A survey of life cycle assessment practitioners with a focus on the agri-food sector. J Ind Ecol 15:817–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00421.x

Tobergte DR, Curtis S (2013) ILCD Handbook. J Chem Info Model. https://doi.org/10.278/33030

Tortorella MM, Di Leo S, Cosmi C et al (2020) A methodological integrated approach to analyse climate change effects in agri-food sector: the TIMES water-energy-food module. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217703

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222

Trivellas P, Malindretos G, Reklitis P (2020) Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: evidence from a survey in the greek agri-food sector. Sustain 12:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410515

Tsangas M, Gavriel I, Doula M et al (2020) Life cycle analysis in the framework of agricultural strategic development planning in the Balkan region. Sustain 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051813

Ülgen VS, Björklund M, Simm N (2019) Inter-organizational supply chain interaction for sustainability : a systematic literature review.

UNEP S (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020.

UNEP/SETAC (2009) United Nations Environment Programme-society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. France

United Nations (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights. Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. sustainabledevelopment.un.org

Van Asselt ED, Van Bussel LGJ, Van Der Voet H et al (2014) A protocol for evaluating the sustainability of agri-food production systems - a case study on potato production in peri-urban agriculture in the Netherlands. Ecol Indic 43:315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.027

Van der Ploeg JD (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 41:999–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876997

van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) Manual for VOSviwer version 1.6.10. CWTS Meaningful metrics 1–53

Vasa L, Angeloska A, Trendov NM (2017) Comparative analysis of circular agriculture development in selected Western Balkan countries based on sustainable performance indicators. Econ Ann 168:44–47. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V168-09

Verdecho MJ, Alarcón-Valero F, Pérez-Perales D et al (2020) A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Cent Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3

Vergine P, Salerno C, Libutti A et al (2017) Closing the water cycle in the agro-industrial sector by reusing treated wastewater for irrigation. J Clean Prod 164:587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.239

WCED (1987) Our common future - call for action

Webster K (2013) What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futures 69:542–554

Wheaton E, Kulshreshtha S (2013) Agriculture and climate change: implications for environmental sustainability indicators. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 175:99–110. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO130091

Wijewickrama MKCS, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Ochoa JJ (2021) Information sharing in reverse logistics supply chain of demolition waste: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 280:124359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124359

Woodhouse A, Davis J, Pénicaud C, Östergren K (2018) Sustainability checklist in support of the design of food processing. Sustain Prod Consum 16:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.008

Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited Sustain 6:4200–4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Yadav S, Luthra S, Garg D (2021) Modelling Internet of things (IoT)-driven global sustainability in multi-tier agri-food supply chain under natural epidemic outbreaks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16633–16654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11676-1

Yee FM, Shaharudin MR, Ma G et al (2021) Green purchasing capabilities and practices towards Firm’s triple bottom line in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 307:127268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127268

Yigitcanlar T (2010) Rethinking sustainable development: urban management, engineering, and design. IGI Global

Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0309-3

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of “Tuscia, ” Via del Paradiso 47, 01100, Viterbo, VT, Italy

Cecilia Silvestri, Michela Piccarozzi & Alessandro Ruggieri

Department of Engineering, University of Rome “Niccolò Cusano, ” Via Don Carlo Gnocchi, 3, 00166, Rome, Italy

Luca Silvestri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Silvestri .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Monia Niero

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised: a number of ill-placed paragraph headings were removed and the source indication "Authors' elaborations" was added to Tables 1-3.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. et al. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2021

Accepted : 16 February 2022

Published : 02 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Agri-food sector
• Sustainability
• Circular economy
• Triple bottom line
• Life cycle assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 09 April 2024

Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement

• Janneke M. Groothuijse 1 , 2 ,
• Lisa S. van Tol 1 , 2 ,
• C. C. M. (Toos) Hoeksel-van Leeuwen 1 , 2 ,
• Johannes J. M. van Delden 3 ,
• Monique A. A. Caljouw 1 , 2 &
• Wilco P. Achterberg 1 , 2  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  324 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

119 Accesses

Metrics details

Active involvement of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and long-term care (LTC) users in research is essential but less developed compared to other patient groups. However, their involvement in research is not only important but also feasible. This study aims to provide an overview of methods, facilitators, and barriers for involving PLWD and LTC users in scientific research.

A systematic literature search across 12 databases in December 2020 identified studies involving PLWD, LTC users, or their carers beyond research subjects and describing methods or models for involvement. Qualitative descriptions of involvement methods underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018. A data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the results.

The eighteen included studies delineated five core involvement methods spanning all research phases: advisory groups, formal and informal research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Additionally, two co-research models with PLWD and carers were found, while only two studies detailed LTC user involvement methods. Four distinct involvement roles were identified: consulting and advisory roles, co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. The review also addressed barriers, facilitators, and good practices in the preparation, execution, and translation phases of research, emphasizing the importance of diversity, bias reduction, and resource allocation. Trust-building, clear roles, ongoing training, and inclusive support were highlighted.

Conclusions

Planning enough time for active involvement is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet personal needs and preferences of PLWD, LTC users and carers. Researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons’ ownership of the research process.

Trial registration

Prospero 2021: CRD42021253736.

Peer Review reports

In research characterized by active involvement, the target group plays a pivotal role in shaping research decisions and outcomes, directly impacting them. Involving patients in health research offers significant benefits [ 1 , 2 ]: it enhances participant recruitment [ 2 ], refines research questions [ 2 ], aligns study results with the target population [ 1 , 2 ], and promotes effective implementation of findings [ 1 ]. Active involvement of patients has also benefits for themselves, namely an enhanced understanding of research, building relationships, personal development, improved health and wellbeing, and enjoyment and satisfaction [ 3 , 4 ]. It gives them a sense of purpose and satisfaction through their tangible impact.

However, for long-term care (LTC) users and persons living with dementia (PLWD) active involvement in research is less developed than for other patient groups [ 5 , 6 ]. PLWD and LTC users share similar care needs, encompassing assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), medication management, medical condition monitoring, and emotional support. Furthermore, a substantial portion of LTC users comprises individuals living with dementia [ 7 ]. Additionally, statistical data from the United States reveals that one in four older individuals is likely to reside in long-term care (LTC) facilities [ 8 ], and approximately forty to eighty percent of LTC residents in the United States, Japan, Australia, and England experience dementia or severe memory problems [ 7 , 9 ].

Due to these considerations, we have chosen to combine the target audiences of PLWD and LTC users in our systematic review. However, it's important to note that while there are potential advantages to combining these target groups, there may also be challenges. PLWD and LTC users may have varying needs, preferences, and experiences, including differences in care requirements driven by individual factors like the stage of dementia, coexisting conditions, and personal preferences. Therefore, it's imperative to conduct comprehensive research and involve these communities to ensure that involvement approaches are not only inclusive but also tailored to meet their specific requirements.

Given our ageing population and the intricate health challenges faced by PLWD and LTC users, including their vulnerability and shorter life expectancy in old age, it's crucial to establish effective research involvement methods. These individuals have unique needs and preferences that require attention. They possess a voice, and as researchers, it is our responsibility to not only listen to them but also actively involve them in the research process. Consequently, it is essential to identify means through which the voices of PLWD and LTC users can be effectively heard and ensure that their input is incorporated into research.

Fortunately, publication of studies on involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research is slowly increasing [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. A few reviews have described how PLWD and LTC users were involved [ 5 , 9 , 10 ]. However, with the increasing attention for involvement, the understanding of when involvement is meaningful grows and stricter requirements can be imposed to increase the quality of active involvement [ 12 , 13 ]. To our knowledge there is no up to date overview of involvement methods used with either or both PLWD and LTC users. Such an overview of involvement methods for PWLD and LTC users would provide a valuable, comprehensive resource encompassing various stages of the research cycle and different aspects of involvement. It would equip researchers with the necessary guidance to navigate the complexities of involving PLWD and LTC users in their research projects.

Recognizing the need to enhance the involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research, this systematic review aims to construct a comprehensive overview of the multiple methodologies employed in previous studies, along with an examination of the facilitators and barriers of involvement. Our overarching goal is to promote inclusive and effective involvement practices within the research community. To achieve this objective, this review will address the following questions: (1) What kind of methods are used and how are these methods implemented to facilitate involvement of PLWD and LTC users in scientific research? (2) What are the facilitators and barriers encountered in previous research projects involving PLWD and LTC users?

Protocol and registration

The search and analysis methods were specified in advance in a protocol. The protocol is registered and published in the PROSPERO database with registration number CRD42021253736. The search and analysis methods are also described below more briefly.

Information sources, search strategy, and eligibility criteria

In preparation of the systematic literature search, key articles and reviews about involvement of PLWD and LTC users in research were screened to identify search terms. In addition, Thesaurus and MeSH terms were used to broaden the search. The search was conducted on December 10, 2020, across multiple databases: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. The search terms were entered in "phrases". The search strategy included synonymous and related terms for dementia, LTC user, involvement, research, method, and long-term care. The full search strategy is provided in supplement 1 .

After conducting the search, records underwent initial screening based on titles and abstracts. Selected reports were retrieved for full-text assessment, and studies were evaluated for eligibility based on several criteria. However, no restriction was made regarding publication date. First, to be included studies had to be written in English, German, French, or Dutch. Second, we only included original research studies. Third, studies were excluded when the target group or their representatives were not involved in research, but only participated as research subjects. Fourth, studies were excluded when not describing involvement in research. Therefore, studies concerning involvement in care, policy, or self-help groups were excluded. Fifth, the focus of this systematic review is on methods. Therefore, studies with a main focus on the results, evaluation, ethical issues, and impact of involvement in research were excluded. Additionally, we have not set specific inclusion or exclusion criteria based on study design since our primary focus is on involvement methodologies, regardless of the chosen research design. Sixth, the included studies had to concern the involvement in research of PLWD or adult LTC users, whether living in the community or in institutional settings, as well as informal caregivers or other representatives of these groups who may represent PLWD and LTC users facing limitations. Studies that involved LTC users that were children or ‘young adults’, or their representatives, were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they involved mental healthcare users if it remained unclear if the care that they received entailed more than only treatment from mental healthcare providers, but for example also assistance with ADL.

Terminology

For readability purposes, we use the abbreviation PLWD to refer to persons diagnosed with dementia, and we use the abbreviation LTC users to refer to persons receiving long-term care, at home or as residents living in nursing homes or other residential facilities. We use the term carers to refer to informal caregivers and other representatives of either PLWD or LTC users. As clear and consistent definitions regarding participatory research remains elusive [ 14 , 15 ], we formulated a broad working definition of involvement in research so as not to exclude any approach to participatory research. We defined involvement in research as “research carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ the target group” [ 16 ], where the target group or their representatives take part in the governance or conduct of research and have some degree of ownership of the research [ 12 ]. It concerns involvement in research in which lived experienced experts work alongside research teams. We use the terms participation and participants, to refer to people being part of the research as study subjects.

Selection process, data-collection process, and data items

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by the first and second author (JG and LT). Only the studies that both reviewers agreed and met the inclusion criteria were included in the full-text screening process. Any uncertainty about whether the studies truly described a model or approach for involvement, was resolved by a quick screening of the full-text paper. The full-text screening process was then conducted according to the same procedure by JG and LT. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. If no agreement could be reached, a third researcher (MC) was consulted. References of the included studies were screened for any missing papers.

The following information was collected on a data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel: year and country of publication, topic, research aim, study design, living situation of involved persons (at home or institutionalized), description of involved persons, study participants (study subjects), theories and methods used, type/role(s) of involvement, research phase(s), recruitment, consent approach, study setting, structure of participatory activities, training, resources, facilitators, barriers, ethics, benefits, impact, and definition of involvement used.

JG independently extracted data from all included studies, the involved co-researcher (THL) independently extracted data from two studies, the second author (LT) from five. Differences in the analysis were discussed with the co-researcher (THL) and second author (LT) until consensus was reached. As only minor differences emerged, limited to the facilitator and barrier categories, data from the remaining studies was extracted by JG.

