what is a literature review in research methods

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

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

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade.

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

• 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: May 9, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Persuasive Arguments
• Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

• Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
• Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
• Read: read the articles or other sources of information
• Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
• Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
• Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude 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 an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

• How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
• Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
• Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

Loneliness in Emerging Adulthood: A Scoping Review

• Open access
• Published: 09 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Emma M. Kirwan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-023X 1 , 2 ,
• Annette Burns 3 ,
• Páraic S. O’Súilleabháin 1 , 2 ,
• Sarah Summerville 1 ,
• Máire McGeehan 1 , 2 ,
• Jennifer McMahon 1 , 2 ,
• Ashweeja Gowda 4 &
• Ann-Marie Creaven 1 , 2  

11 Altmetric

Loneliness is prevalent during emerging adulthood (approximately 18–25 years) and is an important issue given it has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. This preregistered scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the literature on loneliness in emerging adulthood, including the (a) conceptualization and measurement of loneliness, (b) loneliness theories used, (c) risk factors and outcomes examined, (d) sex-gender differences observed, and (e) characteristics of emerging adult samples previously researched. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, seven electronic databases were searched for articles focused on loneliness published from 2016 to 2021, where the mean age of participants was ≥ 18 and ≤ 25 years. Of the 4068 papers screened, 201 articles were included in the final review. Findings suggest the need for a clearer consensus in the literature regarding the conceptualization of loneliness for emerging adults and more qualitative work exploring emerging adults’ subjective experiences of loneliness. Results highlight an over-reliance on cross-sectional studies. Over two thirds of articles described their sample as university students and the median percentage of females was 63.30%. Therefore, fewer cross-sectional studies using convenience samples and more population-based, longitudinal research is needed to understand the factors predicting loneliness over time, and the downstream impact of loneliness for emerging adults.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Loneliness is commonly defined as the unpleasant feeling that accompanies the experience of perceiving the quantity or quality of one’s social relationships as inadequate (Perlman & Peplau, 1981 ). While loneliness is common across the lifespan, it is particularly prevalent in young, or emerging adults (Barreto et al., 2021 ; Hawkley et al., 2022 ). Prevalence estimates from the United Kingdom suggest up to 31% of emerging adults experience loneliness at least some of the time, and 5–7% feel lonely often (Matthews et al., 2019 ). In the United States, about 24% of emerging adults report feeling lonely “a lot of the day” (Witters, 2023 ), and almost one in three (32.6%) emerging adults in India report high levels of loneliness (Banerjee & Kohli, 2022 ). Emerging adult loneliness has been independently associated with indictors of poorer physical and mental health, including hypertension, anxiety and depressive symptoms, alcohol problems, and long-term mental illness (Christiansen et al., 2021 ). Therefore, loneliness is an important issue in emerging adulthood and good quality research is a key step in offsetting this potential harm. However, the literature is lacking a review that summarizes important aspects of the research in emerging adulthood, including how loneliness is conceptualized and measured, which loneliness theories are used, which risk factors and outcomes of loneliness have been examined, if there are sex-gender differences in loneliness, and the characteristics of emerging adults previously included in research in this area. This information is needed to provide a basis for rigorous loneliness research for this group. Therefore, this scoping review addresses this gap.

Loneliness in Emerging Adulthood

The transition from adolescence to full-fledged adulthood in developed countries is longer and more challenging to define than in previous points in history. This is primarily due to engaging in traditional markers of adulthood such as marriage and parenthood at later ages, and the widespread uptake of education beyond secondary school (Arnett, 2024 ). Arnett’s theory of emerging adulthood ( 2000 , 2024 ) describes a distinct life-stage, from late teens through mid-to-late twenties. When age ranges are needed to describe emerging adulthood, ages 18–25 years are considered a conservative estimate, as few 18–25-year-olds have entered stable adulthood (Arnett, 2024 ). However, the specific age of the beginning and end of this life stage is variable, and critics have noted that the concept of emerging adulthood is heavily influenced by cultural, socioeconomic, and educational factors (Shanahan & Longest, 2009 ). Culture plays an important role in variation in the length and content of emerging adulthood, and the markers of established adulthood (Arnett, 2024 ). For instance, in keeping with the Chinese tradition of collectivism, a key marker of adulthood for Chinese emerging adults is the ability to financially support their parents, whereas this is not typically endorsed in the United States (Nelson & Luster, 2015 ).

Despite these critiques, there is general agreement that the prolonged entry into adulthood has resulted in significant developmental challenges (Côté, 2014 ). Typical features of emerging adulthood include identity exploration and greater self-focus, which may lead to instability in emerging adults’ social networks (Arnett & Mitra, 2020 ). Major social transitions occurring during young, or emerging, adulthood include moving out of the parental home, or beginning university or employment (Arnett, 2024 ). An age-normative perspective suggests that the timing of ongoing physical and psychological changes, unique societal expectations, and key social transitions places emerging adults at increased risk of loneliness (Qualter et al., 2015 ). Given the vulnerability to loneliness in this age group, robust research is needed to understand loneliness in emerging adulthood.

Recognizing that emerging adults are at particular risk for loneliness emphasizes the need to consider factors associated with loneliness in this group. However, the research priorities in relation to examining risk factors and outcomes of loneliness in emerging adulthood are unclear. One existing scoping review explored the literature on loneliness in youth (aged 15–24 years; Adib & Sabharwal, 2023 ); however, the review was limited in scope with a specific focus on social support and relationship factors like parenting bonds, both of which were inversely associated with loneliness. The extent to which other factors that may be associated with loneliness, for example mental health issues and technology use (Matthews et al., 2019 ), are focused on in the literature with emerging adults have not been reviewed. Additionally, gender differences in loneliness are important for understanding who is most vulnerable to loneliness. While one comprehensive meta-analysis suggested that young adult males were lonelier than females (Maes et al., 2019 ), this study considered a much wider age range (21–40 years) as young adulthood. Therefore, summarizing sex-gender differences in emerging adulthood merits consideration. Finally, persistent sampling bias issues mean that loneliness research generalized to emerging adults may be based on convenience samples of university undergraduates which may not represent diverse groups (Nielsen et al., 2017 ). It is unclear to what extent specific groups who disproportionately experience loneliness, such as migrants and people with poor health (Barreto et al., 2023 ), are focused on in the literature. Understanding who we study when we study emerging adults is of importance; therefore, a summary of the characteristics of emerging adults included in loneliness research is needed to support robust research in this area.

A key aspect of understanding loneliness in emerging adulthood is a clear conceptualization and distinction from related concepts. Loneliness is a subjective and emotional experience that is related to, but distinct from social isolation, which is the objective count of social contacts (Wigfield et al., 2022 ). Across all ages, loneliness is only weakly associated with measures of social contact (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016 ). In other words, it is not the mere absence of social contact that impacts lonely individuals, but rather the perceived discrepancy between one’s desired and actual social relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1981 ). Loneliness is also distinct from solitude in that loneliness is an unwanted experience, whereas solitude, or being alone, is a conscious choice that is often described as positive (Weinstein et al., 2023 ). The fact that loneliness and related concepts have been conflated or confused underscores the importance of a clear conceptual understanding of loneliness (Wigfield et al., 2022 ). Defining and measuring constructs of interest are a foundational part of rigorous research (Flake & Fried, 2020 ), yet no review has summarized how loneliness has been conceptualized and measured in research with emerging adults.

While loneliness has often been considered unidimensional, there has long been a conceptualization of loneliness as multidimensional. For example, Weiss’ ( 1973 ) interactionist approach proposed that relationship-specific types of loneliness arise as the result of deficits in two types of social needs; the need for close attachment figures (emotional loneliness) and the need for a meaningful social network (social loneliness). Social and emotional loneliness are distinct, but correlated, states that arise from different events in a person’s life; emotional loneliness might occur as the result of a romantic relationship breakup, whereas social loneliness can occur after moving to a new town. Recent research demonstrated distinct developmental trajectories for social and emotional loneliness across emerging adulthood (von Soest et al., 2020 ) and midlife (Manoli et al., 2022 ). Emotional loneliness levels moderately increase across emerging adulthood, whereas social loneliness substantially decreases throughout emerging adulthood (von Soest et al., 2020 ), suggesting that multidimensional conceptualizations of loneliness warrant consideration.

The complex nature of loneliness means that several other theories have conceptualized loneliness. Prominent approaches include the cognitive discrepancy model (Peplau & Perlman, 1982 ), the evolutionary theory (Cacioppo et al., 2006 ), the psychodynamic theory (Reichmann, 1959 ), and the existential approach (Moustakas, 1961 ). Although theoretical approaches to loneliness may overlap in their definitions, they can differ in proposed causes of loneliness. For example, the cognitive discrepancy model considers the influence of personality, cultural, and situational factors and proposes that loneliness is caused by a person appraising a deficiency in their social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982 ). The evolutionary theory of loneliness suggests that loneliness arises as a signal of social pain to motivate reconnection and is transient for most individuals (Cacioppo et al., 2006 ; Spithoven et al., 2019 ). Other theories, such as the socio-cognitive model, focus on the mechanisms through which loneliness persists and impacts health (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009 ). However, no review has summarized how loneliness has been conceptualized and what theories of loneliness have been used in the emerging adult literature.

Current Study

Although there has been an acceleration of research on loneliness in emerging adulthood and recognition that loneliness is an important issue for young people’s health, there is no existing scoping review summarizing key aspects of this literature. The goal of this preregistered scoping review was to provide a descriptive overview of the existing literature on loneliness in emerging adulthood to inform future research. This review was guided by the following research question: What is known from the available literature about loneliness in emerging adults? The research sub-questions included how has loneliness been conceptualized and measured in research in emerging adults (Research Question 1)?, what loneliness theories have been used in research on loneliness in emerging adulthood (Research Question 2)?, what risk factors and outcomes for loneliness have been previously examined in emerging adulthood (Research Question 3)?, what is the evidence on sex-gender differences in loneliness in emerging adults (Research Question 4)?, and what are the characteristics of emerging adults included in previous loneliness research (Research Question 5)?.

Given the focus on loneliness in emerging adulthood, a topic with increasing and disparate literature, a scoping review, rather than a systematic review, was considered most appropriate (Munn et al., 2018 ). This scoping review was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2015 ) and Arksey and O’Malley’s ( 2005 ) seminal work. The reporting of results was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018 ). This review was preregistered on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c7ke9 ). To complete a feasible review, some amendments to the protocol were necessary and are outlined below (labelled as Amendment to Protocol 1–4).

Identifying Relevant Studies

Following preliminary searches of two databases (PsycInfo and Medline) to become familiar with key terms, the following electronic databases were searched in June 2021; Scopus, PubMed, PsycArticles, PsycInfo, Medline, ScienceDirect, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). The search was updated in April 2022 to source articles published until the end of 2021. The search terms describe the concepts loneliness and young, or emerging, adults (see Table  1 ). The search was tailored to the specific requirements of each electronic database (see Supplementary Material 1 for example of a database search).

Initially, the search included peer-reviewed journal articles published between the years 2000–2021. Given that Arnett’s ( 2000 ) seminal work on emerging adulthood was published in the year 2000, it was expected to yield more research on the target population after this year. Using this year limit, 313 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. However, following discussion among the authors, a consensus was reached that given the large volume of relevant literature, a year limit of 2016–2021 was sufficient for a feasible narrative summary of the recent literature on loneliness in emerging adulthood (Amendment to Protocol 1). The increase in research interest on loneliness in emerging adulthood in 2016 is shown in Fig.  1 .

The number of articles eligible for inclusion by year of publication. Note Solid vertical line indicates the cut off from 2016 to 2021 following Amendment to Protocol 1

Grey literature in the form of difficult-to-locate studies or reports by organizations interested in youth mental health (e.g., Jigsaw, SpunOut. i.e., National Youth Council of Ireland) were searched for by posting general requests (in October 2021) for relevant information on Twitter and mentioning relevant youth and research network organizations (“@organization”) in such tweets to encourage reposting (Adams et al., 2016 ). Additionally, a large loneliness research network placed a request for literature in their newsletter distributed to experts in the field (in December 2021). No additional eligible articles that had not already been identified were located.

The study protocol outlined the aim for an additional search for reports by relevant organizations interested in youth mental health by identifying organization websites using a search engine like Google. After a preliminary search for this type of grey literature, consensus was reached that following grey literature search strategies outlined by others (i.e., Adams et al., 2016 ) was a satisfactory search for grey literature (Amendment to Protocol 2). Grey literature was a complementary part of the search strategy and considering the large volume of identified peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed literature was prioritized in this review. This decision was also influenced by the consideration that when using search engines like Google, even if the search engine search was replicable, other researchers may not retrieve the same results on replication, as Google indexes websites based on several predictors: geographical location, previous search history, popularity, and so on (Bates, 2011 ).

Study Selection

Research where loneliness was a key focus of the work was included. This was determined by the inclusion of loneliness in an aim, objective, research question, or hypothesis. Quantitative studies that reported on loneliness under a broader term were included; for example, studies measuring or reporting on the construct of loneliness but describing it in the aims or objectives under broader terms like “psychological well-being”, “mental health”, or similar. Following preliminary screening, additional inclusion criteria outlined that where it was difficult to determine if loneliness was a key focus of quantitative research, articles must have reported analysis beyond the prevalence of loneliness to be included. With regards to qualitative research, if it was unclear if loneliness was a key focus of the work, articles must have discussed loneliness as a key concept in the introduction to be included (Amendment to Protocol 3).