Risk of bias assessment

Every research article identified through the systematic review exclusively comprised qualitative descriptions of the involvement method(s) employed. Consequently, all articles underwent evaluation using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018 [ 17 ], as opposed to the checklists intended for quantitative or mixed methods research. All included studies were independently assessed on quality by two reviewers (JG,LT) and any disagreement was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. The CASP Qualitative Checklist consists of ten questions. The checklist does not provide suggestions on scoring, the first author designed a scoring system: zero points if no description was provided (‘no’), one point if a minimal description was provided (‘can’t tell’) and two points when the question was answered sufficiently (‘yes’). The second question of the checklist, “is a qualitative methodology appropriate”, was not applicable to the aims (i.e., to describe involvement) of the included studies and was therefore excluded. The tenth question was translated into a ‘yes’, ‘can’t tell’, or ‘no’ score to fit the scoring system. A maximum of eighteen points could be assigned.

Synthesis methods

Tables were used to summarize the findings and to acquire an overview of (1) the kinds of methods used to enable involvement of PLWD, LTC users, or carers in scientific research, and (2) the facilitators and barriers for involving this target group in scientific research. As to the first research aim, the headings of the first two tables are based on the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, long form version 2 (GRIPP2-LF) [ 18 ]. Because our systematic review focusses on methods, only the topics belonging to sections two, three, and four were included. Following Shippee et al., three main research phases were distinguished: preparation, execution, and translation [ 19 ]. Furthermore, the following fields were added to the GRIPP2-LF: First author, year of publication, country of study, setting of involvement, frequency of meetings, and a summary description of activities.

Concerning the second research aim, the extracted facilitators, barriers, and good practices were imported per study in ATLAS.ti for qualitative data analysis. Following the method for thematic synthesis of qualitative studies in systematic reviews [ 20 ], all imported barriers, facilitators and good practices were inductively coded staying 'close' to the results of the original studies, which resulted in 50 initial codes. After multiple rounds of pile sorting [ 21 ], based on similarities and differences and discussions in the research team, this long code list was grouped into a total of 27 categories, which were thereafter subsequently organized into 14 descriptive themes within the three research phases (preparation, execution, translation).

Study selection and characteristics

The Prisma Flow Diagram was used to summarize the study selection process [ 22 ]. In the full text screening, 72 of the 93 remaining studies were excluded because they were not original research articles (n = 5), not about involvement (n = 8), not about involvement in a research project (n = 1), they did not describe a model or method for involvement (n = 34), or they were not about PLWD or LTC users (n = 24). The search resulted in 18 publications eligible for analysis (Fig.  1 ).

Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Table 1 presents the general study characteristics. Two studies explicitly aimed to develop a model for involvement or good practice, and both focus on co-research either with PLWD [ 23 ] or their carers [ 13 ]. The other sixteen provide a description of the involvement of PLWD [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ] or LTC users in their research projects [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Quality assessment

Table 1 presents the CASP-score per study [ 17 ]. Five scored 16 to 18 points [ 13 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 35 ], indicating high quality with robust methods, clear aims, and strong data analysis. Eleven scored 12 to 15 [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], showing generally strong methodologies but with some limitations. Two scored 9 or lower [ 25 , 27 ], signifying significant methodological and analytical shortcomings. Notably, these low-scoring studies were short articles lacking clear recommendations for involvement in research.

Design and implementation of involvement

Phases and methods of involvement.

Table 2 describes the involvement methods used for and the implementation of involvement in research. The included studies jointly presented methods for involvement in the three main research phases [ 19 ]. Regarding the preparation phase, which involves the preparatory work for the study, only three studies provided detailed descriptions of the methods employed [ 26 , 30 , 32 ]. The execution phase, encompassing the actual conduct of the research, was most frequently discussed [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Five studies addressed the translation phase [ 13 , 25 , 31 , 36 , 37 ], where the focus shifts to translating research findings into actionable outcomes.

The eighteen studies introduced a variety of involvement methods, categorizable into five groups: 1) advisory groups, 2) research team meetings (both formal and informal), 3) action groups, 4) workshops, and 5) co-research in interviews. In five studies, individuals including PLWD, LTCF residents, carers, and health professionals participated in advisory/reference groups [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], working groups [ 27 ], and panels [ 28 ]. These groups offered valuable feedback on research aspects, spanning protocols, design, questionnaires, and implementation of research. Meetings occurred at varying frequencies - monthly, quarterly, or biannually.

Two studies exemplify diverse research collaboration settings. One involving older individuals within an academic research team of five [ 37 ], and another featuring a doctoral student and a co-researcher conducting informal monthly discussions at a local coffee shop [ 31 ]. Brown et al. sought to minimize power differentials and enhance inclusivity [ 37 ], while Mann and Hung focused on benefiting people with dementia and challenging negative discourse on dementia [ 31 ].

An additional five studies employed methods involving frequent meetings, including action [ 35 , 39 ], inquiry [ 23 ], and discussion groups [ 29 , 36 ] In these groups, involved persons with lived experience contributed to developing a shared vision and community improvements, such as enhancing the mealtime experience in care facilities [ 35 ].

Seven studies involved individuals through workshops, often conducted over one or two sessions. These workshops contributed to generating recommendations [ 37 ], informing future e-health designs [ 29 , 30 ], and ensuring diverse perspectives and lived experiences were included in data analysis [ 13 , 24 , 32 , 33 ]. In three studies, representatives worked as co-researchers in interviews, drawing on personal experiences to enhance the interview process, making it more dementia-appropriate and enriching data collection [ 13 , 32 , 34 ]. Finally, one study involved representatives in the recruitment and conduct of interviews [ 38 ].

People involved

The number of persons involved varied from a single co-researcher [ 31 ] to 34 panel individuals providing feedback on their experiences in a clinical trial [ 28 ]. Thirteen studies focussed on PLWD: eleven involved PLWD themselves [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], one exclusively focused on caregivers [ 13 ], and another one involved people without or with mild cognitive impairment, who participated in a study examining the risks of developing Alzheimer's disease [ 28 ]. Although not all articles provided descriptions of the dementia stage, available information indicated that individuals involved typically fell within the early to mid-stages of dementia [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Next to PLWD and carers, two studies additionally involved organizational or advocacy representatives [ 25 , 27 ]. The other five studies concerned older adults living in a LTC facility. Two of them involved older residents themselves [ 35 , 39 ], the other three carers, older community/client representatives or health care practitioners [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].

Roles and level of involvement

Four general roles could be identified. First, consultation and advisory roles were held by PLWD and carers [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 ], where involved persons share knowledge and experiences to make suggestions [ 32 ], but the research team retained formal decision-making power [ 25 ]. Second, PLWD were involved as co-analysts in data analysis [ 24 , 32 , 33 ]. Co-analysts influence data analysis, but the decision-making power remained with academic researchers [ 24 ]. Third, in six studies the co-researcher role was part of the research design in which involved persons and researchers steer and conduct research together [ 13 , 23 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36 ]. Finally, two studies partnered with LTC residents [ 35 , 39 ], with residents at the core of the group, and positioned as experts by experience [ 39 ]. Residents had the decision-making authority regarding how to improve life in LTC facilities [ 35 ].

Models for involvement in research

Only two studies designed a model for co-research with PLWD [ 23 ] or their carers [ 13 ] across all research phases. These models underscored the importance of iterative training for co-researchers [ 13 , 23 ] and academic researchers [ 23 ]. Furthermore, these studies advocate involving co-researchers early on in the research process [ 13 ] and in steering committees [ 23 ]. Co-researchers can be involved in designing research materials [ 23 ], conducting interviews [ 13 , 23 ], analysing data [ 13 ], and co-disseminating findings [ 13 , 23 ]. Additionally, one study stressed involving PLWD in identifying (future) research priorities [ 23 ].

Barriers, facilitators, and good practices in research phases

Preparation phase.

Table 3 describes the barriers, facilitators, and good practices per main research phase. Lack of diversity in ethnicity and stages of dementia in the recruitment of involved persons is mentioned as a recurring barrier [ 26 , 28 , 32 , 33 ]. The exclusion of people with cognitive impairments is partly due to gatekeepers’ and recruiters’ bias towards cognitively healthy people [ 28 , 32 ]. It is stressed that researchers should refrain from making assumptions about the abilities of PLWD and ask the person what he/she is willing to do [ 31 ]. It is considered good practice to involve people regardless of cognitive abilities [ 23 ], based on skills, various personal characteristics [ 13 ] and, if possible, relevant prior experience [ 38 ].

Many studies stress the importance of building a mutual trusting relationship between involved persons and academic researchers [ 13 , 23 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]. A good relationship is believed to break down social barriers [ 37 ], foster freedom of expression [ 33 ], and thereby avoiding tokenistic involvement [ 13 ]. In addition, spending time with these persons is important to become familiar with an individual’s strengths and limitations [ 31 ].

Opting for naturally evolving involvement roles was mentioned as a barrier, as this may result in conflicting expectations and irrelevant tasks [ 37 ]. A clear role description and clarification of tasks is key to balancing potentially different expectations of the involved persons and researchers [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 38 ]. When designing a role for involvement in research, good practices dictate taking into account personal skills, preferences, development goals, and motivation for involvement [ 13 , 32 ]. This role should ideally be designed in collaboration with involved persons [ 13 , 32 ].

The perception of providing training to involved persons is ambivalent. Studies cited that training should not aim to transform them into “pseudo-scientist” [ 32 , 37 ] and that it raises the costs for involvement [ 28 ]. However, multiple scholars emphasize the importance of providing iterative training to facilitate meaningful involvement and development opportunities [ 13 , 23 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 ]. Training can empower involved persons to engage in the research process equally and with confidence, with the skills to fulfil their role [ 13 , 33 , 38 ]. However, the implementation of training may present a potential conflict with the fundamental principle of valuing experiential knowledge [ 37 ] and should avoid the objective of transforming co-researchers into 'expert' researchers [ 32 ]. Academic researchers should also be offered training on how to facilitate meaningful involvement [ 13 , 23 , 28 , 31 ].

Limited time and resources were mentioned as barriers to involvement that can delay the research process [ 13 , 33 , 36 , 39 ], restrict the involvement [ 28 ] and hinder the implementation of developed ideas [ 39 ]. Financial compensation for involvement is encouraged [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 ], as it acknowledges the contribution of involved persons [ 13 ]. Thus, meaningful involvement in research requires adequate funding and infrastructure to support the involvement activities [ 13 , 28 , 33 , 37 ].

Execution phase

The use of academic jargon and rapid paced discussions [ 13 , 37 ], power differentials, and the dominant discourse in biomedical research on what is considered “good science” can limit the impact of involvement [ 13 , 24 , 32 , 36 , 37 ]. Facilitating researchers should reflect on power differentials [ 35 ] and how decision-making power is shared [ 31 ]. Other facilitating factors are making a glossary of terms used and planning separate meetings for “technical topics” [ 37 ]. In addition, an emergent research design [ 35 ] or a design with flexible elements [ 28 ] can increase ownership in the research project and provide space for involvement to inform the research agenda [ 28 , 35 ]. This requires academic researchers to value experiential knowledge and to have an open mind towards the evolving research process [ 13 , 23 , 31 ].

Furthermore, managing the involvement process and ensuring equity in the collaboration [ 13 , 32 , 33 ], facilitating researchers must encourage involved persons to voice their perspectives. This means that they sometimes need to be convinced that they are experts of lived experience [ 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 ]. To enable involvement of PLWD, the use of visual and creative tools to prompt memories can be considered [ 24 , 30 , 33 , 34 ], as well as flexibility in relation to time frames and planning regular breaks to avoid too fast a pace for people who may tire easily [ 24 , 25 , 29 , 30 ].