To identify the types of available evidence in the area (Munn et al., 2018 ), qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, systematic reviews, and meta-synthesis articles were included.

Articles where the age of participants was ≥ 18 and ≤ 25 years were included. Articles that included a wider age range but reported a mean age ≥ 18 and ≤ 25 years were included. Following preliminary screening, further clarification was added to the inclusion criteria detailing where studies were longitudinal in design, included studies must report loneliness for age ≥ 18 and ≤ 25 years at least one time point (Amendment to Protocol 4).

Included research articles were not limited by population groups, specific life-events, specific samples, setting, or geographical location.

Included articles were not limited by measure of loneliness.

Included articles were published in English (the researchers’ only language).

Narrative reviews and loneliness scale development articles were excluded, as well as editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, dissertations, and book chapters (labelled as “wrong article type or study design” in Fig.  2 ). Figure  2 summarizes the study selection process. In total, 8,863 articles were retrieved from the electronic database search. EndNote X9 software was used to manage references and facilitate duplicate record removal. Following duplicate record removal, 4,068 articles were screened by title and abstract on Rayyan ( https://rayyan.ai/ , Ouzzani et al., 2016 ). Fifty percent of titles and abstracts were blindly screened by a second reviewer (SS), inter-rater agreement was 98.00%. After title and abstract screening, 754 articles were included for full text screening. During full-text screening, EK contacted authors via ResearchGate to request their full-text articles and 13 of these requests were unsuccessful. Second reviewers (SS, MMG, AG) screened 50% of full-text articles. Inter-rater agreement for full-text articles was 94.19%. All disagreements were resolved through discussion; a further reviewer (AMC) was consulted on six (0.79%) decisions during full text screening.

PRISMA flow chart of the study selection

Data Charting

Data charting was conducted for all included articles by one reviewer (EK) by entering information into Microsoft Excel tables. The data charting form was pre-piloted on a random selection of articles and was refined to ensure all relevant information was extracted. A proportion of data charting (10%) was checked by a second reviewer (MMcG) for accuracy. The data charting form included (a) bibliographic information, (b) key study and subject matter information, (c) the conceptualization and measurement of loneliness, (d) the loneliness theories included, (e) the examined predictors and outcomes for loneliness, (f) sex-gender differences, and (g) characteristics of emerging adult samples included. The detailed list of information for which data were charted can be found in Supplementary Material 2.

Summarizing, and Reporting the Findings

Given that the aim of this review was to provide a descriptive summary of the available literature on loneliness in emerging adulthood, the quality of included studies was not assessed. All findings were included in the narrative review. Checks were completed to ensure the findings of the included systematic review were not duplicated in the results. Tables and narrative summaries were generated for each research sub-question to present a descriptive overview of the research on loneliness in emerging adulthood (Peters et al., 2015 ).

Study Context and Characteristics

After eligibility screening, 201 articles were included in the final scoping review. The publication year of included articles ranged from 2016 to 2021 (see Fig.  1 ). A small number of articles identified in the original search that were published online in 2020 or 2021 but were assigned to a journal issue in 2022 (e.g., Arslan et al., 2022 ; Hopmeyer et al., 2022 ) were retained. Research on loneliness in emerging adulthood represents a growing area of research, with almost half (47.26%) of the included articles published in 2020 and 2021.

The sample sizes within original research articles ranged from 4 to 71,988. Studies using quantitative analysis had sample sizes ranging from 35 to 71,988. Qualitative and mixed-method studies conducting qualitative analysis had sample sizes ranging from 4 to 686. The sole included systematic review and meta-analysis (Buecker et al., 2021 ) included data from 124,855 participants.

Included original articles were conducted in 44 countries across five continents. Thirteen (6.47%) articles included samples from more than one country. Almost half (49.25%) of the articles included samples from Western countries where English is the primary language. The breakdown of how many articles included samples from each country are as follows: USA ( k  = 66, 32.84%), China ( k  = 21, 10.45%), UK ( k  = 18, 8.96%), Turkey ( k  = 12, 5.97%), Poland ( k  = 11, 5.47%), Australia ( k  = 9, 4.48%), Germany ( k  = 5, 2.49%), Denmark ( k  = 4, 1.99%). The Netherlands, South Korea, Canada, Hungary, South Africa, and Spain were each included in three (1.49%) articles. Singapore, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Israel, and Bangladesh were each included in two (1.00%) articles. Finland, Italy, Northern Ireland, Norway, Slovakia, Austria, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Sweden, Thailand, Malaysia, and Nigeria were each included in one (0.50%) article. Included original research articles had a general community or university setting (including online surveys) ( k  = 186, 92.54%), or were conducted in a clinical or laboratory setting (e.g., an outpatient clinic) ( k  = 13, 6.47%).

Study Design

Included articles were quantitative ( k  = 190, 94.53%), mixed method ( k  = 8, 3.98%), qualitative ( k  = 1, 0.50%), systematic review and meta-analyses ( k  = 1, 0.50%), and qualitative protocol ( k  = 1, 0.50%) studies. The following study designs were included; cross-sectional ( k  = 151, 75.12%), longitudinal ( k  = 44, 21.89%), and experimental ( k  = 4, 1.99%).

Covid-19 Related Studies

Thirty (14.93%) articles explored loneliness in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. Most studies ( k  = 23) explored the prevalence of loneliness or the association of loneliness with factors such as life satisfaction, mental health, quality of life during pandemic restrictions, or in the broader context of Covid-19 pandemic. For example, one study compared the reported prevalence of mental health issues and loneliness in emerging adults in the UK and China during the pandemic (Liu et al., 2021 ), reporting higher loneliness levels in the UK. Some studies ( k  = 3) examined specific Covid-19 related factors, such as “Covid-19 worry” (Mayorga et al., 2021 ) and “Coronavirus anxiety” (Arslan et al., 2022 ), in relation to loneliness. Merolla et al. ( 2021 ) used experience sampling and nightly diary surveys to examine how pandemic related anxiety and depressive symptoms manifested in daily perceptions of loneliness; Covid-19 related anxiety was independently associated with greater loneliness. Other studies ( k  = 2) focused on emerging adults’ relocations during the pandemic (Conrad et al., 2021 ; Fanari & Segrin, 2021 ). For example, a longitudinal examination of the extent to which the stressor of forced re-entry from studying abroad during the Covid-19 pandemic was predictive of loneliness in U.S. emerging adults (Fanari & Segrin, 2021 ). Lastly, one study conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic evaluated two interventions for depression and loneliness (Cruwys et al., 2021 ).

Research Question 1: Conceptualization and Measurement of Loneliness

Over half ( k  = 112; 55.72%) of the articles included an explicit definition of loneliness, while another five (2.49%) articles did not formally define loneliness beyond describing it as “perceived social isolation”. Although there was some variation in the way loneliness was defined, for example, describing loneliness as thwarted belongingness (Chu et al., 2016 ), or as the response to the absence of a relationship (Andangsari & Dhowi, 2016 ), loneliness was mostly defined as an emotionally unpleasant subjective experience that occurs when a person perceives their social relationships to be inadequate (Perlman & Peplau, 1981 ). While most ( k  = 187, 93.03%) articles did not explicitly articulate multiple dimensions of loneliness, 14 (6.97%) articles considered a multidimensional conceptualization of loneliness referring to: social and emotional loneliness ( k  = 6, 2.98%); social, romantic, and family loneliness ( k  = 6, 2.98%); isolation, relational connectedness, and collective connectedness ( k  = 1, 0.50%); romantic loneliness ( k  = 1, 0.50%).

In total, this scoping review identified 16 measures of loneliness in included articles. The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA; Russell et al., 1980 ) Loneliness scale was the most employed measure with 161 (80.10%) included articles using a version of this scale. Twelve (5.97%) studies employed a single-item direct measure of loneliness, such as “How lonely did you feel in the past week?”. See Supplementary Material 3 for a full summary of measures of loneliness in included articles.

Most qualitative or mixed-method studies employed semi-structured interviews to explore loneliness ( k  = 4). Others used open ended survey responses ( k  = 2), free association task ( k  = 1), or group discussions and reflective journal responses ( k  = 1).

Research Question 2: Loneliness Theories

Of the 201 included articles, 29 (14.43%) articles explicitly referenced a loneliness theory in their introduction. While it is possible that some articles implicitly used loneliness theory, articles were considered to have explicitly stated use of loneliness theory if a loneliness theory was referenced in the introduction or aims of the article. Some articles referred to more than one loneliness theory. Seven loneliness theories (see Table  2 for summary) were clearly articulated in loneliness research on emerging adults.

Research Question 3: Risk Factors and Outcomes

A wide range of risk factors and outcomes were examined in association with loneliness in quantitative or mixed-method studies (see Supplementary Material 4 for detail). Most articles examining factors associated with loneliness were cross-sectional in design; longitudinal studies mostly examined loneliness risk factors ( k  = 25, 12.44%), outcomes were examined in 13 (6.47%) longitudinal studies. Of the longitudinal research examining predictors of loneliness, family and social relationship factors, such as perceived social support, were the most studied risk factors ( k  = 7). Whereas mental health outcomes, like depression, were the most examined loneliness outcomes in longitudinal studies ( k  = 6).

Only two longitudinal studies examined within- and between-person variances in loneliness development and the risk and outcome factors associated with changes; one explored the interindividual differences in loneliness development and mental health outcomes in emerging adulthood (Hutten et al., 2021 ). Another examined longitudinal within- and between-person associations of substance use, social influences, and loneliness among emerging adults who use drugs (Bonar et al., 2022 ).

Research Question 4: Sex-Gender Differences in Loneliness

In total, 48 (23.88%) studies explored sex-gender differences in loneliness; 40 reported no statistically significant ( p  > 0.05) difference between male and female loneliness scores, whereas there were eight reports of a significant ( p  < 0.05) sex-gender difference. Of those that reported significant sex-gender differences, six studies reported higher female loneliness scores and two studies reported higher male loneliness scores. Most studies ( k  = 4) reporting significant sex-gender differences measured loneliness using the 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980 ), others ( k  = 2) used the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA; DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993 ), one used the Loneliness in Context Questionnaire for College Students (Asher & Weeks, 2014 ), and one used a direct single-item measure. See Table  3 for a complete summary of results.

Research Question 5: Characteristics of Emerging Adult Samples Included in Loneliness Research

The minimum mean age of included studies was 18.00 years, the maximum mean age was 24.78 years. The gender split of included studies ranged from 0% female to 100% female. The median percentage of females in included samples was 63.30%. Over two thirds ( k  = 137, 68.16%) of articles described their sample as either all or mostly (> 80% of sample) university students. The remaining articles included: general community samples ( k  = 24, 11.94%), specific samples (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease patients, see Supplementary Material 5 for full details of articles including specific emerging adult samples) ( k  = 20, 9.95%), population representative samples ( k  = 11, 5.47%), high school students ( k  = 6, 2.94%). Some articles ( k  = 3, 1.49%) did not report information on their sample or sample information was not applicable.

Despite an increase of research interest in loneliness in younger age groups and recognition that loneliness is an important issue for emerging adults’ health (Christiansen et al., 2021 ), there was no existing scoping review summarizing the key aspects of this literature. Reviews can reduce research waste by identifying priority research questions and key gaps in the literature, mapping existing methodological approaches, and clarifying terms and concepts used in the literature (Khalil et al., 2022 ). Therefore, a scoping review was most appropriate to provide an overview of the literature and identify priorities for future research on loneliness in emerging adulthood.

Three key issues are apparent from this review. First, there was a lack of clear conceptualization of loneliness and prioritization of unidimensional conceptualizations of loneliness in emerging adults, which may be related to the measure of loneliness used. Second, despite the volume of research identified, there was a lack of qualitative research exploring the subjective experience of loneliness. This suggests that the relevance of existing conceptualizations of loneliness for emerging adults who have experienced it remains unclear. Third, while a range of risk factors and outcomes for loneliness have been examined in the literature, research tends to be cross-sectional in design and based on convenience samples of university students. Some additional considerations are noted. Relatively few articles explicitly articulated the use of loneliness theory in their research. Relatively few articles reported on sex-gender differences in loneliness; those that did reported mixed results. Finally, loneliness in emerging adulthood is a growing area of research, with some of this growth due to a focus on loneliness in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Definitions of loneliness in included articles tended to align with Perlman and Peplau’s ( 1981 ) widely used definition. Definitions acknowledged both the affective (i.e., the negative emotional experience) and cognitive (i.e., the discrepancy between one’s actual and desired social relations) components of loneliness. A few articles did not explain what is meant by loneliness beyond describing it as perceived social isolation, which does not account for the more complex affective and cognitive aspects of loneliness. While there may be general agreement that loneliness is a subjective emotional experience, the finding that just over half of all articles included a formal definition of loneliness leaves open the possibility that the conceptualization is implicit, poorly understood, or even that loneliness is akin to separate constructs like chosen solitude or objective social isolation. The distinction between concepts like social isolation and loneliness is critical given that across age groups, loneliness is only weakly associated with objective measures of contact with friends and family (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016 ). A lack of clear definition of loneliness and conflation with other distinct, but related, terms contribute to conceptual confusion which can have practical implications; for example, policy responses designed for lonely people often aim to increase their social connections, therefore reducing social isolation rather than focusing on reducing experiences of subjective loneliness (Wigfield et al., 2022 ).

Other loneliness distinctions potentially relevant for understanding loneliness in emerging adulthood include a multi-dimensional conceptualization of social and emotional loneliness (von Soest et al., 2020 ). These facets are proposed to differentially develop depending on the type of social relationship a person perceives to be inadequate (Weiss, 1973 ). In addition, existential loneliness was described in recent qualitative work as occurring particularly during young adulthood for some individuals (McKenna-Plumley et al., 2023 ). A lack of transparent reporting on the conceptualization of loneliness has important implications for its measurement (Flake & Fried, 2020 ). The finding that few included articles considered different aspects of loneliness, and most did not explicitly discuss whether loneliness was unidimensional or multidimensional, suggests that a unidimensional conceptualization of loneliness is implicit. This is reflected in the frequent use of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980 ), originally designed as a unidimensional measure. Although the UCLA includes items considered to align with social (11 items) and emotional (7 items) loneliness (Maes et al., 2022 ), there is no agreed multi-factorial structure of this measure, and using UCLA subscales may not be the best way of measuring multidimensional loneliness; given studies that report the same number of factors differ in terms of the items that are allocated to which factors and the interpretation of the factors (Maes et al., 2022 ). Additionally, although single-item loneliness measures have shown adequate reliability (Mund et al., 2022 ) and may be useful as brief screening measures in large-scale surveys (Reinwarth et al., 2023 ), few articles reported the use of direct single-item loneliness measures; perhaps because of concerns of potential socially desirable responding. Loneliness measurement is central to the validity of studies examining the risk factors and consequences of the experience in emerging adults (Flake & Fried, 2020 ). Therefore, future research should clearly report the conceptualization and measurement of loneliness.

One approach to achieving consensus on conceptualizations of loneliness in emerging adulthood is through more inductive and exploratory qualitative methods. The only qualitative study eligible for inclusion here focused on young adults living in London’s most deprived areas who described loneliness as being linked to feeling excluded, social media, sadness, and low self-worth (Fardghassemi & Joffe, 2021 ). While this study gives an insight into loneliness in this demographic, the experiences of loneliness for emerging adults more broadly are lacking in the literature. Further, there is a lack of qualitative research exploring the complexities of the life stage more generally (Schwab & Syed, 2015 ). Loneliness is an inherently subjective experience. Qualitative methods allow individuals to describe their experience in their own words and are ideally suited for examining how relevant existing conceptualizations of loneliness are for emerging adults. Exploring the meaning of loneliness for those who have experienced it should be a key research priority; a gap which has been addressed among early adolescents (Verity et al., 2021 ). Although the major features of emerging adulthood may vary between cultures, it is a distinct developmental period of the lifespan (Arnett, 2024 ). To assume emerging adults share the same social roles, developmental tasks, and societal expectations as adolescents underestimates the increased independence, self-focus, and instability (Arnett et al., 2014 ) that may be central to loneliness during this stage. Therefore, qualitative research focused on understanding loneliness within the complexities of the life-stage of emerging adulthood is needed.

Of the articles that explicitly considered loneliness theory, most considered approaches that typically focus on individual level characteristics that may increase a person’s risk for loneliness. For example, the evolutionary theory of loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2006 ), suggests that younger age groups, due to ongoing development of brain regions associated with cognitive control, may be more sensitive to their social environment and more prone to loneliness beyond the typical features of emerging adulthood (Wong et al., 2018 ). However, societal, and cultural factors are also likely to contribute to loneliness by influencing a person’s social norms (van Staden & Coetzee, 2010 ). The cognitive discrepancy theory emphasizes the role of individual attributes, as well as wider cultural norms in how a person perceives their social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982 ). Theories of loneliness are not mutually exclusive; developing a causal understanding of loneliness in emerging adulthood likely requires the integration of theory. For example, McHugh Power et al. ( 2018 ) synthesized model of loneliness considers both interindividual factors, such as the role of culture in shaping social norms about emerging adults’ social lives, and intraindividual factors, such as changes in the brain regions responsible for social processes, in the development of loneliness. Further, loneliness can be explored within broader theoretical frameworks not specific to loneliness. Developmental approaches can inform research on specific life events and developmental tasks during a particular life stage that may increase a person’s risk of loneliness. For example, employing Erikson’s ( 1968 ) psychosocial theory in research exploring the link between identity formation and loneliness in adolescents and emerging adults (Lindekilde et al., 2018 ).

An age-normative life span perspective suggests that different factors drive loneliness at different ages (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016 ). For example, peer relations may be more strongly associated with loneliness during adolescence and emerging adulthood, where friendships are their primary social connections, as opposed to older age groups (Qualter et al., 2015 ). This aligns with the finding that family and social relationship factors, such as perceived social support from peers, were the most examined risk factors for loneliness in emerging adulthood in longitudinal studies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, aspects of mental health were the most examined outcomes of loneliness. It is also plausible that poorer mental health predicts or has a reciprocal relationship with loneliness during emerging adulthood; emerging adults with depressive symptoms may withdraw from their social relationships or perceive more social rejection (Achterbergh et al., 2020 ). Despite examining a range of loneliness risk factors and outcomes, included studies were mostly cross-sectional and conducted in Western countries with convenience samples comprising university students. Therefore, the third key issue with this literature highlights the persistent sampling bias and lack of representation and diversity in the field (Nielsen et al., 2017 ).

Sex-gender differences are also important for understanding who is vulnerable to loneliness. Most studies reported no significant difference. A small number reported a significant difference, mostly reporting higher loneliness among females. Gender differences in loneliness have been hypothesized to emerge in adolescence, where females may be more at risk of adolescent-onset internalizing problems (Martel, 2013 ). However, a meta-analysis reported a significant, but small, effect of gender on loneliness in young adulthood, finding greater loneliness in males (Maes et al., 2019 ). The variation of findings in studies examining sex-gender differences have long been attributed to differences in how loneliness is assessed (Borys & Perlman, 1985 ). Given that few a-priori hypotheses on gender differences in loneliness have been proposed (Maes et al., 2019 ), future research should report analysis examining sex-gender differences to determine whether sex-gender represents a vulnerability factor for loneliness.

Finally, the findings suggest that loneliness in emerging adulthood is a fast-growing area of research; almost half of all included articles were published in the years 2020 and 2021. Some of this growth was due to the Covid-19 pandemic making the issue of loneliness in younger age groups even more salient than before (Holt-Lunstad, 2021 ). Although not all who are socially isolated are lonely (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016 ), this increased focus on loneliness is unsurprising considering that response measures aimed at mitigating the spread of Covid-19, like social distancing orders, and remote work and education, resulted in less social contact and greater social isolation. One systematic review comparing loneliness before and during the Covid-19 pandemic found an increase in loneliness in younger participant groups (Ernst et al., 2022 ). However, this increase was from studies including only university student samples; how the pandemic has impacted loneliness during emerging adulthood more generally remains unclear. The theory of emerging adulthood describes a range of developmental transitions to achieve adulthood, such as moving out of the parental home (Arnett, 2024 ). For some emerging adults, Covid-19 measures may have halted or even reversed steps towards adulthood, resulting in increased loneliness. For example, emerging adults forced to relocate from college campuses to live with parents and guardians experienced greater loneliness than those who did not relocate (Conrad et al., 2021 ). Life events that impact the achievement of normative social transitions and result in some emerging adults feeling out of sync may be important to consider in the development of loneliness during emerging adulthood.

Strengths and Limitations

The strengths of this review included preregistration of the protocol on Open Science Framework and rigorous methodology following well-established scoping review guidelines (Peters et al., 2015 ). One potential limitation is the inclusion criteria that articles needed to report a mean age of 18–25 years. This age range is sometimes extended to age 29; however, 18–25 years is appropriate when conservative age ranges are required to describe emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2024 ). Although a large volume of articles was included, the year limit and lack of grey literature means that there is a possibility that relevant research was not included in this review. While articles were not excluded based on geographical location, included articles were limited to those published in or translated to the English language only, potentially influencing this review’s results.

Future Research

Based on these findings, future studies should provide a clear conceptualization of loneliness, including articulation of loneliness as a uni- or multi-dimensional construct. Studies should specify the theoretical approach (if any) that is informing the research. To generate a clearer understanding of sex-gender differences, these should be reported.

Regarding broad research priorities for loneliness, given the skew towards cross-sectional convenience samples of Western, educated emerging adults, longitudinal research that is population-based or focuses on under-studied cohorts should be prioritized. The current literature does not adequately explore the emergence of specific forms of loneliness, the predictors of loneliness development, and the long-term outcomes of emerging adult loneliness. Developmental trends, the stability of loneliness, and the factors associated with interindividual differences in loneliness during emerging adulthood appear to have also been neglected. Previous research underscores the importance of identifying the characteristics of emerging adults more likely to develop loneliness and the factors that, when changed, correspond to changes in loneliness (Mund et al., 2020 ). Therefore, longitudinal research should seek to identify emerging adults most at risk of developing sustained or intensely felt loneliness in response to common life events, like finishing school. Also, identifying emerging adults who are at risk of loneliness due to developmental transitions being halted or reversed is a consideration for future longitudinal research. Given potential cultural differences in the markers of adulthood and developmental tasks of emerging adulthood (Nelson & Luster, 2015 ), research should consider cultural norms in the relationship between social transitions and loneliness during this life stage.

The high prevalence of loneliness during emerging adulthood indicates that loneliness is an issue of importance requiring good quality research. However, no review has provided an overview of key aspects of the literature on loneliness in emerging adulthood. This scoping review provided a descriptive summary of 201 articles on loneliness in emerging adulthood and serves as an initial step highlighting issues with the current research and identifying priorities for future research. Specifically, findings suggest the need for a clearer consensus in the literature regarding the conceptualization of loneliness during emerging adulthood. Second, this review highlights the need for more qualitative work exploring young people’s subjective experiences of loneliness, which is key for understanding the complexities of loneliness during emerging adulthood. Finally, the results indicate that this literature needs fewer cross-sectional studies using convenience samples and more population-based, longitudinal research to understand the factors predicting loneliness over time, and the downstream impact of loneliness for emerging adults.

Data Availability

All data collected for this study were obtained from published peer-review literature. Data extracted to inform this review are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Articles included in the scoping review are marked with (•)

•Aakvaag, H. F., Strøm, I. F., & Thoresen, S. (2018). But were you drunk? Intoxication during sexual assault in Norway. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9 (1), 1539059. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1539059

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Achterbergh, L., Pitman, A., Birken, M., Pearce, E., Sno, H., & Johnson, S. (2020). The experience of loneliness among young people with depression: A qualitative meta-synthesis of the literature. BMC Psychiatry, 20 , 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02818-3

Article   Google Scholar  

•Adamczyk, K. (2016). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support among single and partnered young adults. Current Psychology, 35 , 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

•Adamczyk, K. (2017). Voluntary and involuntary singlehood and young adults’ mental health: An investigation of mediating role of romantic loneliness. Current Psychology, 36 (4), 888–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9478-3

•Adamczyk, K. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of relationship status through unmet need to belong and fear of being single on young adults’ romantic loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 124 , 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.011

Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F. C., Moore, H. J., Lake, A. A., Araujo-Soares, V., White, M., & Summerbell, C. (2016). Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: Critical reflections on three case studies. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y

•Akdoğan, R. (2017). A model proposal on the relationships between loneliness, insecure attachment, and inferiority feelings. Personality and Individual Differences, 111 , 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.048

•Akdoğan, R., & Çimşir, E. (2019). Linking inferiority feelings to subjective happiness: Self-concealment and loneliness as serial mediators. Personality and Individual Differences, 149 , 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.028

•Akhter, M. S., Islam, M. H., & Momen, M. N. (2020). Problematic internet use among university students of Bangladesh: The predictive role of age, gender, and loneliness. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30 (8), 1082–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1784346

•Al Omari, O., Al Sabei, S., Al Rawajfah, O., Abu Sharour, L., Al-Hashmi, I., Al Qadire, M., & Khalaf, A. (2021). Prevalence and predictors of loneliness among youth during the time of COVID-19: A multinational study. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association . https://doi.org/10.1177/10783903211017640

•Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Rice, S., D’Alfonso, S., Leicester, S., Bendall, S., Pryor, I., Russon, P., McEnery, C., Santesteban-Echarri, O., Da Costa, G., Gilbertson, T., Valentine, L., Solves, L., Ratheesh, A., McGorry, P. D., & Gleeson, J. (2020). A novel multimodal digital service (moderated online social therapy+) for help-seeking young people experiencing mental ill-health: pilot evaluation within a national youth e-mental health service. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 (8), e17155. https://doi.org/10.2196/17155

•Andangsari, E. W., & Dhowi, B. (2016). Two typology types of loneliness and problematic internet use (PIU): An Evidence of Indonesian measurement. Advanced Science Letters, 22 (5–6), 1711–1714. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.6740

•Andic, S., & Batigün, A. D. (2021). Development of internet addiction scale based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria: An evaluation in terms of internet gaming disorder. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 32 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.5080/u23194

•Aparicio-Martínez, P., Ruiz-Rubio, M., Perea-Moreno, A. J., Martínez-Jiménez, M. P., Pagliari, C., Redel-Macías, M. D., & Vaquero-Abellán, M. (2020). Gender differences in the addiction to social networks in the Southern Spanish university students. Telematics and Informatics, 46 , 101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101304

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55 (5), 469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett, J. J. (2024). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arnett, J. J., & Mitra, D. (2020). Are the features of emerging adulthood developmentally distinctive? A comparison of ages 18–60 in the United States. Emerging Adulthood, 8 (5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818810073

Arnett, J. J., Žukauskienė, R., & Sugimura, K. (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1 (7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7

•Arroyo, A., Segrin, C., & Curran, T. M. (2016). Maternal care and control as mediators in the relationship between mothers’ and adult children’s psychosocial problems. Journal of Family Communication, 16 (3), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1170684

•Arslan, G., Yıldırım, M., & Aytaç, M. (2022). Subjective vitality and loneliness explain how coronavirus anxiety increases rumination among college students. Death Studies, 46 (5), 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2020.1824204

Asher, S. R., & Weeks, M. S. (2014). Loneliness and belongingness in the college years. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 283–301). Wiley.