Involvement can be experienced as stressful [ 13 , 32 , 38 ] and caring responsibilities may interfere [ 26 ]. Tailored [ 29 ] physical and emotional support should therefore be offered [ 13 , 23 , 38 ] without making assumptions about the meaning of burden [ 30 , 31 ]. Moreover, being the only PLWD involved in an advisory group was experienced as intimidating [ 25 ] and, ideally, a larger team of PLWD is involved to mitigate responsibilities [ 37 ]. PLWD having a focal point of contact [ 28 , 37 ] and involving nurses or other staff with experience working with PLWD and their carers [ 29 , 30 ] are mentioned as being beneficial. Some stress the importance of involving carers when engaging with PLWD in research [ 25 , 29 , 30 ].

To avoid an overload of information that is shared with the involved persons, tailoring information-sharing formats to individual preferences and abilities is essential to make communication effective [ 27 , 37 ].

Translation

Two studies indicated a need for more robust evaluation measures to assess the effect of involvement [ 28 , 33 ]. Reflection and evaluation of the involvement serves to improve the collaboration and to foster introspective learning [ 13 , 23 , 26 , 31 ]. The included studies evaluated involvement through the use of reflective diaries [ 13 ] or a template [ 38 ] with open-ended questions [ 33 ].

Two studies postulate that findings should benefit and be accessible to PLWD [ 23 , 31 ]. The use of creative tools not only enables involvement of PLWD, but can also increase accessibility of research findings and expand the present representation of PLWD [ 23 ].

The 18 included studies presented multiple methods for involvement in all three research phases. We found five types of involvement: advisory groups, (formal and informal) research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Only two studies described methods for involvement of LTC users in research. Involved persons were most often involved in consulting and advisory roles, but also as co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. Involved persons’ roles can evolve and change over time. Especially as involved persons grow into their role, and gain confidence and knowledge of the specific research project, a more active role with shared responsibilities can become part of the research project. In addition, multiple involvement roles can be used throughout the research depending on the research phase.

Compared to the five types of involvement that we identified, other literature reviews about involvement methods for LTC users and PLWD in research also described advisory groups [ 10 ] and workshops [ 5 , 11 ], and methods that were similar to research team meetings (drop-in sessions and meetings [ 11 ]). Methods for action research (action groups) and co-conducting research (interviews) were not included by these other review studies. In addition to our findings, these other reviews also described as involvement methods interviews and focus groups [ 5 , 10 ] surveys [ 10 ], reader consultation [ 11 ]. Those types of methods were excluded from our study, because our definition of involvement is more strict; collecting opinions is not involvement per se, but sometimes only study participation. Moreover, compared to these previous reviews we set a high standard for transparency about the participation methods and the level of detail at which they are described.

Engaging the target group in research, particularly when collaborating with PLWD, LTC users, and carers, involves navigating unforeseen challenges [ 40 ]. This requires academic researchers to carefully balance academic research goals and expectations, and the expectations, personal circumstances and development goals related to the involved person. The aim is to maximize involvement while being attentive to the individual’s needs and avoiding a deficit perspective. Effective communication should be established, promoting respect, equality, and regular feedback between all stakeholders, including individuals living with dementia and LTCF staff. Building a mutual trusting relationship between involved persons and academic researchers through social interaction and clear communication is key to overcome barriers and ensure meaningful involvement. Inclusivity and empowerment, along with fostering an environment where diverse voices are heard, are crucial for the success of involvement in research. Our results are in line with a recent study concerning the experiences of frail older persons with involvement in research, confirming the importance of avoiding stereotypic views of ageing and frailty, building a trusting relationship, and being sensitive to older persons’ preferences and needs [ 41 ].

Furthermore, our results show that training academic researchers and involved persons is essential to develop the skills to facilitate involvement and to fulfil their role with confidence, respectively. Whilst the need for training is acknowledged by others [ 41 , 42 ], there are legitimate objections to the idea of training involved persons, as the professionalization underpinning the concept of training is at odds with voicing a lay perspective [ 43 , 44 ]. Furthermore, it is argued that experiential knowledge is compromised when training is structured according to the dominant professional epistemology of objectivity [ 45 ]. Therefore, training of involved persons should not focus on what researchers think they ought to know, but on what they want to learn [ 41 ].

Academic culture was frequently mentioned as a barrier to meaningful involvement. This result resonates with the wider debate related to involvement in health research which is concerned about active or “authentic involvement” being replaced with the appropriation of the patient voice as an add-on to conventional research designs [ 12 , 46 ]. It is argued that such tokenistic involvement limits the involved persons’ ability to shape research outcomes [ 46 ]. To reduce tokenism requires a culture shift [ 13 ]. We believe that due to the strict definition of involvement and high transparency standard used in this review, tokenistic approaches were excluded. This may set an example for how to stimulate making this culture shift.

Furthermore, the importance of practical aspects such as funding and, by extension, the availability of time should not be underestimated. Adequate funding is necessary for compensation of involvement, but also to ensure that researchers have ample time to plan involvement activities and provide personalized support for PLWD, LTC residents and their carers. Funding bodies increasingly require involvement of the public to be part of research proposals. Yet, support in terms of financial compensation and time for the implementation of involvement in research is rarely part of funding grants [ 42 ]. In addition, whereas an emergent design could aid the impact of involvement, funders often require a pre-set research proposal in which individual components are already fixed [ 5 , 47 ]. This indicates that not only do academic researchers and culture need to change, academic systems also need to be modified in order to facilitate and nurture meaningful involvement [ 47 ].

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this review is the inclusion of over ten scientific databases, with a reach beyond the conventional biomedical science databases often consulted in systematic reviews. Besides, we believe that we have overcome the inconsistent use of terminology of involvement in research by including also other terms used, such as participation and engagement, in our search strategy. However, there was also inconsistency in length of publications and precision of the explanation of the process of involvement. E.g., involvement in the execution phase was often elaborated on, contributions to the research proposal and co-authoring research findings were only stated and not described. This presented challenges for data extraction and analysis, as it was not always possible to identify how the target group was involved. Involvement in these research phases is therefore not fully represented in this review.

The included studies in this review, the majority of which are of high quality, provide methods for involvement of PLWD and LTC users in research and they do not explicitly attend to the effectiveness or impact of the method for involvement used. Therefore, a limitation of this review is that it cannot make any statements regarding the effectiveness of the involvement methods included. Moreover, our target population was broad, although PLWD and LTC users are largely overlapping in their care needs and share important features, this may have led to heterogeneous results. In future research, it would be interesting to interpret potential differences between involvement of PLWD, LTC users, and their carers. However, as we expected, the amount of literature included in our analyses was too limited to do so. Furthermore, whereas the broad target group is a limitation it is also a strength of our review. Limiting our search to specifically persons living in LTC facilities would have provided limited methods for involvement of persons living with dementia. Our broad target groups enabled us to learn from research projects in which people living with early staged dementia are directly involved from which we can draw lessons on the involvement of people with more advanced stages of dementia and persons living with cognitive problems who live within LTC facilities.

Since January 2021 quite some research has been published about the importance of involvement in research. Although we had quickly screened for new methods, we realise that we may have missed some involvement methods in the past years. There will be a need for a search update in the future.

Implications for future research

Our review shows that a flexible and emergent design may help to increase involved persons' influence on and ownership in the research process. However, not all research objectives may be suitable for the implementation of an emergent design. Future research should therefore examine how aspects of a flexible emergent design can be integrated in, e.g., clinical research without compromising the validity of research outcomes.

Alzheimer Europe has called for the direct involvement of persons living with dementia in research [ 48 ]. In addition, Swarbrick et al. (this review) advise to involve persons regardless of their cognitive abilities [ 23 ]. These statements question the involvement of proxies, such as carers, professional caregivers and others involved in the care of PLWD. While PLWD and persons with other cognitive problems constitute a significant group within residential and nursing homes [ 7 ], none of the studies included in this review have provided methods to directly involve persons with more advanced stages of dementia. This raises the question if research methods should be adapted to allow those with more advanced stages of dementia to be involved themselves or if, concerning the progressive nature of the disease, it is more appropriate to involve proxies. And secondly who should these proxies be? Those that care for and live with persons with an advanced stage of dementia, or for example a person living with an early stage of dementia to represent the voices of persons with more advanced stages of dementia [ 31 ]?

Future research should adopt our example for stricter requirements for involvement and transparency about the involvement methods used. This will reduce tokenistic involvement and further promote the culture shift towards meaningful involvement. In addition, future research should assess the impact of the involvement methods that are described in this review. One of the first instruments that that may be used to do so in varying healthcare settings is the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [ 49 ]. Moreover, scholars in this review stress, and we agree with this, that future research is needed on the involvement of persons with more advanced stages of dementia to ensure their voices are not excluded from research [ 33 , 34 ].

This review provides an overview of the existing methods used to actively involve PLWD, LTC users, and carers in scientific research. Our findings show that their involvement is feasible throughout all research phases. We have identified five different methods for involvement, four different roles, and two models for co-research. Our results suggest that planning enough time for involving PLWD, LTC users, and carers in research, is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet their personal needs and preferences. In addition, researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons’ ownership in the research process.

Availability of data and materials

The full search strategy is provided in supplement 1 . The data extraction form can be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, long form version 2

• Long-term care

Persons living with dementia

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .

Staley K. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. 2009. Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Involve_Exploring_Impactfinal28.10.09.pdf . Accessed 17 Jan 2024

Ashcroft J, Wykes T, Taylor J, et al. Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research? J Ment Health. 2016;25(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2015.1101424 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Backhouse T, Kenkmann A, Lane K, et al. Older care-home residents as collaborators or advisors in research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2016;45(3):337–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv201 .

Bendien E, Groot B, Abma T. Circles of impacts within and beyond participatory action research with older people. Ageing Soc 2020:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20001336 .

Lepore MED, Meyer J, Igarashi A. How long-term care quality assurance measures address dementia in Australia, England, Japan, and the United States. Ageing Health Res 2021;1(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahr.2021.100013 .

Freedman VA, Spillman BC. Disability and care needs among older Americans. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):509–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12076 .

Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, et al. Patient engagement in research related to dementia: a scoping review. Dementia. 2018;17(8):944–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218789292 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, et al. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9 .

Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for involving older people in health research—a review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12):1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121476 .

Andersson N. Participatory research—A modernizing science for primary health care. J Gen Fam Med. 2018;19(5):154–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.187 .

Di Lorito C, Godfrey M, Dunlop M, et al. Adding to the knowledge on patient and public involvement: reflections from an experience of co-research with carers of people with dementia. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):691–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13049 .

Islam S, Small N. An annotated and critical glossary of the terminology of inclusion in healthcare and health research. Res Involve Engage. 2020;6(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00186-6 .

Rose D. Patient and public involvement in health research: Ethical imperative and/or radical challenge? J Health Psychol. 2014;19(1):149–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313500249 .

NIHR. Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, health and social care research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371#Involvement . Accessed 12 Jan 2023.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2018. https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf . Accessed 12 Jan 2023.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090 .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .

Saldana JM. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications; 2015.

Google Scholar  

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

Swarbrick C, Doors O, et al. Developing the co-researcher involvement and engagement in dementia model (COINED): A co-operative inquiry. In: Keady J, Hydén L-C, Johnson A, et al., editors. Social research methods in dementia studies: Inclusion and innovation. New York, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. p. 8–19.

Clarke CL, Wilkinson H, Watson J, et al. A seat around the table: participatory data analysis with people living with dementia. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(9):1421–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318774768 .

Flavin T, Sinclair C. Reflections on involving people living with dementia in research in the Australian context. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(Suppl 2):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12596 .

Giebel C, Roe B, Hodgson A, et al. Effective public involvement in the HoST-D programme for dementia home care support: From proposal and design to methods of data collection (innovative practice). Dementia (London). 2019;18(7–8):3173–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216687698 .

Goeman DP, Corlis M, Swaffer K, et al. Partnering with people with dementia and their care partners, aged care service experts, policymakers and academics: a co-design process. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(Suppl 2):53–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12635 .