Google Scholar  

•Babad, S., Zwilling, A., Carson, K. W., Fairchild, V., & Nikulina, V. (2022). Childhood environmental instability and social-emotional outcomes in emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37 (7–8), NP3875–NP3904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520948147

•Badcock, J. C., Barkus, E., Cohen, A. S., Bucks, R., & Badcock, D. R. (2016). Loneliness and schizotypy are distinct constructs, separate from general psychopathology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 1018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01018

•Balter, L. J., Raymond, J. E., Aldred, S., Drayson, M. T., van Zanten, J. J. V., Higgs, S., & Bosch, J. A. (2019). Loneliness in healthy young adults predicts inflammatory responsiveness to a mild immune challenge in vivo. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 82 , 298–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2019.08.196

Banerjee, A., & Kohli, N. (2022). Prevalence of loneliness among young adults during COVID-19 lockdown in India. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6 , 7797–7805.

•Barnett, M. D., Moore, J. M., & Edzards, S. M. (2020). Body image satisfaction and loneliness among young adult and older adult age cohorts. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 89 , 104088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104088

•Barnett, M. D., Smith, L. N., Sandlin, A. M., & Coldiron, A. M. (2023). Loneliness and off-topic verbosity among young adults and older adults. Psychological Reports, 126 (2), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211058045

Barreto, M., Qualter, P., & Doyle, D. (2023). Loneliness inequalities evidence review . Wales Centre for Public Policy. https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf

Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169 , 110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066

Bates, E. M. (2011). Is Google hiding my news? Onlintese-Medford, 35 , 64.

BBC Loneliness Experiment. (2018). Who feels lonely? The results of the world’s largest loneliness study. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2yzhfv4DvqVp5nZyxBD8G23/who‐feels‐lonely‐the‐results‐of‐the‐world‐s‐largest‐loneliness‐study

•Beckmeyer, J. J., & Cromwell, S. (2019). Romantic relationship status and emerging adult well-being: Accounting for romantic relationship interest. Emerging Adulthood, 7 (4), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818772653

•Bernhold, Q. S., & Giles, H. (2020). The role of grandchildren’s own age-related communication and accommodation from grandparents in predicting grandchildren’s well-being. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 91 (2), 149–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415019852775

•Berryman, C., Ferguson, C. J., & Negy, C. (2018). Social media use and mental health among young adults. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89 , 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9535-6

•Besse, R., Whitaker, W. K., & Brannon, L. A. (2022). Reducing loneliness: The impact of mindfulness, social cognitions, and coping. Psychological Reports, 125 (3), 1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294121997779

Binte Mohammad Adib, N. A., & Sabharwal, J. K. (2023). Experience of loneliness on well-being among young individuals: A systematic scoping review. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04445-z

•Błachnio, A., Przepiorka, A., Boruch, W., & Bałakier, E. (2016). Self-presentation styles, privacy, and loneliness as predictors of Facebook use in young people. Personality and Individual Differences, 94 , 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.051

•Blachnio, A., Przepiórka, A., Wolonciej, M., Mahmoud, A. B., Holdos, J., & Yafi, E. (2018). Loneliness, friendship, and Facebook intrusion. A study in Poland, Slovakia, Syria, Malaysia, and Ecuador. Studia Psychologica, 60 (3), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2018.03.761

•Bonar, E. E., Walton, M. A., Carter, P. M., Lin, L. A., Coughlin, L. N., & Goldstick, J. E. (2022). Longitudinal within-and between-person associations of substance use, social influences, and loneliness among adolescents and emerging adults who use drugs. Addiction Research & Theory, 30 (4), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2021.2009466

•Borawski, D. (2018). The loneliness of the zero-sum game loser. The balance of social exchange and belief in a zero-sum game as predictors of loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 135 , 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.037

Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender differences in loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 , 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111006

•Bowker, J. C., Bowker, M. H., Santo, J. B., Ojo, A. A., Etkin, R. G., & Raja, R. (2019). Severe social withdrawal: Cultural variation in past hikikomori experiences of university students in Nigeria, Singapore, and the United States. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 180 (4–5), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2019.1633618

•Brown, E. G., Creaven, A. M., & Gallagher, S. (2019). Loneliness and cardiovascular reactivity to acute stress in younger adults. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 135 , 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.07.471

•Brown, S., Fite, P. J., Stone, K., & Bortolato, M. (2016). Accounting for the associations between child maltreatment and internalizing problems: The role of alexithymia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52 , 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.12.008

•Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Hook, C. J., Pfeifer, J. H., FitzGerald, C., Davis, B., Delucchi, K. L., Haritatos, J., & Ramo, D. E. (2020). Smartphone app to address loneliness among college students: Pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 7 (10), e21496. https://doi.org/10.2196/21496

•Buchanan, C. M., & McDougall, P. (2021). Predicting psychosocial maladjustment in emerging adulthood from high school experiences of peer victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (3–4), NP1810–NP1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518756115

•Buckley, C. Y., Whittle, J. C., Verity, L., Qualter, P., & Burn, J. M. (2018). The effect of childhood eye disorders on social relationships during school years and psychological functioning as young adults. The British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 14 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.111

•Buecker, S., Mund, M., Chwastek, S., Sostmann, M., & Luhmann, M. (2021). Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (8), 787. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000332

•Burger, C., & Bachmann, L. (2021). Perpetration and victimization in offline and cyber contexts: A variable-and person-oriented examination of associations and differences regarding domain-specific self-esteem and school adjustment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (19), 10429. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910429

•Burke, T. J., Ruppel, E. K., & Dinsmore, D. R. (2016). Moving away and reaching out: Young adults’ relational maintenance and psychosocial well-being during the transition to college. Journal of Family Communication, 16 (2), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1146724

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., & Berntson, G. G. (2003). The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (3), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01232

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Berntson, G. G., Nouriani, B., & Spiegel, D. (2006). Loneliness within a nomological net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 (6), 1054–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007

•Cai, L. B., Xu, F. R., Cheng, Q. Z., Zhan, J., Xie, T., Ye, Y. L., Xiong, S. Z., McCarthy, K., & He, Q. Q. (2017). Social smoking and mental health among Chinese male college students. American Journal of Health Promotion, 31 (3), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.141001-QUAN-494

•Chang, E. C. (2018). Relationship between loneliness and symptoms of anxiety and depression in African American men and women: Evidence for gender as a moderator. Personality and Individual Differences, 120 , 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.035

•Chang, E. C., Chang, O. D., Martos, T., Sallay, V., Zettler, I., Steca, P., D’Addario, M., Boniwell, I., Pop, A., Tarragona, M., Slemp, G. R., Shin, J. E., de la Fuente, A., & Cardeñoso, O. (2019). The positive role of hope on the relationship between loneliness and unhappy conditions in Hungarian young adults: How pathways thinking matters! The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14 (6), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1545042

•Chang, E. C., Liu, J., Yi, S., Jiang, X., Li, Q., Wang, R., Tian, W., Gao, X., Li, M., Lucas, A. G., & Chang, O. D. (2020). Loneliness, social problem solving, and negative affective symptoms: Negative problem orientation as a key mechanism. Personality and Individual Differences, 167 , 110235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110235

•Chang, E. C., Wan, L., Li, P., Guo, Y., He, J., Gu, Y., Wang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, Z., Sun, Y., Batterbee, C. N., Chang, O. D., Lucas, A. G., & Hirsch, J. K. (2017). Loneliness and suicidal risk in young adults: Does believing in a changeable future help minimize suicidal risk among the lonely? The Journal of Psychology, 151 (5), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1314928

•Chen, Y. W., Wengler, K., He, X., & Canli, T. (2022). Individual differences in cerebral perfusion as a function of age and loneliness. Experimental Aging Research, 48 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2021.1929748

•Christiansen, J., Qualter, P., Friis, K., Pedersen, S. S., Lund, R., Andersen, C. M., Bekker-Jeppesen, M., & Lasgaard, M. (2021). Associations of loneliness and social isolation with physical and mental health among adolescents and young adults. Perspectives in Public Health, 141 (4), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139211016077

•Chu, C., Hom, M. A., Rogers, M. L., Ringer, F. B., Hames, J. L., Suh, S., & Joiner, T. E. (2016). Is insomnia lonely? Exploring thwarted belongingness as an explanatory link between insomnia and suicidal ideation in a sample of South Korean university students. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 12 (5), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.5784

•Conrad, R. C., Koire, A., Pinder-Amaker, S., & Liu, C. H. (2021). College student mental health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications of campus relocation. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 136 , 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.054

Côté, J. E. (2014). The dangerous myth of emerging adulthood: An evidence-based critique of a flawed developmental theory. Applied Developmental Science, 18 (4), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2014.954451

•Creaven, A. M., Kirwan, E., Burns, A., & O’Súilleabháin, P. S. (2021). Protocol for a qualitative study: Exploring loneliness and social isolation in emerging adulthood (ELSIE). International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20 , 16094069211028682. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940692110286

•Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., Rathbone, J. A., Williams, E., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). Groups 4 health protects against unanticipated threats to mental health: Evaluating two interventions during COVID-19 lockdown among young people with a history of depression and loneliness. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295 , 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.029

•Cudo, A., Kopiś, N., & Zabielska-Mendyk, E. (2019). Personal distress as a mediator between self-esteem, self-efficacy, loneliness and problematic video gaming in female and male emerging adult gamers. PLoS ONE, 14 (12), e0226213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226213

•Curran, T., Janovec, A., & Olsen, K. (2021). Making others laugh is the best medicine: Humor orientation, health outcomes, and the moderating role of cognitive flexibility. Health Communication, 36 (4), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700438

•D’Agostino, A. E., Kattan, D., & Canli, T. (2019). An fMRI study of loneliness in younger and older adults. Social Neuroscience, 14 (2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2018.1445027

•Dalton, F., & Cassidy, T. (2021). Problematic Internet usage, personality, loneliness, and psychological well-being in emerging adulthood. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21 (1), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12224

•De la Fuente, A., Chang, E. C., Cardeñoso, O., & Chang, O. D. (2018). How loneliness is associated with depressive symptoms in Spanish college students: Examining specific coping strategies as mediators. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21 , E54. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.56

•Dembińska, A., Kłosowska, J., & Ochnik, D. (2022). Ability to initiate relationships and sense of loneliness mediate the relationship between low self-esteem and excessive internet use. Current Psychology, 41 (9), 6577–6583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01138-9

•Diehl, K., Jansen, C., Ishchanova, K., & Hilger-Kolb, J. (2018). Loneliness at universities: Determinants of emotional and social loneliness among students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15 (9), 1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091865

•Dissing, A. S., Hulvej Rod, N., Gerds, T. A., & Lund, R. (2021). Smartphone interactions and mental well-being in young adults: A longitudinal study based on objective high-resolution smartphone data. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49 (3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820920418

•Ditcheva, M., Vrshek-Schallhorn, S., & Batista, A. (2018). People who need people: Trait loneliness influences positive affect as a function of interpersonal context. Biological Psychology, 136 , 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.05.014

DiTommaso, E., & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14 (1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90182-3

•Dong, H., Wang, M., Zheng, H., Zhang, J., & Dong, G. H. (2021). The functional connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and supplementary motor area moderates the relationship between internet gaming disorder and loneliness. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 108 , 110154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110154

•Drake, E. C., Sladek, M. R., & Doane, L. D. (2016). Daily cortisol activity, loneliness, and coping efficacy in late adolescence: A longitudinal study of the transition to college. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40 (4), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415581914

•Enez Darcin, A., Kose, S., Noyan, C. O., Nurmedov, S., Yılmaz, O., & Dilbaz, N. (2016). Smartphone addiction and its relationship with social anxiety and loneliness. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35 (7), 520–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1158319

•Engeland, C. G., Hugo, F. N., Hilgert, J. B., Nascimento, G. G., Junges, R., Lim, H. J., Marucha, P. T., & Bosch, J. A. (2016). Psychological distress and salivary secretory immunity. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 52 , 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2015.08.017

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis . W.W. Norton Company.

Ernst, M., Niederer, D., Werner, A. M., Czaja, S. J., Mikton, C., Ong, A. D., Rosen, T., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2022). Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. The American psychologist, 77 (5), 660–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001005

•Essau, C. A., & de la Torre-Luque, A. (2021). Adolescent psychopathological profiles and the outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 110 , 110330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110330

•Etkin, R. G., Bowker, J. C., & Scalco, M. D. (2016). Associations between subtypes of social withdrawal and emotional eating during emerging adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 97 , 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.059

•Evans, S., Alkan, E., Bhangoo, J. K., Tenenbaum, H., & Ng-Knight, T. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on mental health, wellbeing, sleep, and alcohol use in a UK student sample. Psychiatry Research, 298 , 113819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113819

•Fanari, A., & Segrin, C. (2021). Longitudinal effects of US students’ reentry shock on psychological health after returning home during the COVID-19 global pandemic. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82 , 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.04.013

•Fang, J., Wang, X., Wen, Z., & Huang, J. (2020). Cybervictimization and loneliness among Chinese college students: A moderated mediation model of rumination and online social support. Children and Youth Services Review, 115 , 105085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105085

•Fardghassemi, S., & Joffe, H. (2021). Young adults’ experience of loneliness in London’s most deprived areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 660791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660791

•Fernandes, B., Uzun, B., Aydin, C., Tan-Mansukhani, R., Vallejo, A., Saldaña-Gutierrez, A., Nanda Biswas, U., & Essau, C. A. (2021). Internet use during COVID-19 lockdown among young people in low- and middle-income countries: Role of psychological wellbeing. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 14 , 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100379

Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

•Flett, G. L., Goldstein, A. L., Pechenkov, I. G., Nepon, T., & Wekerle, C. (2016). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of feeling like you don’t matter: Associations with maltreatment, loneliness, social anxiety, and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 92 , 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.014

•Fransson, M., Granqvist, P., Marciszko, C., Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (2016). Is middle childhood attachment related to social functioning in young adulthood? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57 (2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12276

•Fumagalli, E., Dolmatzian, M. B., & Shrum, L. J. (2021). Centennials, FOMO, and loneliness: An investigation of the impact of social networking and messaging/VoIP apps usage during the initial stage of the coronavirus pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 620739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.620739

•Gan, S. W., Ong, L. S., Lee, C. H., & Lin, Y. S. (2020). Perceived social support and life satisfaction of Malaysian Chinese young adults: The mediating effect of loneliness. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 181 (6), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2020.1803196

•Gonzalez Avilés, T., Finn, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2021). Patterns of romantic relationship experiences and psychosocial adjustment from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50 , 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01350-7

•Harriger, J. A., Joseph, N. T., & Trammell, J. (2021). Detrimental associations of cumulative trauma, COVID-19 infection indicators, avoidance, and loneliness with sleep and negative emotionality in emerging adulthood during the pandemic. Emerging Adulthood, 9 (5), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968211022594

Hawkley, L. C., Buecker, S., Kaiser, T., & Luhmann, M. (2022). Loneliness from young adulthood to old age: Explaining age differences in loneliness. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46 (1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420971048

•Ho, A. H. Y., Ma, S. H. X., Tan, M. K. B., & Bajpai, R. C. (2021). A Randomized waitlist-controlled trial of an intergenerational arts and heritage-based intervention in Singapore: Project ARTISAN. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 730709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730709

•Hoffman, Y. S. G., Grossman, E. S., Bergman, Y. S., & Bodner, E. (2021). The link between social anxiety and intimate loneliness is stronger for older adults than for younger adults. Aging & Mental Health, 25 (7), 1246–1253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1774741

•Holmes, L. M., Popova, L., & Ling, P. M. (2016). State of transition: Marijuana use among young adults in the San Francisco Bay Area. Preventive Medicine, 90 , 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.025

Holt-Lunstad, J. (2021). A pandemic of social isolation? World Psychiatry, 20 (1), 55. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20839

•Hom, M. A., Hames, J. L., Bodell, L. P., Buchman-Schmitt, J. M., Chu, C., Rogers, M. L., & Joiner, T. E. (2017). Investigating insomnia as a cross-sectional and longitudinal predictor of loneliness: Findings from six samples. Psychiatry Research, 253 , 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.03.046

•Hom, M. A., Stanley, I. H., Chu, C., Sanabria, M. M., Christensen, K., Albury, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2019). A longitudinal study of psychological factors as mediators of the relationship between insomnia symptoms and suicidal ideation among young adults. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 15 (1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.7570

•Hood, M., Creed, P. A., & Mills, B. J. (2018). Loneliness and online friendships in emerging adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 133 , 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.045

•Hopmeyer, A., & Medovoy, T. (2017). Emerging adults’ self-identified peer crowd affiliations, risk behavior, and social–emotional adjustment in college. Emerging Adulthood, 5 (2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816665055

•Hopmeyer, A., Terino, B., Adamczyk, K., Corbitt Hall, D., DeCoste, K., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2022). The lonely collegiate: An examination of the reasons for loneliness among emerging adults in college in the western United States and west-central Poland. Emerging Adulthood, 10 (1), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696820966110

•Hu, Y., & Gutman, L. M. (2021). The trajectory of loneliness in UK young adults during the summer to winter months of COVID-19. Psychiatry Research, 303 , 114064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114064

•Hudson, D. B., Campbell-Grossman, C., Kupzyk, K. A., Brown, S. E., Yates, B., & Hanna, K. M. (2016). Social support and psychosocial well-being among low-income, adolescent, African American, first-time mothers. Clinical Nurse Specialist CNS, 30 (3), 150. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000202

Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26 (6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

•Hutten, E., Jongen, E. M., Verboon, P., Bos, A. E., Smeekens, S., & Cillessen, A. H. (2021). Trajectories of loneliness and psychosocial functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 689913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689913

•Jattamart, A., & Kwangsawad, A. (2021). What awareness variables are associated with motivation for changing risky behaviors to prevent recurring victims of cyberbullying? Heliyon, 7 (10), e08121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08121

•Jeong, Y., & Kim, S. H. (2021). Modification of socioemotional processing in loneliness through feedback-based interpretation training. Computers in Human Behavior, 117 , 106668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106668

•Jia, R., Ayling, K., Chalder, T., Massey, A., Broadbent, E., Morling, J. R., & Vedhara, K. (2020). Young people, mental health and COVID-19 infection: The canaries we put in the coal mine. Public Health, 189 , 158–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.018

Khalil, H., Peters, M. D., McInerney, P. A., Godfrey, C. M., Alexander, L., Evans, C., Pieper, D., Moraes, E. B., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 152 , 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.012

•Kim, E., Cho, I., & Kim, E. J. (2017). Structural equation model of smartphone addiction based on adult attachment theory: Mediating effects of loneliness and depression. Asian Nursing Research, 11 (2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2017.05.002

•Kircaburun, K., Griffiths, M. D., Şahin, F., Bahtiyar, M., Atmaca, T., & Tosuntaş, ŞB. (2020). The mediating role of self/everyday creativity and depression on the relationship between creative personality traits and problematic social media use among emerging adults. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 18 , 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9938-0

•Kohls, E., Baldofski, S., Moeller, R., Klemm, S. L., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2021). Mental health, social and emotional well-being, and perceived burdens of university students during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Germany. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12 , 643957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643957

•Kokkinos, C. M., & Antoniadou, N. (2019). Cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among undergraduate student teachers through the lens of the General Aggression Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 98 , 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.007

•Kokkinos, C. M., & Saripanidis, I. (2017). A lifestyle exposure perspective of victimization through Facebook among university students. Do individual differences matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 74 , 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.036

•Kumar, S. A., & Mattanah, J. F. (2018). Interparental conflict, parental intrusiveness, and interpersonal functioning in emerging adulthood. Personal Relationships, 25 (1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12231

•Lai, J. C., Lee, D. Y., Leung, M. O., & Lam, Y. W. (2019). Daily hassles, loneliness, and diurnal salivary cortisol in emerging adults. Hormones and Behavior, 115 , 104558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.07.006

•Lai, J. C. L., Leung, M. O. Y., Lee, D. Y. H., Lam, Y. W., & Berning, K. (2018). Loneliness and diurnal salivary cortisol in emerging adults. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 19 (7), 1944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19071944

•Lapierre, M. A. (2020). Smartphones and loneliness in love: Testing links between smartphone engagement, loneliness, and relational health. Psychology of Popular Media, 9 (2), 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000230

•Lapierre, M. A., Zhao, P., & Custer, B. E. (2019). Short-term longitudinal relationships between smartphone use/dependency and psychological well-being among late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65 (5), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.06.001

•Lardone, A., Sorrentino, P., Giancamilli, F., Palombi, T., Simper, T., Mandolesi, L., & Galli, F. (2020). Psychosocial variables and quality of life during the COVID-19 lockdown: A correlational study on a convenience sample of young Italians. PeerJ, 8 , e10611. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10611

•Lau, J. F., Shariff, R., & Meehan, A. (2021). Are biased interpretations of ambiguous social and non-social situations a precursor, consequence or maintenance factor of youth loneliness? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 140 , 103829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103829

•Lee, C. Y. S., Dik, B. J., & Barbara, L. A. (2016). Intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment during emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 37 (10), 1412–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14567957

•Lee, C. Y. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2016). Loneliness, stress, and social support in young adulthood: Does the source of support matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 , 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0395-9

•Lee, C. Y. S., Goldstein, S. E., & Dik, B. J. (2018). The relational context of social support in young adults: Links with stress and well-being. Journal of Adult Development, 25 , 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-017-9271-z

•Li, L., Niu, Z., Griffiths, M. D., Wang, W., Chang, C., & Mei, S. (2021a). A network perspective on the relationship between gaming disorder, depression, alexithymia, boredom, and loneliness among a sample of Chinese university students. Technology in Society, 67 , 101740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101740

•Li, Q., Xiang, G., Song, S., Xiao, M., Huang, X., & Chen, H. (2021b). The association of sense of power with well-being outcomes: The mediating role of hope-agency. The Journal of Psychology, 155 (7), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2021.1939246

•Li, T. M., Li, C. T., Wong, P. W., & Cao, J. (2017). Withdrawal behaviors and mental health among college students. Behavioral Psychology, 25 (1), 99–109.

•Li, W., Zhang, W., Xiao, L., & Nie, J. (2016). The association of Internet addiction symptoms with impulsiveness, loneliness, novelty seeking and behavioral inhibition system among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Psychiatry Research, 243 , 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.02.020

•Lim, M. H., Gleeson, J. F., Rodebaugh, T. L., Eres, R., Long, K. M., Casey, K., & Penn, D. L. (2020). A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in young people with psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55 , 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01681-2

•Lim, M. H., Rodebaugh, T. L., Eres, R., Long, K. M., Penn, D. L., & Gleeson, J. F. (2019). A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in youth mental health. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10 , 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00604

•Lin, S., Falbo, T., Qu, W., Wang, Y., & Feng, X. (2021). Chinese only children and loneliness: Stereotypes and realities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 91 (4), 531. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000554

•Lindekilde, N., Lübeck, M., & Lasgaard, M. (2018). Identity formation and evaluation in adolescence and emerging adulthood: How is it associated with depressive symptoms and loneliness? Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, 6 (2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.21307/sjcapp-2018-010

•Lippke, S., Fischer, M. A., & Ratz, T. (2021). Physical activity, loneliness, and meaning of friendship in young individuals–a mixed-methods investigation prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic with three cross-sectional studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 617267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617267

•Liu, M. B., Dufour, G., Sun, Z. E., Galante, J., Xing, C. Q., Zhan, J. Y., & Wu, L. L. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of young people: A comparison between China and the United Kingdom. Chinese Journal of Traumatology, 24 (04), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.05.005

•Luhmann, M., Bohn, J., Holtmann, J., Koch, T., & Eid, M. (2016). I’m lonely, can’t you tell? Convergent validity of self-and informant ratings of loneliness. Journal of Research in Personality, 61 , 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.002

Luhmann, M., & Hawkley, L. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Developmental Psychology, 52 (6), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000117

•MacDonald, K. B., & Schermer, J. A. (2021). Loneliness unlocked: Associations with smartphone use and personality. Acta Psychologica, 221 , 103454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103454

Maes, M., Qualter, P., Lodder, G. M., & Mund, M. (2022). How (not) to measure loneliness: A review of the eight most commonly used scales. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (17), 10816. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710816

Maes, M., Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Van den Noortgate, W., & Goossens, L. (2019). Gender differences in loneliness across the lifespan: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 33 (6), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2220

Manoli, A., McCarthy, J., & Ramsey, R. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of social and emotional loneliness across the adult lifespan. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 21045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24084-x

•Marchini, S., Zaurino, E., Bouziotis, J., Brondino, N., Delvenne, V., & Delhaye, M. (2021). Study of resilience and loneliness in youth (18–25 years old) during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown measures. Journal of Community Psychology, 49 (2), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22473

Martel, M. M. (2013). Sexual selection and sex differences in the prevalence of childhood externalizing and adolescent internalizing disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (6), 1221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032247

•Martončik, M., & Lokša, J. (2016). Do World of Warcraft (MMORPG) players experience less loneliness and social anxiety in online world (virtual environment) than in real world (offline)? Computers in Human Behavior, 56 , 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.035

•Matthews, T., Caspi, A., Danese, A., Fisher, H. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2022). A longitudinal twin study of victimization and loneliness from childhood to young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 34 (1), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001005

•Matthews, T., Danese, A., Caspi, A., Fisher, H. L., Goldman-Mellor, S., Kepa, A., Moffitt, T. E., Odgers, C. L., & Arseneault, L. (2019). Lonely young adults in modern Britain: Findings from an epidemiological cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 49 (2), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718000788

•Matthews, T., Danese, A., Gregory, A. M., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2017). Sleeping with one eye open: Loneliness and sleep quality in young adults. Psychological Medicine, 47 (12), 2177–2186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000629

•Matthews, T., Danese, A., Wertz, J., Odgers, C. L., Ambler, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2016). Social isolation, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: A behavioural genetic analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 51 (3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1178-7

•Mayorga, N. A., Smit, T., Garey, L., Gold, A. K., Otto, M. W., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2021). Evaluating the interactive effect of COVID-19 worry and loneliness on mental health among young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10252-2

•McComb, S. E., Goldberg, J. O., Flett, G. L., & Rose, A. L. (2020). The double jeopardy of feeling lonely and unimportant: State and trait loneliness and feelings and fears of not mattering. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 563420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.563420

•McGlone, M., & Long, E. (2020). Are young adults with long-standing illness or disability at increased risk of loneliness? Evidence from the UK Longitudinal Household Study. Journal of Public Health Research, 9 (4), jphr-2020. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1861

McHugh Power, J. E., Dolezal, L., Kee, F., & Lawlor, B. A. (2018). Conceptualizing loneliness in health research: Philosophical and psychological ways forward. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38 (4), 219. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000099

•McIntyre, J. C., Worsley, J., Corcoran, R., Harrison Woods, P., & Bentall, R. P. (2018). Academic and non-academic predictors of student psychological distress: The role of social identity and loneliness. Journal of Mental Health, 27 (3), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1437608

McKenna-Plumley, P. E., Turner, R. N., Yang, K., & Groarke, J. M. (2023). Experiences of loneliness across the lifespan: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 18 (1), 2223868. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2223868

•Melkman, E. P. (2017). Childhood adversity, social support networks and well-being among youth aging out of care: An exploratory study of mediation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72 , 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.020

•Meng, J., Hao, L., Wei, D., Sun, J., Li, Y., & Qiu, J. (2017). BDNF Val66Met polymorphism modulates the effect of loneliness on white matter microstructure in young adults. Biological Psychology, 130 , 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.10.002

•Merolla, A. J., Otmar, C., & Hernandez, C. R. (2021). Day-to-day relational life during the COVID-19 pandemic: Linking mental health, daily relational experiences, and end-of-day outlook. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38 (8), 2350–2375. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211020137

Milner, J. S. (1986). The child abuse potential inventory: Manual (2nd ed.). Psytec.