Gregory S, Bunnik EM, Callado AB, et al. Involving research participants in a pan-European research initiative: the EPAD participant panel experience. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00236-z .

Hanson E, Magnusson L, Arvidsson H, et al. Working together with persons with early stage dementia and their family members to design a user-friendly technology-based support service. Dementia. 2007;6(3):411–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301207081572 .

Hassan L, Swarbrick C, Sanders C, et al. Tea, talk and technology: patient and public involvement to improve connected health “wearables” research in dementia. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0063-1 .

Mann J, Hung L. Co-research with people living with dementia for change. Action Research. 2019;17(4):573–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750318787005 .

Poland F, Charlesworth G, Leung P, et al. Embedding patient and public involvement: managing tacit and explicit expectations. Health Expect. 2019;22(6):1231–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12952 .

Stevenson M, Taylor BJ. Involving individuals with dementia as co-researchers in analysis of findings from a qualitative study. Dementia (London). 2019;18(2):701–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217690904 .

Tanner D. Co-research with older people with dementia: experience and reflections. J Ment Health. 2012;21(3):296–306. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2011.651658 .

Baur V, Abma T. “The Taste Buddies”: participation and empowerment in a residential home for older people. Ageing Soc. 2012;32(6):1055–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X11000766 .

Beukema L, Valkenburg B. Demand-driven elderly care in the Netherlands. Action Research. 2007;5(2):161–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307077316 .

Brown LJE, Dickinson T, Smith S, et al. Openness, inclusion and transparency in the practice of public involvement in research: a reflective exercise to develop best practice recommendations. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12609 .

Froggatt K, Goodman C, Morbey H, et al. Public involvement in research within care homes: benefits and challenges in the APPROACH study. Health Expect. 2016;19(6):1336–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12431 .

Shura R, Siders RA, Dannefer D. Culture change in long-term care: participatory action research and the role of the resident. Gerontologist. 2011;51(2):212–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq099 .

Cook T. Participatory research: Its meaning and messiness. Beleidsonderzoek Online. 2020;3:1–21. https://doi.org/10.5553/BO/221335502021000003001 .

Haak M, Ivanoff S, Barenfeld E, et al. Research as an essentiality beyond one’s own competence: an interview study on frail older people’s view of research. Res Involv Engage. 2021;7(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00333-7 .

Chamberlain SA, Gruneir A, Keefe JM, et al. Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team. Res Involve Engage. 2021;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00314-w .

Bélisle-Pipon J-C, Rouleau G, Birko S. Early-career researchers’ views on ethical dimensions of patient engagement in research. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0260-y .

Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who’s sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(3):181–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100150 .

De Graaff M, Stoopendaal A, Leistikow I. Transforming clients into experts-by-experience: a pilot in client participation in Dutch long-term elderly care homes inspectorate supervision. Health Policy. 2019;123(3):275–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.006 .

Cook T. Where Participatory Approaches Meet Pragmatism in Funded (Health) Research: The Challenge of Finding Meaningful Spaces. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2012;13(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1783 .

Paylor J, McKevitt C. The possibilities and limits of “co-producing” research. Front Sociol. 2019;4:23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00023 .

Gove D, Diaz-Ponce A, Georges J, et al. Alzheimer Europe’s position on involving people with dementia in research through PPI (patient and public involvement). Aging Ment Health. 2018;22(6):723–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1317334 .

Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, et al. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):817–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12378 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jan W. Schoones, information specialist Directorate of Research Policy (formerly: Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands), for helping with the search.

This systematic review received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands

Janneke M. Groothuijse, Lisa S. van Tol, C. C. M. (Toos) Hoeksel-van Leeuwen, Monique A. A. Caljouw & Wilco P. Achterberg

University Network for the Care Sector Zuid-Holland, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Johannes J. M. van Delden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept: HD, LT, MC, WA; design of study protocol: JG, LT, MC; data collection and extraction: JG, LT, MC, THL; data analysis and interpretation: all authors; writing, editing and final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique A. A. Caljouw .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interest.

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., 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.

Groothuijse, J.M., van Tol, L.S., Leeuwen, C.C.M.(.Hv. et al. Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement. BMC Geriatr 24 , 324 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04877-7

Download citation

Received : 03 February 2023

Accepted : 05 March 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04877-7

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

• Involvement in research
• Older residents

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

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

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 10.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Methodological Frameworks and Dimensions to Be Considered in Digital Health Technology Assessment: Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

Authors of this article:

• Joan Segur-Ferrer, BSS, PT, MSc   ; 
• Carolina Moltó-Puigmartí, BScPharm, PhD   ; 
• Roland Pastells-Peiró, BA, MA, MsC   ; 
• Rosa Maria Vivanco-Hidalgo, MD, MPH, PhD  

Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

Corresponding Author:

Joan Segur-Ferrer, BSS, PT, MSc

Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia

Roc Boronat Street, 81-95, 2nd Fl

Barcelona, 08005

Phone: 34 935 513 900

Fax:34 935 517 510

Email: [email protected]

Background: Digital health technologies (dHTs) offer a unique opportunity to address some of the major challenges facing health care systems worldwide. However, the implementation of dHTs raises some concerns, such as the limited understanding of their real impact on health systems and people’s well-being or the potential risks derived from their use. In this context, health technology assessment (HTA) is 1 of the main tools that health systems can use to appraise evidence and determine the value of a given dHT. Nevertheless, due to the nature of dHTs, experts highlight the need to reconsider the frameworks used in traditional HTA.

Objective: This scoping review (ScR) aimed to identify the methodological frameworks used worldwide for digital health technology assessment (dHTA); determine what domains are being considered; and generate, through a thematic analysis, a proposal for a methodological framework based on the most frequently described domains in the literature.

Methods: The ScR was performed in accordance with the guidelines established in the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched 7 databases for peer reviews and gray literature published between January 2011 and December 2021. The retrieved studies were screened using Rayyan in a single-blind manner by 2 independent authors, and data were extracted using ATLAS.ti software. The same software was used for thematic analysis.

Results: The systematic search retrieved 3061 studies (n=2238, 73.1%, unique), of which 26 (0.8%) studies were included. From these, we identified 102 methodological frameworks designed for dHTA. These frameworks revealed great heterogeneity between them due to their different structures, approaches, and items to be considered in dHTA. In addition, we identified different wording used to refer to similar concepts. Through thematic analysis, we reduced this heterogeneity. In the first phase of the analysis, 176 provisional codes related to different assessment items emerged. In the second phase, these codes were clustered into 86 descriptive themes, which, in turn, were grouped in the third phase into 61 analytical themes and organized through a vertical hierarchy of 3 levels: level 1 formed by 13 domains, level 2 formed by 38 dimensions, and level 3 formed by 11 subdimensions. From these 61 analytical themes, we developed a proposal for a methodological framework for dHTA.

Conclusions: There is a need to adapt the existing frameworks used for dHTA or create new ones to more comprehensively assess different kinds of dHTs. Through this ScR, we identified 26 studies including 102 methodological frameworks and tools for dHTA. The thematic analysis of those 26 studies led to the definition of 12 domains, 38 dimensions, and 11 subdimensions that should be considered in dHTA.

Introduction

Digital health technologies (dHTs) are driving the transformation of health care systems. They are changing the way in which health services are delivered, and showing great potential to address some of the major challenges that European health systems, including the Spanish National Health System (SNS), are facing, such as the progressive aging of the population [ 1 , 2 ]; the growing demand for health and long-term care services [ 2 ]; the rise in health care costs, increasing financial pressures on health and welfare systems [ 1 , 3 ]; and the unequal distribution of health services across different geographical regions [ 4 , 5 ]. In addition, dHT can improve the accessibility, sustainability, efficiency, and quality of health care systems [ 6 , 7 ], leading to their becoming a determinant of health on their own [ 6 , 8 ].

However, the digital transformation of health care systems and the implementation of dHT (eg, artificial intelligence [AI]–based solutions, data-driven health care services, or the internet of things) are slow and unequal across different European regions [ 9 , 10 ]. Some of the reasons for this are (1) the immaturity of regulatory frameworks for the use of dHTs [ 9 ], (2) the lack of funding and investment for the implementation of dHTs [ 9 ], (3) the lack of sufficient and appropriate infrastructures and common standards for data management [ 6 , 9 ], (4) the absence of skills and expertise of professionals and users [ 10 ], and (5) the scarcity of strong evidence regarding the real benefits and effects of dHTs on health systems and people’s well-being, as well as the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. This makes decision-making difficult, potentially leading to the development and reproduction of low-value and short-lived dHTs [ 6 , 11 ].

To overcome these challenges, harness the potential of dHTs, and avoid nonintended consequences, the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 4 , 11 ] states that dHTs should be developed under the principles of transparency, accessibility, scalability, privacy, security, and confidentiality. Their implementation should be led by robust strategies that bring together leadership, financial, organizational, human, and technological resources, and decisions should be guided by the best-available evidence [ 4 , 11 ].

Regarding this last aspect, health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a “multidisciplinary process that uses explicit methods to determine the value of a health technology at different points in its life cycle,” is a widely accepted tool to inform decision-making and promote equitable, efficient, and high-quality health systems [ 12 , 13 ].

Generally, HTA is conducted according to specific methodological frameworks, such as the HTA Core Model of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) [ 14 ] and the guidelines for the development and adaptation of rapid HTA reports of the Spanish Network of Agencies for Assessing National Health System Technologies and Performance (RedETS) [ 15 ]. These frameworks establish the methodologies to follow and the elements to evaluate. Although these frameworks are helpful instruments for evaluating various health technologies, they have certain limitations in comprehensively assessing dHTs. For this reason, in the past few years, different initiatives have emerged to adapt existing methodological frameworks or develop new ones. The objective is to consider additional domains (eg, interoperability, scalability) to cover the intrinsic characteristics of dHTs [ 16 - 18 ]. Examples of these initiatives are the Evidence Standard Framework (ESF) of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [ 19 ] or the Digi-HTA Framework of the Finnish Coordinating Center for Health Technology Assessment (FinCCHTA) [ 16 ]. Nonetheless, the majority of these frameworks have certain constraints, such as being designed for a particular socioeconomic or national setting, which restricts their transferability or suitability for use in other countries; the specificity or exclusion of certain dHTs, resulting in limitations in their application; or the limited evidence regarding their actual usefulness.

In this context, we performed a scoping review (ScR) with the aim of identifying the methodological frameworks that are used worldwide for the evaluation of dHTs; determining what dimensions and aspects are considered for each type of dHT; and generating, through a thematic analysis, a proposal for a methodological framework that is based on the most frequently described dimensions in the literature. This research focused mainly on mobile health (mHealth), non–face-to-face care models and medical devices that integrate AI, as these particular dHTs are the ones most frequently assessed by HTA agencies and units of RedETS.

Identifying Research Questions

This ScR followed by a thematic analysis answered the following research questions:

• What methodological frameworks currently exist for digital health technology assessment (dHTA)?
• What domains and dimensions are considered in dHTA?
• Do the different domains and dimensions considered depend on whether the dHT addressed is a non–face-to-face care model of health care provision, a mobile device (mHealth), or a device that incorporates AI?

Overview of Methods for Conducting the Scoping Review

We conducted an ScR of the literature and a thematic analysis of the studies included according to the published protocol [ 20 ]. The ScR aimed to answer the first research question, while the thematic analysis aimed to answer the second and third research questions. Spanish experts from various domains of HTA and dHT collaborated throughout the study design and development.

The ScR of the available scientific literature was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ) [ 21 ] and following the recommendations of Peters et al [ 22 ] and Pollock et al [ 23 ].

Ethical Considerations

As this work was an ScR, no ethical board approval was required.

Search Strategy

The search strategy ( Multimedia Appendix 2 ) was designed by an experienced information specialist (author RP-P) in accordance with the research questions and using the validated filter of Ayiku et al [ 24 ] for health apps, adding the terms for concepts related to mHealth, remote care models, AI, digital health, methodological frameworks, and HTA. The strategy was peer-reviewed according to the “Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies Statement” [ 25 ] by authors JS-F and CM-P and was executed in the following 7 databases, considering the characteristics of each in terms of syntax, controlled vocabulary, and proximity operators: Medline (OVID), CINAHL Plus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and TripDatabase. Note that no time, language, or other filters were used.

The identification of relevant studies was complemented with a manual search based on the references in the included studies, as well as the websites of the HTA agencies identified through the web pages of EUnetHTA, the International Network for Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). Additionally, a search was conducted in Google Scholar, limiting the results to the first 250 items in order to guarantee the inclusion of all pertinent studies [ 26 ].

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria used in the reference-screening process were based on the previously detailed research questions and are outlined in Textbox 1 using the Population/Problem, Phenomenon of Interest, Context and Design (PICo-D) format [ 27 , 28 ]. The PICo-D format was used instead of the traditional Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Design (PICO-D) format due to the qualitative nature of the research questions and the characteristics of the phenomenon of interest.

Studies were excluded if they were published before 2011, due to the rapid evolution of dHTs in the past few years, did not describe dimensions or evaluation criteria, or were based on methodological frameworks not intended for the assessment of dHTs (eg, EUnetHTA Core Model 3.0). Likewise, we excluded comments, editorials, letters, conference abstracts, frameworks, or tools focusing on the evaluation of dHTs by users (eg, User version of Mobile App Rating Scale [uMARS]) or documents in languages other than English, Spanish. or Catalan.

Population/problem

Digital health technology assessment (dHTA)

Phenomenon of interest

Specific methodological frameworks for the evaluation of digital health (with special focus on mobile health [mHealth]: non–face-to-face care models and medical devices that integrate artificial intelligence [AI] due the type of technologies mostly assessed in the Spanish National Health System [SNS]) that describe the domains to be evaluated in dHTA

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Methodological guidelines and frameworks, scoping reviews (ScRs), systematic reviews (SRs), consensus documents, and qualitative studies

Reference Screening and Data Extraction

The screening of studies was carried out by authors CM-P and JS-F in 2 phases in accordance with the selection criteria detailed earlier ( Textbox 1 ) and in a single-blind peer review manner. The first phase consisted of screening of the titles and abstracts of the studies identified in the bibliographic search. The second phase consisted of full-text screening of the studies included in the previous phase.

Data extraction was performed by 3 authors (CM-P, RP-P, and JS-F) using the web and desktop versions of ATLAS.ti version 22.0 (Scientific Software Development GmbH) [ 29 ] and the data extraction sheets designed ad hoc for this purpose following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 30 ].

When disagreements emerged in either of the 2 processes, a consensus was reached between the 3 reviewers (CM-P, RP-P, and JS-F). When a consensus was not possible, a fourth reviewer (author RMV-H) was consulted.

Collecting, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

A descriptive analysis was carried out to evaluate and report the existing methodological frameworks and their characteristics.

Overview of Methods for Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis was performed following the recommendations and phases described by Thomas and Harden [ 31 ] to determine HTA dimensions for dHTs: (1) line-by-line text coding, (2) development of descriptive topics, and (3) generation of analytical themes. Both analyses were carried out by 3 authors (CM-P, RP-P, and JS-F) using the web and desktop versions of ATLAS.ti version 22.0 [ 29 ].

Dimensions identified from systematic reviews (SRs) that were derived from primary studies also identified in our systematic search were only counted once in order to avoid duplication of data and risk of bias. It is worth mentioning that the primary studies included in the SRs were not directly analyzed but were analyzed through the findings reported in the SRs.

Study Selection and Characteristics

A total of 3042 studies were retrieved throughout the systematic (n=3023, 99.4%) and the manual (n=19, 0.6%) search. Of these, 2238 (73.6%) studies were identified as unique after removing duplicates.

After title and abstract review, 81 (3.6%) studies were selected for full-text review, of which 26 (32.1%) were finally included in the analysis. The excluded studies and reasons for exclusion are detailed in Multimedia Appendix 3 ; in brief, the reasons for exclusion were phenomenon of interest (n=30, 37%), type of publication (n=15, 18.5%), purpose (n=6, 7.4%), language (n=2, 2.5%), and duplicated information (n=2, 2.5%). The study selection process is outlined in Figure 1 [ 32 ].

Of the 26 (32.1%) studies included in this ScR, 19 (73.1%) were designed as specific methodological frameworks for dHTA [ 16 , 17 , 33 - 47 ], 4 (15.4%) were SRs [ 48 - 51 ], 1 (3.9%) was a report from the European mHealth Hub’s working group on mHealth assessment guidelines [ 52 ], 1 (3.9%) was a qualitative study [ 53 ], and 1 (3.9%) was a viewpoint [ 54 ]. In addition, 3 (11.5%) focused on the assessment of non–face-to-face care models [ 33 - 35 ], 8 (30.8%) on mHealth assessment [ 36 - 40 , 52 , 53 , 55 ], 2 (7.7%) on the assessment of AI technology [ 41 , 54 ], 4 (15.4%) on eHealth [ 42 , 43 , 48 , 50 ], and 9 (34.6%) on the overall assessment of digital health [ 16 , 17 , 44 - 47 , 49 , 51 , 56 ].

Research Question 1: Description of Identified Frameworks for dHTA

The 19 methodological frameworks for dHTA [ 16 , 17 , 33 - 47 ] were from various countries: The majority (n=5, 26.3%) originated in Australia [ 17 , 34 , 38 , 41 , 46 ], followed by 3 (15.8%) from the United States [ 43 , 45 , 56 ] and 2 (10.5%) from Switzerland [ 47 , 55 ]; the remaining 9 (47.4%) frameworks were developed in Afghanistan [ 42 ], Denmark [ 33 ], Scotland [ 35 ], Finland [ 16 ], Ireland [ 36 ], Israel [ 40 ], the United Kingdom [ 37 ], Spain [ 39 ], and Sweden [ 44 ].

The 19 methodological frameworks focused on evaluating various types of technologies. Specifically, 3 (15.8%) of them were designed for assessing non–face-to-face care models [ 33 - 35 ], 6 (31.6%) for mHealth [ 36 - 40 ], and 1 (5.3%) for AI solutions [ 41 ]. The other 9 (47.4%) frameworks addressed eHealth [ 42 , 43 , 56 ] or digital health in general [ 16 , 17 , 44 - 47 ], which encompasses non–face-to-face care models, mHealth, and occasionally AI-based solutions [ 18 ] within its scope. It is pertinent to mention that the differentiation between the methodological frameworks designed for the evaluation of eHealth and those designed for dHTA was based on the specific terminology and descriptions used by the authors of those frameworks.

The structures and characteristics of the analyzed methodological frameworks were considered heterogeneous in terms of evaluation specificity (whether they focused on a global evaluation that encompassed more than 1 domain or dimension or on a specific assessment that addressed only 1 domain or dimension), assessment approach (whether they adopted a phased evaluation, a domain evaluation, or a hybrid of both), and number of domains included. Regarding evaluation specificity, 17 (89.5%) methodological frameworks were classified as global as they covered various aspects or domains within their scope [ 16 , 17 , 33 - 36 , 38 - 47 , 55 , 56 ], while 2 (10.5%) were classified as specific as they concentrated exclusively on 1 element or domain of assessment [ 37 , 46 ]. Regarding the assessment approach, 14 (73.7%) methodological frameworks proposed a domain-based evaluation [ 16 , 17 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 - 40 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 55 , 56 ], while 4 (21.1%) proposed a hybrid one (phased and domain based) [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 ]; the remaining methodological framework did not fit into any of the previous categories, as it was not structured by domains or phases but by types of risk [ 37 ]. Finally, the number of evaluation domains considered ranged from 1 to 14, with an average of 7. Table 1 outlines the primary features of the included methodological frameworks and provides a thorough breakdown of the domains and dimensions they address.

In contrast, from 3 (75%) [ 49 - 51 ] of the 4 SRs [ 48 - 51 ] and the report from the working group on guidelines for the evaluation of mHealth solutions from the European mHealth Hub [ 52 ], we identified other methodological frameworks and tools focusing on the assessment of dHTs. Specifically, we identified 16 methodological frameworks or tools focusing on the evaluation of non–face-to-face care models [ 57 - 72 ], along with 37 for the evaluation of mHealth [ 10 , 52 , 73 - 95 ], 11 for the evaluation of eHealth [ 96 - 107 ], and 17 for the evaluation of dHTs in general [ 108 - 124 ]. Additionally, 5 (26.3%) [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 42 ] of the 19 methodological frameworks included in this ScR were also identified and analyzed in 1 or more of the 4 literature synthesis documents [ 49 - 52 ]. It is important to note that the difference between the frameworks we retrieved through our systematic search and those identified in the 4 SRs is the result of the narrower perspective we adopted, focusing exclusively on frameworks directly relevant to the HTA field, in line with the aims of our study. In Multimedia Appendix 4 , we provide a more detailed explanation of the methodological frameworks included in the studies mentioned earlier [ 19 , 49 - 52 , 57 - 73 , 75 - 135 ].

a ScR: scoping review.

b mHealth: mobile health.

c N/A: not applicable.

d AI: artificial intelligence.

e dHT: digital health technology.

Research Question 2: Domains and Dimensions Being Considered in dHTA

The 26 (32.1%) studies included encompassed a broad range of items to consider in dHTA and often used diverse expressions for analogous concepts. We reduced this heterogeneity through our thematic analysis according to the recommendations and phases described by Thomas and Harden [ 31 ].

In this sense, in the first phase of thematic analysis, we identified and coded 176 units of meaning (coded as provisional codes) that represented different items (domains or dimensions) of the assessment. These units were then grouped into 86 descriptive themes (second phase), which were further refined into 61 analytical themes that captured the key concepts and relationships between them (third phase). Lastly, the 61 analytical themes were arranged in a 3-level vertical hierarchy based on the evidence: level 1 (12 domains), level 2 (38 dimensions), and level 3 (11 subdimensions). We used the term “domain” to refer to a distinct area or topic of evaluation that is integral to the assessment of the technology in question. A domain may encompass multiple related concepts or dimensions that are relevant to the evaluation. Each dimension, in turn, represents a specific aspect of evaluation that belongs to the domain and contributes to an understanding of its overall significance. Finally, a subdimension refers to a partial element of a dimension that facilitates its analysis. By using these terms, we aimed to provide a clear, rigorous, and comprehensive framework for conducting HTA.

Table 2 displays the 61 analytical themes in descending order of coding frequency, aligned with the hierarchy derived from the data analysis. Additionally, the table specifies the intervention modalities or dHTs that correspond to each code and lists the studies from which each code originated. The network of relationships among the codes can be found in Multimedia Appendix 5 .

a dHT: digital health technology.

c AI: artificial intelligence.

d N/A: not applicable.

Research Question 3: Variability of Domains and Dimensions Among Technologies

Our thematic analysis revealed a significant degree of variability and heterogeneity in the number and type of domains and dimensions considered by the methodological frameworks.

In terms of numbers, the variability was quite pronounced when we compared frameworks addressing different types of dHTs. For instance, the thematic analysis of frameworks for assessing telemedicine only identified 9 (75%) domains and 6 (15.8%) dimensions; instead, in frameworks for assessing mHealth, we identified 10 (83.3%) domains, 20 (52.6%) dimensions, and 6 (54.5%) subdimensions, and in frameworks for assessing AI, we identified 8 (66.7%) different domains, 7 (18.4%) different dimensions, and 6 (54.5%) subdimensions.