•Moeller, R. W., & Seehuus, M. (2019). Loneliness as a mediator for college students’ social skills and experiences of depression and anxiety. Journal of Adolescence, 73 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.03.006

•Morse, A. M., Wax, A., Malmquist, E. J., & Hopmeyer, A. (2021). Protester, partygoer, or simply playing it down? The impact of crowd affiliations on LGBT emerging adults’ socioemotional and academic adjustment to college. Journal of Homosexuality, 68 (5), 752–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1657752

Moustakas, C. E. (1961). Loneliness . Prentice Hall.

Mund, M., Freuding, M. M., Möbius, K., Horn, N., & Neyer, F. J. (2020). The stability and change of loneliness across the life span: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24 (1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319850738

Mund, M., Maes, M., Drewke, P. M., Gutzeit, A., Jaki, I., & Qualter, P. (2022). Would the real loneliness please stand up? The validity of loneliness scores and the reliability of Single-Item Scores. Assessment . https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221077227

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Nelson, L. J., & Luster, S. S. (2015). “Adulthood” by whose definition?: The complexity of emerging adults’ conceptions of adulthood. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 421–437). Oxford University Press.

Nielsen, M., Haun, D., Kärtner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162 , 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.017

•Nowakowska, I. (2020). Lonely and thinking about the past: The role of time perspectives, Big Five traits and perceived social support in loneliness of young adults during COVID-19 social distancing. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8 (3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.97289

•Nowland, R., Talbot, R., & Qualter, P. (2018). Influence of loneliness and rejection sensitivity on threat sensitivity in romantic relationships in young and middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 131 , 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.047

•Nwosu, K. C., David, E. T., & Unachukwu, G. C. (2021). Student teachers’ socio-demographic variables, internet addiction and their loneliness in the digital age. International Journal of Education and Practice, 9 (2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2021.92.272.284

•Ohtsubo, Y., Matsunaga, M., Masuda, T., Noguchi, Y., Yamasue, H., & Ishii, K. (2022). Test of the serotonin transporter gene × early life stress interaction effect on subjective well-being and loneliness among japanese young adults. Japanese Psychological Research, 64 (2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12376

•Okruszek, Ł, Aniszewska-Stańczuk, A., Piejka, A., Wiśniewska, M., & Żurek, K. (2020). Safe but lonely? Loneliness, anxiety, and depression symptoms and COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 579181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579181

•Osman, E. R. O. L., & Cirak, N. S. (2019). Exploring the loneliness and internet addiction level of college students based on demographic variables. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10 (2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.554488

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

•Ozden Yildirim, M. S. (2019). The relationship between loneliness, malicious envy, and cyberbullying in emerging adults. Education in the Knowledge Society: EKS . https://doi.org/10.14201/eks2019_20_a30

•Öztekin, C., & Öztekin, A. (2020). The association of depression, loneliness and internet addiction levels in patients with acne vulgaris. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 14 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-020-00190-y

•Padmanabhanunni, A., & Pretorius, T. (2021a). The loneliness–life satisfaction relationship: The parallel and serial mediating role of hopelessness, depression and ego-resilience among young adults in south africa during covid-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (7), 3613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073613

•Padmanabhanunni, A., & Pretorius, T. B. (2021b). The unbearable loneliness of COVID-19: COVID-19-related correlates of loneliness in South Africa in young adults. Psychiatry Research, 296 , 113658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113658

•Papp, L. M., & Kouros, C. D. (2021). Effect of COVID-19 disruptions on young adults’ affect and substance use in daily life. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 35 (4), 391. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000748

Parkhurst, J., & Hopmeyer, A. (1999). Developmental change in the sources of loneliness: Contributions of attachment theory. Loneliness in Childhood and Adolescence . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551888.004

Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–20). Wiley.

Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. Personal Relationships, 3 , 31–56.

Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13 (3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

•Phu, B., & Gow, A. J. (2019). Facebook use and its association with subjective happiness and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior, 92 , 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.020

•Piejka, A., Wiśniewska, M., Thayer, J. F., & Okruszek, Ł. (2021). Brief induction of loneliness decreases vagal regulation during social information processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 164 , 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.03.002

•Piko, B. F., Prievara, D. K., & Mellor, D. (2017). Aggressive and stressed? Youth’s aggressive behaviors in light of their internet use, sensation seeking, stress and social feelings. Children and Youth Services Review, 77 , 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.04.007

•Pisinger, V. S., Bloomfield, K., & Tolstrup, J. S. (2016). Perceived parental alcohol problems, internalizing problems and impaired parent—Child relationships among 71 988 young people in Denmark. Addiction, 111 (11), 1966–1974. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13508

•Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior, 62 , 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084

•Pretorius, T., & Padmanabhanunni, A. (2021). A looming mental health pandemic in the time of COVID-19? Role of fortitude in the interrelationship between loneliness, anxiety, and life satisfaction among young adults. South African Journal of Psychology, 51 (2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246321991030

•Prievara, D. K., Piko, B. F., & Luszczynska, A. (2019). Problematic internet use, social needs, and social support among youth. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17 , 1008–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9973-x

•Putnick, D. L., Uddin, M. K., Rohner, R. P., Singha, B., & Shahnaz, I. (2020). Remembrances of parental rejection are associated with loneliness as mediated by psychological maladjustment in young Bangladeshi men but not women. International Journal of Psychology, 55 (3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12609

•Qualter, P., Rouncefield-Swales, A., Bray, L., Blake, L., Allen, S., Probert, C., & Carter, B. (2021). Depression, anxiety, and loneliness among adolescents and young adults with IBD in the UK: the role of disease severity, age of onset, and embarrassment of the condition. Quality of Life Research, 30 , 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02653-9

Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Harris, R., Van Roekel, E., Lodder, G., Bangee, M., Maes, M., & Verhagen, M. (2015). Loneliness across the life span. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10 (2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615568999

•Rahal, D., Fales, M. R., Haselton, M. G., Slavich, G. M., & Robles, T. F. (2022). Achieving status and reducing loneliness during the transition to college: The role of entitlement, intrasexual competitiveness, and dominance. Social Development, 31 (3), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12569

Reichmann, F. F. (1959). Loneliness. Psychiatry, 22 (1), 1–15.

Reinwarth, A. C., Ernst, M., Krakau, L., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2023). Screening for loneliness in representative population samples: Validation of a single-item measure. PLoS ONE, 18 (3), e0279701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279701

•Reissmann, A., Hauser, J., Stollberg, E., Kaunzinger, I., & Lange, K. W. (2018). The role of loneliness in emerging adults’ everyday use of facebook–An experience sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 88 , 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.011

•Ren, L., Han, X., Li, D., Hu, F., Mo, B., & Liu, J. (2021). The association between loneliness and depression among Chinese college students: Affinity for aloneness and gender as moderators. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18 (3), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1789861

•Roberson, P. N., Norona, J. C., Fish, J. N., Olmstead, S. B., & Fincham, F. (2017). Do differences matter? A typology of emerging adult romantic relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34 (3), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516661589

•Robustelli, B. L., Newberry, R. E., Whisman, M. A., & Mittal, V. A. (2017). Social relationships in young adults at ultra high risk for psychosis. Psychiatry Research, 247 , 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.12.008

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (3), 472.

•Sanecka, E. (2021). The role of machiavellianism and loneliness in predicting self-disclosure online. The New Educational Review, 66 , 198–208. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2021.66.4.16

•Satici, S. A. (2019). Facebook addiction and subjective well-being: A study of the mediating role of shyness and loneliness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17 (1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9862-8

•Savolainen, I., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Sirola, A., & Paek, H. J. (2020). The role of perceived loneliness in youth addictive behaviors: Cross-national survey study. JMIR Mental Health, 7 (1), e14035. https://doi.org/10.2196/14035

•Say, G., & Durak Batigun, A. (2016). The assessment of the relationship between problematic Internet use and parent adolescent relationship quality, loneliness, anger, and problem solving skills. Düşünen Adam: Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 29 (4), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2016290404

•Schaan, V. K., Schulz, A., Schächinger, H., & Vögele, C. (2019). Parental divorce is associated with an increased risk to develop mental disorders in women. Journal of Affective Disorders, 257 , 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.071

•Schiltz, H. K., McVey, A. J., Dolan Wozniak, B., Haendel, A. D., Stanley, R., Arias, A., & Van Hecke, A. V. (2021). The role of loneliness as a mediator between autism features and mental health among autistic young adults. Autism, 25 (2), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320967789

Schwab, J. R., & Syed, M. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and emerging adulthood: Meta-theoretical and methodological issues. Emerging Adulthood, 3 (6), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815587801

•Segrin, C., McNelis, M., & Pavlich, C. A. (2018). Indirect effects of loneliness on substance use through stress. Health Communication, 33 (5), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1278507

•Segrin, C., Pavlich, C. A., & McNelis, M. (2017). Transitional instability predicts polymorphous distress in emerging adults. The Journal of Psychology, 151 (5), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1335687

Shanahan, M. I., & Longest, K. C. (2009). Thinking about the Transition to Adulthood. In I. Schoon & R. K. Silbereisen (Eds.), Transitions from school to work: Globalization, individualization, and patterns of diversity (pp. 30–41). Cham: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

•Shen, S., & Kusunoki, Y. (2019). Intimate partner violence and psychological distress among emerging adult women: A bidirectional relationship. Journal of Women’s Health, 28 (8), 1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7405

•Shen, X., & Wang, J. L. (2019). Loneliness and excessive smartphone use among Chinese college students: Moderated mediation effect of perceived stressed and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 95 , 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.012

•Siebenbruner, J. (2019). Companion animals in childhood and emerging adulthood: The relation to emerging adult development. Society & Animals, 27 (3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341522

•Sirola, A., Kaakinen, M., Savolainen, I., & Oksanen, A. (2019). Loneliness and online gambling-community participation of young social media users. Computers in Human Behavior, 95 , 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.023

•Skrzynski, C., Creswell, K. G., Bachrach, R. L., & Chung, T. (2018). Social discomfort moderates the relationship between drinking in response to negative affect and solitary drinking in underage drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 78 , 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.009

•Smith, C. V., Lair, E. C., & O’Brien, S. M. (2019). Purposely stoic, accidentally alone? Self-monitoring moderates the relationship between emotion suppression and loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 149 , 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.012

•Smith, K. M., Cobb, K. F., Reed-Fitzke, K., Ferraro, A. J., Duncan, J. M., & Lucier-Greer, M. (2022). Connections between parental reciprocity and emerging adult depressive symptoms and loneliness: The role of peer social support. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 54 (1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000284

•Smith, K. M., & Reed-Fitzke, K. (2023). An exploration of factors related to service utilization in emerging adults: Loneliness and psychosocial supports. Journal of American College Health, 71 (2), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1892699

•Snodgrass, J. G., Bagwell, A., Patry, J. M., Dengah, H. F., II., Smarr-Foster, C., Van Oostenburg, M., & Lacy, M. G. (2018). The partial truths of compensatory and poor-get-poorer internet use theories: More highly involved videogame players experience greater psychosocial benefits. Computers in Human Behavior, 78 , 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.020

Sønderby, L. C., & Wagoner, B. (2013). Loneliness: An integrative approach. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 3 (1), 1–29.