In terms of the types of domains considered, certain dimensions and domains were identified as more distinctive for one kind of dHT than for another. For instance, clinical efficacy and effectiveness, technical safety, economic evaluation, and user experience were relevant for the evaluation of models of nonpresential health care and mHealth but not for AI. In contrast, there were specific dimensions and domains of mHealth that were not considered in the evaluation of non–face-to-face health care or AI, such as postmarketing monitoring, scientific basis, technical evaluation and validation, user control and self-determination, accessibility, content and adequacy of information, and data interoperability and integration. Finally, specific methodological frameworks for the evaluation of AI included dimensions such as technical aspects, adoption, use, integration, generalizability, reproducibility, and interpretability, which were not considered in the evaluation of telemedicine or mHealth. In conclusion, greater clarity and structuring in the presentation of these ideas are required to facilitate their understanding and assimilation.

Proposal for Domains, Dimensions, and Subdimensions for dHTA

These findings led to the development of a proposed methodological framework for dHTA, which comprises domains, dimensions, and subdimensions. These evaluation items were established objectively based on thematically analyzed evidence, without incorporating the researcher’s perspective. Consequently, the proposal for domains, dimensions, and subdimensions emerged from the literature and represents the entirety of identified evaluation domains, dimensions, and subdimensions (n=61). Figure 2 presents a visual representation of the proposed framework comprising 12 domains, 38 dimensions, and their corresponding 11 subdimensions. Notably, the figure highlights certain domains, dimensions, and subdimensions that are particularly relevant to the evaluation of non–face-to-face care models, mHealth, and AI according to the evidence.

Principal Findings

In recent years, the interest in digital health has increased significantly, giving rise to a myriad of available technologies. This has brought about a profound transformation in health care systems, fundamentally changing the provision and consumption of health care services [ 9 ]. However, despite these advancements, the shift toward digital health has been accompanied by challenges. One such challenge is the emergence of a plethora of short-lived implementations and an overwhelming diversity of digital tools, which has created a need for careful evaluation and analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of these technologies [ 4 ].

In this context, our ScR aimed to identify the methodological frameworks used worldwide for the assessment of dHTs; determine what domains are considered; and generate, through a thematic analysis, a proposal for a methodological framework based on the most frequently described domains in the literature.

Throughout the ScR, we identified a total of 95 methodological frameworks and tools, of which 19 [ 16 , 17 , 33 - 47 ] were directly identified through a systematic search and 75 were indirectly identified through 4 SRs [ 49 - 52 ]. The difference in the number of methodological frameworks identified through the ScR and the 4 evidence synthesis documents [ 49 - 52 ] is attributed to the inclusion of keywords related to the concept of HTA in the search syntax, the exclusion of methodological frameworks published prior to 2011 during the screening process, and the differences in perspectives used for the development of this paper compared to the 4 evidence synthesis documents mentioned earlier. In this sense, these 4 documents [ 49 - 52 ] have analyzed methodological frameworks and tools aimed at evaluating digital health that have not been developed from an HTA perspective despite the authors analyzing them as such. For example, von Huben et al. [ 51 ] included in their analysis the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-EHEALTH tool [ 97 ], which aims to describe the information that should be reported in papers and reports that focus on evaluating web- and mHealth-based interventions; Koladas et al [ 49 ] included the mobile health evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist [ 73 ], which aims to determine the information that should be reported in trials evaluating mHealth solutions; and the European mHealth Hub document [ 52 ] includes the Isys Score, which is for cataloguing apps for smartphones.

However, as detailed in the Results section, some of the methodological frameworks identified through the ScR were characterized by the authors themselves as being specific for evaluating certain types of dHTs (eg, non–face-to-face care models, mHealth), presenting certain differences according to each typology. It is important to note that the differentiation among various types of dHTs, as described throughout this paper and commonly used in the field of digital health, cannot always be made in a precise and exclusive manner [ 136 ]. This is because a technology often can be classified in more than 1 category. For instance, an mHealth solution may use AI algorithms, while simultaneously being integrated into a non–face-to-face care model [ 137 ]. In this context, future research should consider using alternative taxonomies or classification methods that are based on the intended purpose of the technology, such as those proposed by NICE in the updated version of the Evidence Standards Framework [ 18 ] or the new digital health interventions system classification put forward by WHO [ 138 ].

After conducting a thematic analysis of the 26 included studies, we observed that various methodological frameworks include a set of evaluation items, referred to as domains, dimensions, or criteria. These items primarily focus on the safety; effectiveness; technical aspects; economic impact; and ethical, legal, and social consequences of dHTs. However, there is significant heterogeneity among these frameworks in terms of the way they refer to the evaluation items, the quantity and depth of their description, the degree of granularity, and the proposed evaluation methods, especially when comparing frameworks that focus on different types of dHTs. Despite this heterogeneity, most methodological frameworks consider evaluation items related to the 9 domains described by the HTA Core Model of EUnetHTA, while some frameworks propose additional evaluation elements, such as usability [ 16 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 56 ], privacy [ 39 - 41 , 44 , 52 , 55 ], and technical stability [ 16 , 38 , 47 , 49 , 52 ] among others. These findings are consistent with earlier research [ 50 , 51 ].

In addition, through the thematic analysis, the heterogeneity identified among the different methodological frameworks included in this ScR was reduced to a total of 61 analytical themes related to various evaluation elements that were arranged in a 3-level vertical hierarchy based on the evidence: level 1 (12 domains), level 2 (38 dimensions), and level 3 (11 subdimensions). At this point, it is pertinent to note that although from the researchers’ perspective, some dimensions could have been classified under different domains (eg, responsibility under ethical aspects) or seen as essential for other kinds of dHTs, an effort was made to maintain the highest degree of objectivity possible. It is for this reason that privacy issues were not described as essential for non–face-to-face care models and why the dimension of accessibility was categorized within the domains of human and sociocultural aspects and technical aspects. This categorization was made because some of the methodological frameworks analyzed associated it with sociocultural elements (eg, evaluating whether users with functional diversity can access the technology and have sufficient ability to use it as expected), while others linked it to technical elements (eg, adequacy of the elements, options, or accessibility functionalities that the system incorporates according to the target audience) [ 16 , 52 ].

The ScR and thematic analysis conducted in this study led to a proposal for a methodological framework for dHTA. This framework was further developed using additional methodologies, such as consensus workshops by the Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS), in collaboration with all agencies of RedETS, commissioned by the Ministry of Health of Spain. The final framework is a specific methodological tool for the assessment of dHTs, aimed at describing the domains and dimensions to be considered in dHTA and defining the evidence standards that such technologies must meet based on their associated risk level. The proposed methodological framework enables the assessment of a wide range of dHTs, mainly those classified as medical devices according to the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 for medical devices [ 139 ] and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 for in vitro diagnostic medical devices, although it can be adapted to assess dHTs not classified as medical devices [ 140 ]. Unlike existing frameworks, it establishes a clear link between the identified domains and dimensions and the evidence standards required for dHTs to meet. This approach will enhance the transparency and consistency of dHTAs and support evidence-based decision-making. The final document was published from November 2023 onward and is available on the RedETS website as well as on the main web page of AQuAS in the Spanish language [ 141 ]. From the first week of February, the respective websites have hosted an English version of this document [ 141 ], which also is accessible in the INAHTA database. In addition, the Spanish and English versions of the document will be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, adapted to align with emerging technologies and changes in legislation.

Limitations

Although this ScR was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ) and following the recommendations of Peters et al [ 22 ] and Pollock et al [ 23 ], there were some limitations. First, the search incorporated a block of keywords related to the concept of HTA (see Multimedia Appendix 1 ) due to the perspective of our ScR, which may have limited the retrieval of some studies to meet the study objective. However, this limitation was compensated for by the analysis of the 3 SRs and the report of the working group on guidelines for the evaluation of mHealth solutions of the European mHealth Hub. Second, much of the literature related to HTA is gray literature and only published on the websites of the authoring agencies. Despite efforts to address this limitation through expert input and a comprehensive search of the websites of the world’s leading agencies, it is possible that certain studies were not identified. Third, the quality and limitations of the analysis conducted by the authors of methodological frameworks and tools included in SRs may have had an impact on the indirect thematic analysis. Therefore, it is possible that some data could have been omitted or not considered during this process. Fourth, the focus on dHTs encompassed within the 3 previously mentioned categories (mHealth, non–face-to-face care models, and medical devices that integrate AI) may have influenced the outcomes of the thematic analysis conducted. Fifth, only methodological frameworks written in Catalan, Spanish, and English were included.

Comparison With Prior Work

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ScR to examine the methodological frameworks for dHTA, followed by a thematic analysis with the aim of proposing a new comprehensive framework that incorporates the existing literature in an objective manner and enables the assessment of various technologies included under the concept of digital health. In this sense, existing SRs and other evidence synthesis documents have only analyzed the literature and reported the results in a descriptive manner [ 36 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 56 , 125 , 126 ]. Furthermore, this ScR also considered, in addition to scientific literature, gray literature identified by searching the websites of the agencies, thus covering some limitations of previous reviews [ 50 ]. Moreover, this review was carried out from the perspective of HTA, addressing a clear need expressed by HTA agencies [ 16 ].

Future research should aim to identify what domains and dimensions are relevant at the different stages of the technology life cycle, to establish or develop a standardized set of outcomes for assessing or reporting each domain, and to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the existing methodological frameworks for the different intended users [ 50 , 142 ]. Moreover, future research should aim to determine the specific evaluation criteria that ought to be considered based on the level of risk associated with different types of technologies [ 51 ].

Our ScR revealed a total of 102 methodological frameworks and tools designed for evaluating dHTs, with 19 being directly identified through a systematic search and 83 through 4 evidence synthesis documents. Only 19 of all the identified frameworks were developed from the perspective of HTA. These frameworks vary in assessment items, structure, and specificity, and their proven usefulness in practice is scarce.

The thematic analysis of the 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria led to the identification and definition of 12 domains, 38 dimensions, and 11 subdimensions that should be considered when evaluating dHTs. Building on our results, a methodological framework for dHTA was proposed.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Benigno Rosón Calvo (Servicio Gallego de Salud [SERGAS]), Carme Carrion (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya [UOC]), Carlos A Molina Carrón (Dirección General de Salud Digital y Sistemas de Información para el SNS. Ministerio de Sanidad, Gobierno de España), Carme Pratdepadua (Fundació Tic Salut i Social [FTSS]), Celia Muñoz (Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud [IACS]), David Pijoan (Biocat, BioRegió de Catalunya), Felip Miralles (Eurecat – Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya), Iñaki Guiterrez Ibarluzea (Osasun Teknologien Ebaluazioko Zerbitzua [Osteba]), Janet Puñal Riobóo (Unidad de Asesoramiento Científico-técnico [avalia-t], Agencia Gallega para la Gestión del Conocimiento en Salud [ACIS]), Jordi Piera-Jiménez (Àrea de Sistemes d’Informació del Servei Català de la Salut [CatSalut]), Juan Antonio Blasco (Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía [AETSA]), Liliana Arroyo Moliner (Direcció General de Societat Digital, Departament d’Empresa i Treball de la Generalitat de Catalunya), Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez (Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud [SESCS]), Lucía Prieto Remón (IACS), Marifé Lapeña (Dirección General de Salud Digital y Sistemas de Información para el SNS. Ministerio de Sanidad, Gobierno de España), Mario Cárdaba (Insituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII]), Montserrat Daban (Biocat, BioRegió de Catalunya), Montserrat Moharra Frances (Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya), and Oscar Solans (CatSalut) for reviewing the protocol of this scoping review (ScR) and the ScR.

This research was framed within the budget of the work plan of the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, commissioned by the General Directorate of Common Portfolio of Services of the National Health System and Pharmacy.

Authors' Contributions

JS-F and CM-P were responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, and visualization. RP-P handled conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, and writing—original draft. RMV-H handled conceptualization, writing—review and editing, supervision, and project administration.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [ 21 ].

Search strategies for each database.

References excluded at the full-text screening stage.

Methodological frameworks included in systematic reviews.

Network of relationships among the codes.

High-resolution image of Figure 2.

• Avanzas P, Pascual I, Moris C. The great challenge of the public health system in Spain. J Thorac Dis. May 2017;9(Suppl 6):S430-S433. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grubanov BS, Ghio D, Goujon A, Kalantaryan S, Belmonte M, Scipioni M. Health and long-term care workforce: demographic challenges and the potential contribution of migration and digital technology. Luxembourg. European Commission; 2021;2045-2322.
• World Health Organization (WHO). Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. Denmark. WHO; 2013.
• World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. Geneva. WHO; Jun 6, 2019.
• Scholz N. Addressing health inequalities in the European Union. Luxembourg. European Parliamentary Research Service; 2020.
• Kickbusch I, Agrawal A, Jack A, Lee N, Horton R. Governing health futures 2030: growing up in a digital world—a joint The Lancet and Financial Times Commission. Lancet. Oct 2019;394(10206):1309. [ CrossRef ]
• Reeves JJ, Ayers JW, Longhurst CA. Telehealth in the COVID-19 era: a balancing act to avoid harm. J Med Internet Res. Feb 01, 2021;23(2):e24785. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Richardson S, Lawrence K, Schoenthaler AM, Mann D. A framework for digital health equity. NPJ Digit Med. Aug 18, 2022;5(1):119. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• European Union. State of health in the EU: companion report 2021. Luxembourg. European Union; 2022.
• LATITUD: Anàlisi comparativa de models d'atenció no presencial en l'àmbit de la salut. TIC Salut Social. 2020. URL: https://ticsalutsocial.cat/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/latitud.pdf [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. World Health Organization. Aug 18, 2021. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924 [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Ming J, He Y, Yang Y, Hu M, Zhao X, Liu J, et al. Health technology assessment of medical devices: current landscape, challenges, and a way forward. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. Oct 05, 2022;20(1):54. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• O'Rourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T. The new definition of health technology assessment: a milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. May 13, 2020;36(3):187-190. [ CrossRef ]
• EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 3.0 2016. EUnetHTA. 2016. URL: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Puñal-Riobóo J, Baños, Varela LL, Castillo MM, Atienza MG, Ubago PR. Guía para la elaboración y adaptación de informes rápidos. Santiago de Compostela, Madrid. Agencia Gallega para la Gestión del Conocimientoto en Salud. Unidad de Asesoramiento Científico-técnico, avalia-t. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad; 2016.
• Haverinen J, Keränen N, Falkenbach P, Maijala A, Kolehmainen T, Reponen J. Digi-HTA: health technology assessment framework for digital healthcare services. FinJeHeW. Nov 02, 2019;11(4):326-341. [ CrossRef ]
• Hussain MS, Silvera-Tawil D, Farr-Wharton G. Technology assessment framework for precision health applications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. May 26, 2021;37(1):e67. [ CrossRef ]
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. Contract no.: 30 de septiembre. London. NICE; 2022.
• Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: https:/​/www.​nice.org.uk/​about/​what-we-do/​our-programmes/​evidence-standards-framework-for-digital-health-technologies [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Segur-Ferrer J, Moltó-Puigmartí C, Pastells-Peiró R, Vivanco-Hidalgo RM. Methodological frameworks and dimensions to be taken into consideration in digital health technology assessment: protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc. Oct 11, 2022;11(10):e39905. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• 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. Oct 02, 2018;169(7):467-473. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119-2126. [ CrossRef ]
• Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. Apr 04, 2021;77(4):2102-2113. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ayiku L, Hudson T, Glover S, Walsh N, Adams R, Deane J, et al. The NICE MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) health apps search filters: development of validated filters to retrieve evidence about health apps. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Oct 27, 2020;37(1):e16. [ CrossRef ]
• McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Jul 2016;75:40-46. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. Dec 06, 2017;6(1):245. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):179-187. [ CrossRef ]
• Systematic reviews - research guide. Defining your review question. Murdoch University. 2023. URL: https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/systematic [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Scientific Software Development GmbH. Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis. 22.0 ed. Berlin. Scientific Software Development GmbH; 2021.
• Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. London. Cochrane; 2022.
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. Jul 10, 2008;8(1):45. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. Mar 2021;18(3):e1003583. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, Rasmussen J, Pedersen CD, Bowes A, et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: MAST. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Jan 23, 2012;28(1):44-51. [ CrossRef ]
• Nepal S, Li J, Jang-Jaccard J, Alem L. A framework for telehealth program evaluation. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2014;20(4):393-404. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Measuring the impact of telehealth and telecare: SCTT toolkit. Glasgow. SCTT; 2013.
• Caulfield B, Reginatto B, Slevin P. Not all sensors are created equal: a framework for evaluating human performance measurement technologies. NPJ Digit Med. Feb 14, 2019;2(1):7. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lewis TL, Wyatt JC. mHealth and mobile medical apps: a framework to assess risk and promote safer use. J Med Internet Res. Sep 15, 2014;16(9):e210. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moshi MR, Tooher R, Merlin T. Development of a health technology assessment module for evaluating mobile medical applications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. May 18, 2020;36(3):252-261. [ CrossRef ]
• Puigdomènech E, Poses-Ferrer E, Espallargues CM, Blasco AJ, Varela LL, Paz VL. Evaluación de tecnología basada en mSalud para aplicaciones móviles. Madrid. Ministerio de Sanidad; 2020.
• Henson P, David G, Albright K, Torous J. Deriving a practical framework for the evaluation of health apps. Lancet Digit Health. Jun 2019;1(2):e52-e54. [ CrossRef ]
• Reddy S, Rogers W, Makinen V, Coiera E, Brown P, Wenzel M, et al. Evaluation framework to guide implementation of AI systems into healthcare settings. BMJ Health Care Inform. Oct 12, 2021;28(1):e100444. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Khoja S, Durrani H, Scott RE, Sajwani A, Piryani U. Conceptual framework for development of comprehensive e-health evaluation tool. Telemed J E Health. Jan 2013;19(1):48-53. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sockolow P, Bowles K, Rogers M. Health information technology evaluation framework (HITREF) comprehensiveness as assessed in electronic point-of-care documentation systems evaluations. Amsterdam. IOS Press; 2015.
• Kowatsch T, Otto L, Harperink S, Cotti A, Schlieter H. A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions. it - Inf Technol. Nov 2019;61(5):253-263. [ CrossRef ]
• Mathews SC, McShea MJ, Hanley CL, Ravitz A, Labrique AB, Cohen AB. Digital health: a path to validation. NPJ Digit Med. May 13, 2019;2(1):38. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Milosevic Z. Ethics in digital health: a deontic accountability framework. 2019. Presented at: IEEE 23rd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC); October 28-31, 2019; Paris, France. [ CrossRef ]
• World Health Organization (WHO). Monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions: a practical guide to conducting research and assessment. Geneva. WHO; 2016.
• Enam A, Torres-Bonilla J, Eriksson H. Evidence-based evaluation of eHealth interventions: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. Nov 23, 2018;20(11):e10971. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kolasa K, Kozinski G. How to value digital health interventions? A systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 23, 2020;17(6):2119. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vis C, Bührmann L, Riper H, Ossebaard HC. Health technology assessment frameworks for eHealth: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Apr 16, 2020;36(3):204-216. [ CrossRef ]
• von Huben A, Howell M, Howard K, Carrello J, Norris S. Health technology assessment for digital technologies that manage chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. May 26, 2021;37(1):e66. [ CrossRef ]
• Report of the Working Group on mhealth assessment guidelines. European Commission. 2021. URL: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/report-working-group-mhealth-assessment-guidelines [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Kumar S, Nilsen WJ, Abernethy A, Atienza A, Patrick K, Pavel M, et al. Mobile health technology evaluation: the mhealth evidence workshop. Am J Prev Med. Aug 2013;45(2):228-236. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alami H, Lehoux P, Auclair Y, de Guise M, Gagnon M, Shaw J, et al. Artificial intelligence and health technology assessment: anticipating a new level of complexity. J Med Internet Res. Jul 07, 2020;22(7):e17707. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vokinger KN, Nittas V, Witt CM, Fabrikant SI, von Wyl V. Digital health and the COVID-19 epidemic: an assessment framework for apps from an epidemiological and legal perspective. Swiss Med Wkly. May 04, 2020;150(1920):w20282. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baumel A, Muench F. Heuristic evaluation of ehealth interventions: establishing standards that relate to the therapeutic process perspective. JMIR Ment Health. Jan 13, 2016;3(1):e5. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alfonzo A, Huerta M, Wong S, Passariello G, Diaz M, La CA, et al. Design of a methodology for assessing an electrocardiographic telemonitoring system. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:3729-3732. [ CrossRef ]
• Bashshur R, Shannon G, Sapci H. Telemedicine evaluation. Telemed J E Health. Jun 2005;11(3):296-316. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beintner I, Vollert B, Zarski A, Bolinski F, Musiat P, Görlich D, et al. Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials examining manualized multisession online interventions: systematic review of practices and proposal for reporting standards. J Med Internet Res. Aug 15, 2019;21(8):e14181. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Brear M. Evaluating telemedicine: lessons and challenges. Health Inf Manag. Jul 21, 2006;35(2):23-31. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• DeChant HK, Tohme WG, Mun SK, Hayes WS, Schulman KA. Health systems evaluation of telemedicine: a staged approach. Telemed J. Jan 1996;2(4):303-312. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Giansanti D, Morelli S, Macellari V. Telemedicine technology assessment part II: tools for a quality control system. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2007;13(2):130-140. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Giansanti D, Morelli S, Macellari V. Telemedicine technology assessment part I: setup and validation of a quality control system. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2007;13(2):118-129. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grigsby J, Brega AG, Devore PA. The evaluation of telemedicine and health services research. Telemed J E Health. Jun 2005;11(3):317-328. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hailey D, Jacobs P, Simpson J, Doze S. An assessment framework for telemedicine applications. J Telemed Telecare. Jun 23, 1999;5(3):162-170. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ohinmaa A, Hailey D, Roine R. Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Jun 30, 2001;17(2):190-202. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rajan B, Tezcan T, Seidmann A. Service systems with heterogeneous customers: investigating the effect of telemedicine on chronic care. Manag Sci. Mar 2019;65(3):1236-1267. [ CrossRef ]
• Sisk JE, Sanders JH. A proposed framework for economic evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed J. Jan 1998;4(1):31-37. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zissman K, Lejbkowicz I, Miller A. Telemedicine for multiple sclerosis patients: assessment using Health Value Compass. Mult Scler. Apr 30, 2012;18(4):472-480. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grustam AS, Vrijhoef HJM, Koymans R, Hukal P, Severens JL. Assessment of a business-to-consumer (B2C) model for telemonitoring patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Oct 11, 2017;17(1):145. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hebert M. Telehealth success: evaluation framework development. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 2):1145-1149. [ Medline ]
• Rojahn K, Laplante S, Sloand J, Main C, Ibrahim A, Wild J, et al. Remote monitoring of chronic diseases: a landscape assessment of policies in four European countries. PLoS One. May 19, 2016;11(5):e0155738. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L'Engle K, Mehl G, Sinha C, et al. WHO mHealth Technical Evidence Review Group. Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. BMJ. Mar 17, 2016;352:i1174. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Safety and quality strategy in mobile health apps. Complete list of recommendations on design, use and assessment of health apps. Agencia de Calidad Sanitaria de Andalucía. 2012. URL: http://www.calidadappsalud.com/en/listado-completo-recomendaciones-app-salud/ [accessed 2023-07-17]
• The app evaluation model. American Psychiatric Association Initiative. 2022. URL: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/mental-health-apps/the-app-evaluation-model [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Gdd AppStore. Association of Regional Public Health Services (GGD) and Regional Medical Emergency Preparedness and Planning (GHOR). 2016. URL: https://tinyurl.com/58th4p4w [accessed 2023-07-18]