Spithoven, A. W., Cacioppo, S., Goossens, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2019). Genetic contributions to loneliness and their relevance to the evolutionary theory of loneliness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618812684

•Stice, L. V., & Lavner, J. A. (2019). Social connectedness and loneliness mediate the association between autistic traits and internalizing symptoms among young adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49 , 1096–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3812-6

•Sun, L., Fu, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Shyness and loneliness in Chinese young adults: Roles of aggression and gender. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30 (1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1725209

•Sun, Q. W., Wang, C. D., & Jiang, G. R. (2017). Culture-based emotional working models of attachment, Western-based attachment, and psychosocial functioning of Chinese young adults. International Perspectives in Psychology, 6 (4), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000075

•Sun, Y., Lin, S. Y., & Chung, K. K. H. (2020). University students’ perceived peer support and experienced depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of emotional well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (24), 9308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249308

•Tam, K. Y., & Chan, C. S. (2019). The effects of lack of meaning on trait and state loneliness: Correlational and experience-sampling evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 141 , 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.023

•Tam, W. W. S., Poon, S. N., Mahendran, R., Kua, E. H., & Wu, X. V. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 and partial lockdown on family functioning, intergenerational communication and associated psychosocial factors among young adults in Singapore. BMC Psychiatry, 21 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03599-z

•Tan, M., Barkus, E., & Favelle, S. (2021). The cross-lagged relationship between loneliness, social support, and psychotic-like experiences in young adults. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 26 (6), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2021.1960156

•Tan, M., Shallis, A., & Barkus, E. (2020). Social anhedonia and social functioning: Loneliness as a mediator. PsyCh Journal, 9 (2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.344

•Thoresen, S., Aakvaag, H. F., Strøm, I. F., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Birkeland, M. S. (2018). Loneliness as a mediator of the relationship between shame and health problems in young people exposed to childhood violence. Social Science & Medicine, 211 , 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.002

•Tian, Y., Bian, Y., Han, P., Gao, F., & Wang, P. (2017). Associations between psychosocial factors and generalized pathological internet use in Chinese university students: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 72 , 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.048

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., & Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

•Turhan Gürbüz, P., Çoban, Ö. G., Erdoğan, A., Kopuz, H. Y., Adanir, A. S., & Önder, A. (2021). Evaluation of internet gaming disorder, social media addiction, and levels of loneliness in adolescents and youth with substance use. Substance Use & Misuse, 56 (12), 1874–1879. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1958856

•van Roekel, E., Ha, T., Scholte, R. H., Engels, R. C., & Verhagen, M. (2016). Loneliness in the daily lives of young adults: Testing a socio-cognitive model. European Journal of Personality, 30 (1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2028

•van Roekel, E., Verhagen, M., Engels, R. C., Scholte, R. H., Cacioppo, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Trait and state levels of loneliness in early and late adolescents: Examining the differential reactivity hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47 (6), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1146993

Van Staden, W. C., & Coetzee, K. (2010). Conceptual relations between loneliness and culture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23 (6), 524–529. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32833f2ff9

•Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Barreto, M., Vines, J., Atkinson, M., Long, K., & Wilson, M. (2019). Coping with loneliness at university: A qualitative interview study with students in the UK. Mental Health & Prevention, 13 , 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2018.11.002

•Vaterlaus, J. M., Aylward, A., Tarabochia, D., & Martin, J. D. (2021). “A smartphone made my life easier”: An exploratory study on age of adolescent smartphone acquisition and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 114 , 106563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106563

•Veerman, L., Heppe, E., Gold, D., & Kef, S. (2019). Intra-and interpersonal factors in adolescence predicting loneliness among young adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113 (1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X18818615

Verity, L., Schellekens, T., Adam, T., Sillis, F., Majorano, M., Wigelsworth, M., & Maes, M. (2021). Tell me about loneliness: Interviews with young people about what loneliness is and how to cope with it. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (22), 11904. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211904

von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). The development of loneliness through adolescence and young adulthood: Its nature, correlates, and midlife outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 56 (10), 1919–1934. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001102

•Vuorinen, I., Oksanen, A., Savolainen, I., Sirola, A., Kaakinen, M., Paek, H. J., & Zych, I. (2021). The mediating role of psychological distress in excessive gambling among young people: A four-country study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (13), 6973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136973

•Wax, A., Hopmeyer, A., Dulay, P. N., & Medovoy, T. (2019). Commuter college student adjustment: Peer crowd affiliation as a driver of loneliness, belongingness, and risk behaviors. Emerging Adulthood, 7 (5), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818781128

Weinstein, N., Hansen, H., & Nguyen, T. V. (2023). Definitions of solitude in everyday life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49 (12), 1663–1678. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221115941

Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation . The MIT Press.

•Weisskirch, R. S. (2018). Psychosocial intimacy, relationships with parents, and well-being among emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 (11), 3497–3505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1171-8

Wigfield, A., Turner, R., Alden, S., Green, M., & Karania, V. K. (2022). Developing a new conceptual framework of meaningful interaction for understanding social isolation and loneliness. Social Policy and Society, 21 (2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642000055X

Witters, D. (2023). Loneliness in U.S. subsides from pandemic high. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/473057/loneliness-subsides-pandemic-high.aspx

Wong, N. M. L., Yeung, P. P. S., & Lee, T. M. C. (2018). A developmental social neuroscience model for understanding loneliness in adolescence. Social Neuroscience, 13 (1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1256832

•Woznicki, N., Arriaga, A. S., Caporale-Berkowitz, N. A., & Parent, M. C. (2021). Parasocial relationships and depression among LGBQ emerging adults living with their parents during COVID-19: The potential for online support. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 8 (2), 228. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000458

•Yang, C. C., Carter, M. D., Webb, J. J., & Holden, S. M. (2020). Developmentally salient psychosocial characteristics, rumination, and compulsive social media use during the transition to college. Addiction Research & Theory, 28 (5), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2019.1682137

•Yu, K., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Sexting and emotional reactions to hooking up among Chinese college students: Moderated mediation effects of loneliness and number of hookup partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 167 , 110252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110252

•Yu, Q., Mazzoni, S., Lauzon, M., Borgatti, A., Caceres, N., Miller, S., & Salvy, S. J. (2020). Associations between social network characteristics and loneliness during pregnancy in a sample of predominantly African American, largely publicly-insured women. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24 , 1429–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-03009-y

•Yu, S., Wu, A. M. S., & Pesigan, I. J. A. (2016). Cognitive and psychosocial health risk factors of social networking addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 14 , 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9612-8

•Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying victimization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75 , 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.037

•Zawadzki, M. J., & Gavrilova, L. (2021). All the lonely people: Comparing the effects of loneliness as a social stressor to non-lonely stress on blood pressure recovery. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 167 , 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.06.016

•Zhang, L., Mersky, J. P., & Topitzes, J. (2020). Adverse childhood experiences and psychological well-being in a rural sample of Chinese young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 108 , 104658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104658

•Zhang, N., Fan, F. M., Huang, S. Y., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2018). Mindfulness training for loneliness among Chinese college students: A pilot randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Psychology, 53 (5), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12394

•Zhang, Y., Huang, L., Luo, Y., & Ai, H. (2021). The relationship between state loneliness and depression among youths during COVID-19 lockdown: Coping style as mediator. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701514

•Zlomke, K., Jeter, K., & Cook, N. (2016). Recalled childhood teasing in relation to adult rejection and evaluation sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 89 , 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.021

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the editor of Adolescent Research Review and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. The first author is in receipt of an Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship (GOIPG/2021/345). The sponsor had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation of the data, or writing of the article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Emma M. Kirwan, Páraic S. O’Súilleabháin, Sarah Summerville, Máire McGeehan, Jennifer McMahon & Ann-Marie Creaven

Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Emma M. Kirwan, Páraic S. O’Súilleabháin, Máire McGeehan, Jennifer McMahon & Ann-Marie Creaven

Institute of Public Health, Dublin, Ireland

Annette Burns

School of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

Ashweeja Gowda

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

EMK conceived of the study, participated in study design, coordination, and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript; AB conceived of the study, participated in study design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript; PSO’S conceived of the study, participated in study design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript; SS performed data screening and drafted the manuscript; MMG performed data screening and charting, and drafted the manuscript; JMM contributed to study conceptualization, methodology, and drafted the manuscript; AG performed data screening and drafted the manuscript; AMC conceived of the study, participated in study design, coordination, and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma M. Kirwan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Preregistration

This study’s aims, design, and methods were preregistered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C7KE9 ).

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

The authors declare that AI or AI-assisted technologies were not used in the writing process.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 kb)

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kirwan, E.M., Burns, A., O’Súilleabháin, P.S. et al. Loneliness in Emerging Adulthood: A Scoping Review. Adolescent Res Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-024-00240-4

Download citation

Received : 20 December 2023

Accepted : 10 April 2024

Published : 09 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-024-00240-4

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

• Emerging adulthood
• Young adults
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Online First
• Patient research partner involvement in rheumatology research: a systematic literature review informing the 2023 updated EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8708-9324 Krystel Aouad 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6354 Maarten de Wit 2 ,
• Muriel Elhai 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9119-5330 Diego Benavent 4 ,
• Heidi Bertheussen 5 ,
• Condruta Zabalan 6 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1049-4150 Jette Primdahl 7 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8895-6941 Paul Studenic 8 , 9 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4528-310X Laure Gossec 10 , 11
• 1 Rheumatology Division, Saint George University of Beirut , Saint George Hospital University Medical Center , Beirut , Lebanon
• 2 EULAR Study Group for collaborative research , Patient Research Partner , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
• 3 Rheumatology Department, University of Zurich , University Hospital Zurich , Zurich , Switzerland
• 4 Rheumatology Department , Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge , Barcelona , Spain
• 5 Patient Research Partner , Oslo , Norway
• 6 Patient Research Partner , Bucharest , Romania
• 7 Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases , University Hospital of Southern Denmark , Sønderborg , Denmark
• 8 Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine(Solna) , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
• 9 Rheumatology Division, Internal Medicine Department , Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria
• 10 Rheumatology Department , University Hospital Pitié Salpêtrière , Paris , France
• 11 INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique , Sorbonne Université , Paris , France
• Correspondence to Dr Krystel Aouad, Rheumatology Department, Saint George University of Beirut, Saint George Hospital University Medical Center, PO box 166378, Beirut, Lebanon; krystel.aouad{at}hotmail.com

Background Patient research partners (PRPs) are people with a disease who collaborate in a research team as partners. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to assess barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement in rheumatology research.

Methods The SLR was conducted in PubMed/Medline for articles on PRP involvement in rheumatology research, published between 2017 and 2023; websites were also searched in rheumatology and other specialties. Data were extracted regarding the definition of PRPs, their role and added value, as well as barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement. The quality of the articles was assessed. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and principles of thematic content analysis was applied to qualitative data.

Results Of 1016 publications, 53 articles were included; the majority of these studies were qualitative studies (26%), opinion articles (21%), meeting reports (17%) and mixed-methods studies (11%). Roles of PRPs ranged from research partners to patient advocates, advisors and patient reviewers. PRPs were reported/advised to be involved early in the project (32% of articles) and in all research phases (30%), from the conception stage to the implementation of research findings. The main barriers were challenges in communication and support for both PRPs and researchers. Facilitators of PRP involvement included more than one PRP per project, training of PRPs and researchers, a supportive environment for PRPs (including adequate communication, acknowledgement and compensation of PRPs) and the presence of a PRP coordinator.

Conclusion This SLR identified barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement, and was key to updating the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for PRP–researcher collaboration based on scientific evidence.

• Health services research
• Health-Related Quality Of Life
• Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
• Quality Indicators, Health Care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Additional data are available on reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2024-225567

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Patient research partners (PRPs) are increasingly integrated into medical research, particularly in rheumatology.

Major global health organisations recognise the central role of PRPs’ involvement in research.

Previous recommendations have guided researchers and PRPs to build collaborative relations but lack a strong evidence base.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This systematic literature review provides for the first time a comprehensive overview of the emerging role of PRPs in rheumatology research, emphasising their expanding roles, contributions and the value they bring to the research process.

The review identified key barriers to PRP involvement, ranging from personal factors to challenges in training, communication and collaboration, and also identified strategies to enhance PRP involvement.

Early and sustained involvement of PRPs, as well as a supportive environment and effective communication, were found to be essential to enhance the relevance and impact of PRP contribution to research.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Recognising and addressing the barriers to PRP involvement can lead to better support for PRPs, enhancing their involvement in research.

Some facilitators identified include involvement of PRPs since the early stages of research, a supportive environment for PRPs and encouraging researchers to adopt more flexible strategies and behaviours to maximise the benefit of PRP involvement.

This literature review informed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations, highlighting the importance of active collaboration, training, mutual respect, and transparent communication between PRPs and researchers.