• AppQ: quality criteria core set for more quality transparency in digital health applications. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Oct 29, 2019. URL: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/appq [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Bradway M, Carrion C, Vallespin B, Saadatfard O, Puigdomènech E, Espallargues M, et al. mHealth assessment: conceptualization of a global framework. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. May 02, 2017;5(5):e60. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• PAS 277:2015 - health and wellness apps. Quality criteria across the life cycle. British Standards Institution. URL: https:/​/knowledge.​bsigroup.com/​products/​health-and-wellness-apps-quality-criteria-across-the-life-cycle-code-of-practice/​standard [accessed 2023-07-18]
• MindApps. Centre for Telepsychiatry in the Region of Southern Denmark. 2017. URL: https://mindapps.dk/ [accessed 2023-07-18]
• Dick S, O'Connor Y, Thompson MJ, O'Donoghue J, Hardy V, Wu TJ, et al. Considerations for improved mobile health evaluation: retrospective qualitative investigation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 22, 2020;8(1):e12424. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). The fast-track process for digital health applications (diga) according to section 139e sgb v. A guide for manufacturers, service providers and users. Bonn, Germany. Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices; 2020.
• Gorski I, Bram JT, Sutermaster S, Eckman M, Mehta K. Value propositions of mHealth projects. J Med Eng Technol. Aug 12, 2016;40(7-8):400-421. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hogaboam L, Daim T. Technology adoption potential of medical devices: the case of wearable sensor products for pervasive care in neurosurgery and orthopedics. Health Policy Technol. Dec 2018;7(4):409-419. [ CrossRef ]
• Huckvale K, Torous J, Larsen ME. Assessment of the data sharing and privacy practices of smartphone apps for depression and smoking cessation. JAMA Netw Open. Apr 05, 2019;2(4):e192542. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Maar MA, Yeates K, Perkins N, Boesch L, Hua-Stewart D, Liu P, et al. A framework for the study of complex mhealth interventions in diverse cultural settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Apr 20, 2017;5(4):e47. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McMillan B, Hickey E, Patel MG, Mitchell C. Quality assessment of a sample of mobile app-based health behavior change interventions using a tool based on the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence behavior change guidance. Patient Educ Couns. Mar 2016;99(3):429-435. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Health and welness apps: new international guidelines to help to sort the best form the rest. NEN. URL: https://www.nen.nl/en/health-and-welness-apps [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Continua design guidelines. Personal Connected Health Alliance. 2019. URL: https://www.pchalliance.org/continua-design-guidelines [accessed 2023-07-18]
• Philpott D, Guergachi A, Keshavjee K. Design and validation of a platform to evaluate mhealth apps. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;235:3-7. [ Medline ]
• Ruck A, Wagner BS, Lowe C. Second draft of guidelines. EU guidelines on assessment of the reliability of mobile health applications. European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology. Luxembourg; 2016.
• Sax M, Helberger N, Bol N. Health as a means towards profitable ends: mhealth apps, user autonomy, and unfair commercial practices. J Consum Policy. May 22, 2018;41(2):103-134. [ CrossRef ]
• Wyatt JC. How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use? BMC Med. Dec 03, 2018;16(1):225. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• IRBs could address ethical issues related to tracking devices: mobile devices raise new concerns. IRB Advisor. Nov 1, 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​reliasmedia.com/​articles/​141589-irbs-could-address-ethical-issues-related-to-tracking-devices [accessed 2024-03-28]
• App check. Zentrum für Telematik und Telemedizin. URL: https://ztg-nrw.de/ [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of ehealth interventions: an overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. Nov 09, 2015;17(11):e254. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Eysenbach G, CONSORT-EHEALTH Group. CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. Dec 31, 2011;13(4):e126. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shaw NT. 'CHEATS': a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework. Comput Biol Med. May 2002;32(3):209-220. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Brown M, Shaw N. Evaluation practices of a major Canadian telehealth provider: lessons and future directions for the field. Telemed J E Health. Oct 2008;14(8):769-774. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Casper GR, Kenron DA. A framework for technology assessment: approaches for the selection of a home technology device. Clin Nurse Spec. 2005;19(4):170-174. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sitting D, Kahol K, Singh H. Sociotechnical evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of point-of-care mobile computing devices: a case study conducted in India. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:515-519. [ CrossRef ]
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Good practice guidelines on health apps and smart devices (mobile health or mhealth). Paris. Haute Autorité de Santé; Nov 7, 2016.
• Health Information and Quality Authority. International review of consent models for the collection, use and sharing of health information. Dublin. Health Information and Quality Authority; 2020.
• Jurkeviciute M. Planning of a holistic summative ehealth evaluation: the interplay between standards and reality PhD Thesis. Gotherburg. Chalmers University of Technology; 2018.
• Vimarlund V, Davoody N, Koch S. Steps to consider for effective decision making when selecting and prioritizing eHealth services. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:239-243. [ Medline ]
• Currie WL. TEMPEST: an integrative model for health technology assessment. Health Policy Technol. Mar 2012;1(1):35-49. [ CrossRef ]
• Eivazzadeh S, Anderberg P, Larsson TC, Fricker SA, Berglund J. Evaluating health information systems using ontologies. JMIR Med Inform. Jun 16, 2016;4(2):e20. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Our data-driven future in healthcare: people and partnerships at the heart of health related technologies. Academy of Medical Sciences. Nov 2018. URL: https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/74634438 [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. National safety and quality digital mental health standards - consultation draft. Australia. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare; 2020.
• A guide to good practice for digital and data-driven health technologies. London. Department of Health & Social Care; 2021.
• Drury P, Roth S, Jones T, Stahl M, Medeiros D. Guidance for investing in digital health. In: Sustainable Development Working Papers. Mandaluyong, the Philippines. Asian Development Bank; May 2018.
• European Commission. Synospis report. Consultation: transformation health and care in the digital single market. Luxembourg. European Commission; 2018.
• Federal Ministry of Health. Regulation on the procedure and requirements for testing the eligibility for reimbursement of digital health applications in the statutory public health insurance (Digital Health Applications Ordinance - DiGAV). Alemania. Federal Ministry of Health; 2020.
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Guide to the specific features of clinical evaluation of a connected medical device (CMD) in view of its application for reimbursement. Paris. Haute Autorité de Santé; 2019.
• How we assess health apps and digital tools. NHS Digital. 2019. URL: https:/​/digital.​nhs.uk/​services/​nhs-apps-library/​guidance-forhealth-app-developers-commissioners-and-assessors/​how-we-assess-healthapps-and-digital-tools [accessed 2023-07-17]
• Lennon MR, Bouamrane M, Devlin AM, O'Connor S, O'Donnell C, Chetty U, et al. Readiness for delivering digital health at scale: lessons from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of a national digital health innovation program in the United Kingdom. J Med Internet Res. Feb 16, 2017;19(2):e42. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McNamee P, Murray E, Kelly MP, Bojke L, Chilcott J, Fischer A, et al. Designing and undertaking a health economics study of digital health interventions. Am J Prev Med. Nov 2016;51(5):852-860. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Medical Device and Health Technology Evaluation Committee (CNEDiMTS*). Paris. Haute Autorité de Santé; 2019.
• Draft guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the Medical Services Advisory Committee: draft version 4.0. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Aug 2020. URL: https:/​/consultations.​health.gov.au/​technology-assessment-access-division/​msac-guidelines-review-consultation/​user_uploads/​draft-msac-guidelines---clean-version---28-august-2020-3.​pdf [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Haute Autorité de Santé. Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices. Paris. Haute Autorité de Santé; 2013.
• Michie S, Yardley L, West R, Patrick K, Greaves F. Developing and evaluating digital interventions to promote behavior change in health and health care: recommendations resulting from an international workshop. J Med Internet Res. Jun 29, 2017;19(6):e232. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Riley WT, Brown CH, Cuijpers P, Duan N, et al. Trials of intervention principles: evaluation methods for evolving behavioral intervention technologies. J Med Internet Res. Jul 08, 2015;17(7):e166. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, Collins LM, Doherty A, Hollis C, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med. Nov 2016;51(5):843-851. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Steventon A, Grieve R, Bardsley M. An approach to assess generalizability in comparative effectiveness research: a case study of the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomized trial comparing telehealth with usual care for patients with chronic health conditions. Med Decis Making. May 18, 2015;35(8):1023-1036. [ CrossRef ]
• D2.1 Knowledge Tool 1. Health apps assessment frameworks. European mHealth Hub. 2020. URL: https://mhealth-hub.org/download/d2-1-knowledge-tool-1-health-apps-assessment-frameworks [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Moshi MR, Tooher R, Merlin T. Suitability of current evaluation frameworks for use in the health technology assessment of mobile medical applications: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Sep 11, 2018;34(5):464-475. [ CrossRef ]
• Stensgaard T, Sørensen T. Telemedicine in Greenland — the creation of an evaluation plan. J Telemed Telecare. Jun 22, 2016;7(1_suppl):37-38. [ CrossRef ]
• HL7 Consumer Mobile Health Application Functional Framework (cMHAFF). HL7 International. 2018. URL: http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=476 [accessed 2024-03-28]
• mHealth. Kantonen K-uKvBu. 2017. URL: https://www.e-health-suisse.ch/gemeinschaften-umsetzung/ehealth-aktivitaeten/mhealth.html [accessed 2023-07-18]
• mHealthBelgium. mHealthBELGIUM. URL: https://mhealthbelgium.be/ [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Mookherji S, Mehl G, Kaonga N, Mechael P. Unmet need: improving mhealth evaluation rigor to build the evidence base. J Health Commun. Jun 04, 2015;20(10):1224-1229. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• MySNS Selecção. Serviços Partilhados do Minisério da Saúde. URL: https://mysns.min-saude.pt/mysns-seleccao-processo-de-avaliacao/ [accessed 2023-07-18]
• Nielsen S, Rimpiläinen S. Report on international practice on digital apps. Glasgow. Digital Health & Care Institute; 2018.
• Accreditation of Digital Health solutions is a fundamental foundation for their safe adoption, equipping healthcare providers and practitioners with access to health apps assured to your standards Internet. Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications (ORCHA). URL: https://orchahealth.com/services/ [accessed 2023-07-18]
• mHealth. TIC Salut Social. 2022. URL: https://ticsalutsocial.cat/projecte/mhealth/ [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Wienert J, Jahnel T, Maaß L. What are digital public health interventions? First steps toward a definition and an intervention classification framework. J Med Internet Res. Jun 28, 2022;24(6):e31921. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Deniz-Garcia A, Fabelo H, Rodriguez-Almeida AJ, Zamora-Zamorano G, Castro-Fernandez M, Alberiche Ruano MDP, et al. WARIFA Consortium. Quality, usability, and effectiveness of mhealth apps and the role of artificial intelligence: current scenario and challenges. J Med Internet Res. May 04, 2023;25:e44030. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• World Health Organization (WHO). Classification of digital interventions, services and applications in health: a shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health, 2nd ed. Geneva. WHO; Oct 24, 2023.
• European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. EUR-Lex. 2017. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0745 [accessed 2024-03-28]
• European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU. EUR-Lex. 2017. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746/oj [accessed 2024-03-28]
• Segur-Ferrer J, Moltó-Puigmartí C, Pastells-Peiró R, Vivanco-Hidalgo R. Marco de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias: adaptación para la evaluación de tecnologías de salud digital. Madrid, Barcelona. Ministerio de Sanidad, Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya; 2023.
• Benedetto V, Filipe L, Harris C, Spencer J, Hickson C, Clegg A. Analytical frameworks and outcome measures in economic evaluations of digital health interventions: a methodological systematic review. Med Decis Making. Oct 19, 2022;43(1):125-138. [ CrossRef ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T Leung; submitted 03.05.23; peer-reviewed by R Gorantla, KL Mauco, M Aymerich, J Haverinen, M Behzadifar; comments to author 10.11.23; revised version received 01.12.23; accepted 20.02.24; published 10.04.24.

©Joan Segur-Ferrer, Carolina Moltó-Puigmartí, Roland Pastells-Peiró, Rosa Maria Vivanco-Hidalgo. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Exploring Methods to Optimize Gesture Elicitation Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.