Introduction

Patient research partners (PRPs) are described as individuals living with a health condition who ‘provide input to research, through active collaboration as equal partners with researchers’. 1 Their involvement is essential to make research more patient centred, for instance, by capturing outcomes that matter to patients. Over the past two decades, the magnitude of PRP involvement and their roles in research has grown substantially. 2–8 Patients have transitioned from passive subjects to active collaborators and equal partners, bringing their unique perspectives and valuable insights to the forefront of medical research. 5 This change has not only profoundly modified research practices but has also underscored the integral role PRPs play in shaping the future of medical practice. 9 The importance of PRP involvement in research has become widely recognised as an essential component of high-quality patient care, highlighted by organisations such as the WHO 4 and European Medicine Agency (EMA), 10 and is acknowledged across various medical specialties. 11–13

In rheumatology, this paradigm shift has been significant. In 2011, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) developed recommendations for the involvement of patient representatives in scientific projects based on expert opinion. 14 These recommendations marked a pivotal step, setting the stage for the involvement of PRPs in research projects. Since then, these EULAR recommendations have guided other organisations such as Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM), to recognise the important role of PRPs or to develop their own guidelines for collaborative research. 15–18

As the landscape of patient involvement in research evolves, the literature has witnessed a great surge in data and studies concerning PRP involvement. 2 4 5 15 19–25 These studies not only shed light on the benefits of PRP participation but also highlighted the challenges encountered in this collaborative effort and solutions proposed to overcome barriers. 21 22 25–29

In 2022, EULAR decided to update the 2011 recommendations for PRP involvement in research, focusing specifically on PRPs in the context of chronic conditions. 14 In accordance with the EULAR standardised operational procedures (SOPs) supporting this update, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to inform the EULAR taskforce.

To support the update of the EULAR recommendations, we conducted in 2023 an SLR that encompassed both qualitative and semiquantitative analyses of recent publications in rheumatology, with the goal of identifying factors that affect PRP involvement, including barriers and facilitators.

Literature search

The SLR aimed to identify publications reporting PRP involvement in rheumatology research published between 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2023. We searched the electronic database PubMed MEDLINE using the terms “patient research partner”, “patient expert”, “patient and public involvement (PPI)”, their synonyms and related concepts. Details of the search terms and search strategy can be found in online supplemental table 1 . Two authors (KA, LG) independently assessed the title, abstract and keywords of every publication identified. In the event of disagreement between the reviewers, disparities were discussed and resolved. Additionally, we performed a scoping review of databases to assess PRP involvement and explored six websites from rheumatology: OMERACT, GRAPPA, American College of Rheumatology, EULAR, FOREUM and Osteoarthritis Research Society International. We also searched 2 regulator websites: Food and Drug Administration and EMA, and 10 websites of three selected specialties recognised for significant PRP involvement: cardiology, oncology, endocrinology (diabetes) ( online supplemental table 2 ). A specific search was done in two websites focusing on patient and public involvement: INVOLVE UK by the National Institute for Health Research and Education that empowers (European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation), and in orphan diseases to answer specific research questions about training, involvement in grant applications and remuneration of PRPs ( online supplemental table 3 ).

Supplemental material

The scope of the literature search was defined by the EULAR taskforce steering group, 1 and addressed 11 specific research questions ( Box 1 ).

Research topics included in the systematic literature review

1. Definition of patient research partners (PRPs)

How to define a PRP? Is the current definition of PRPs still adequate?

2. Roles and activities undertaken by PRPs

What are the roles and activities of PRPs in rheumatic musculoskeletal disease research?

3. Benefits and added value of PRP involvement for PRPs themselves, researchers, the research itself

What is the added value of PRPs in different types of research and groups?

4. Types of scientific projects that involved PRPs and the stages of the projects in which they participated

What types of projects are (or should) PRPs (be) involved in?

What phases of a project are (or should) PRPs (be) involved in?

5. Selection and recruitment processes for PRPs

How are (or should) PRPs (be) recruited and selected?

How many PRPs are (or should be) involved in the research?

6. Insights into the experiences and feedback provided by PRPs

What are the PRP feedback and experiences, in terms of facilitators and barriers to PRP involvement?

How can we improve the PRP experience and involvement overall?

7. Roles of a coordinator for PRPs in research

Are PRP facilitators involved, if so how, and is it useful?

Is a facilitator/PRP coordinator recommended?

What is the reported usefulness of a facilitator ?

8. Training provided to PRPs or researchers

Do the PRPs involved have a specific training (previously/during the study)?

How should researchers be educated, trained, supported to enhance PRP involvement?

9. Evaluation and monitoring related to PRP involvement

How should PRP involvement be monitored or evaluated? At which time points and by whom?

How should PRP involvement evaluation/monitoring be reported?

10. Recognition, compensation and acknowledgement of PRPs during their involvement in a scientific project

How should PRP involvement be recognised and acknowledged?

Is (should) compensation (be) proposed?

11. Barriers encountered and proposed solutions to enhance PRP involvement

What are the barriers encountered during PRP involvement?

Which strategies and contextual factors enable optimal engagement of PRPs?

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included all types of articles reporting PRP involvement in all types of research, including trials and observational studies, qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies and reports of meetings, opinion papers and reviews. We did not exclude published articles from any country, aiming to enhance the generalisability of our findings. Recommendations and guidelines on PRPs were also analysed and were used as supportive information. Articles not focused on rheumatology research or not bringing any information on PRPs (ie, not answering one or more research questions), as well as not in English, were excluded. Articles only mentioning PRPs or their involvement, without providing any details (eg, on their roles, contributions or barriers/facilitators), were excluded as well. Articles with duplicate information (ie, multiple publications reporting on a single study) were excluded if they did not provide additional information relevant to our research questions.

We also identified relevant articles by hand search of the references cited in the included studies, extending the inclusion period to the date of publication of the previous recommendations (2011–2023).

Data extraction

Data collection encompassed both quantitative and qualitative data, addressing various aspects of PRP involvement and providing answers to our research questions ( Box 1 ). Data were extracted and checked independently by two authors (KA and MdW). Discrepancies were resolved by discussion among the core team (KA, MdW, PS, LG).

Quality assessment

Papers were assessed for quality only if they reported original data. Review papers, recommendation papers, opinion papers, case studies, study protocols, report papers and qualitative studies not primarily focused on PRPs were excluded from quality assessment. Given the diversity of study types, we used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies, literature reviews and cross-sectional studies as described in the EULAR SOP. 30 31 This tool, originally developed for qualitative studies, assesses elements such as the clarity of research aims, appropriateness of methodology, suitability of the research design, adequacy of data collection and clarity in reporting outcomes. For mixed-methods studies, we used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, a critical appraisal tool that is designed for the appraisal stage of systematic mixed-studies reviews, that is, reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies 32 (see online supplemental tables 4 and 5 for quality assessment). To facilitate interpretation, an overall quality assessment for the level of evidence (LoE) was conducted by evaluating the number of items on the score checklist and on the key items. Subsequently, the authors reached a consensus on classification of the articles’ quality as high, medium or low quality.

This SLR was not considered appropriate by PROSPERO for registration due to the mixed-methods study analyses involved.

Patient and public involvement

This SLR study is the result of a co-production of three PRPs (MdW, CZ, HB) and five researchers, all being members of the EULAR steering committee responsible for updating the EULAR recommendations on PRP involvement. 1 The three PRPs actively contributed to all meetings and discussions within the steering committee. They were involved at the early stage of formulating the research questions until reviewing and agreeing on the final manuscript. They were also actively engaged in planning dissemination and implementation of the study findings within the wider community and patient associations. The recruitment of the PRPs was coordinated by one of the PRPs (MdW), the convenor of the project.

For quantitative data, a descriptive analysis of findings is reported, including characteristics of studies (study design, population, country, study objectives), characteristics of PRPs, selection process of PRPs, type of involvement, phases of the research where their involvement occurred, with numbers and percentages using frequency tables and charts.

The number of PRPs involved in the studies was quantified using two distinct methods: first, coauthorship count: direct examination of the research articles’ authorship lists. PRPs were identified based on explicit mentioning of their role as ‘PRP’ or other specific identification. Second, participation count: this approach assessed the number of broader involvements of PRPs in activities of the research project. For instance, in a GRAPPA meeting report, the number of PRPs who actively participated was counted. 8

Qualitative data were analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis (more details in online supplemental table 6 ). 33 The results were discussed within the EULAR taskforce, 1 and any disagreements on the interpretation of the findings were resolved by a consensus of the core group (MdW, LG, PS, KA).

Search strategy

The SLR yielded a total of 1016 records of which 941 (92.6%) were excluded based on titles and abstracts. We conducted a full-text screening of 75 papers and 46 (61.3%) were included. The main reasons for exclusion were papers not related to rheumatology, lacking reports of PRP involvement in research, being irrelevant to our research questions, or being duplicates or conference abstracts ( figure 1 ). Additionally, 7 papers were identified by hand search, resulting in a total number of 53 included articles.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Flow chart of selected article search on PRP involvement in rheumatology research. PRP, patient research partner.

Quality assessment (LoE) of the papers

Nineteen articles were assessed for quality using the predefined scores according to the study type. Overall, 79% (15 of 19) were classified as high quality, 11% (2 of 19) as medium quality and 11% as low quality ( online supplemental table 4 ).

Study characteristics

The included studies were qualitative studies (14 of 53, 26%), opinion articles (11 of 53, 21%), meeting reports (9 of 53, 17%), mixed-methods studies (6 of 53, 11%), recommendation articles (4 of 53, 8%), reviews (SLR or scoping review; 3 of 53, 6%), cross-sectional (2 of 53, 4%), case studies (2 of 53, 4%), observational (1 of 53, 2%) and study protocol (1 of 53, 2%) ( online supplemental tables 4 and 5 ).

Overall, 62% were published in rheumatology journals. Geographically, most of the studies were from Europe (50%), followed by North America (31%).

Identification of barriers encountered and proposed solutions to enhance PRP involvement

Barriers to PRP involvement ( table 1 and online supplemental table 7 ) included emotional and personal factors, communication and relationship challenges, inadequate training and support, difficulties in the research process and pace, as well as collaboration and engagement issues. 2–4 21 22 24–27 34–42 Effective strategies to enhance PRP involvement ( table 1 ) included early involvement, a supportive environment, effective communication and trust, and providing support and training for PRPs and researchers. 7 21 22 26 29 38 40 43 44

• View inline

Barriers and strategies to enhance PRP involvement in rheumatology research

Definitions of PRP

Among the 53 included papers, 62% provided a definition of PRP. Importantly, a significant portion (30%) of these papers 4 6 15 26 27 34–36 45 46 adopted the 2011 EULAR definition of PRP as ‘persons with a relevant disease who operate as active research team members on an equal basis with professional researchers, adding the benefit of their experiential knowledge to any phase of the project’. 14 These papers consistently emphasised the importance of active involvement and fostering equal partnerships between PRP and researchers.

Additionally, seven papers (13%) expanded upon this definition by incorporating informal caregivers into the PRP definition, 20 28 37 38 47–49 known as persons, usually family members, who provide unpaid care to someone with whom they share a personal relationship.

The roles and activities of PRPs

The roles and activities of PRPs covered a wide spectrum, extending from research partners to patient advocates, advisory roles and participation as patient reviewers (as detailed in table 2 and online supplemental table 8 ). Their contributions encompassed a diverse range of activities, including providing input in guideline development, shaping research agendas, and actively advocating in scientific and clinical committees.

Activities and roles of PRPs

The added value of PRP involvement

The literature reported that PRPs added significant value across various aspects of research ( table 3 ). Specifically, 53% of the articles indicated that PRP involvement brought benefits for the PRP themselves, that is, better understanding of their medical condition, acquisition of practical skills, improved comprehension of the research process and increased self-confidence. 2 21 25 36 39 Furthermore, 26% of the articles highlighted advantages for the research process, that is, heightened relevance of the research, enhancement of its overall impact and enrichment of the results by adding experiential knowledge. 2 7 21 25 29 36 38 39 45 The positive impact on researchers, reported in 15% of the articles, encompassed deeper insights into research priorities, increased motivation, innovative ideas, awareness of the impact of their work, a comprehensive approach to addressing patients’ needs and improved communication in lay language ( table 3 ). 2 21 25 34 36 38 40 The added value of PRP involvement was also reported as advantageous for the wider community by enhancing the acceptance of research that prioritises community benefits. 2 21 25 36

Articles reporting on added value of PRP involvement in research for PRPs, for researchers and for the research

Types of research that involved PRPs

PRPs were actively involved in a wide range of scientific projects, including basic, translational and clinical research. 50 Although the benefits of PRP involvement were less apparent in basic and translational research, some researchers and PRPs recognised the substantial advantages of collaborative partnerships in this area. 3 25 34 A scoping review highlighted the benefits of PRP engagement in preclinical research, including enhanced understanding of basic science research for PRPs, broadened perspectives for researchers, and positive influence on study questions and methods, along with fostering mutual learning, new collaborations, and improved research quality and efficiency. 40 One study reported that researchers were committed to finding more meaningful ways to integrate PRPs into basic scientific research and dissemination of the project results. 3 Strategies to enhance PRP involvement (ie, training, support, PRP-focused tasks) were also reported. 3

Research phases in which PRP participated

Early involvement of PRPs in the research was reported or recommended in 32% of the included articles, emphasising engaging PRPs from the inception of a research project. 2 19–22 27–29 34 36–38 43 45 47 51 This early engagement was reported to enable PRPs to actively shape research questions and methodologies in line with their priorities. Additionally, 30% of the articles stressed the importance of PRPs’ continuous participation throughout all research stages ( table 4 ). 4 15 21 22 26 35 43 52–54

Articles reporting or recommending PRP involvement in different phases of the research project

Number of PRPs

The number of PRPs involved in research is shown in online supplemental figure 1 . When considering the coauthorship lists, the majority of articles clearly specified the name and identity of PRPs; subsequently, the number of PRPs involved in the writing and reviewing of the article could be easily deducted. Yet, in 19% of cases, the identification of a coauthor as a PRP was unclear. In cases where PRP involvement was explicitly highlighted by coauthorship, 34% of the articles included one or two PRPs per project, 17% of articles included three or four PRPs, and 25% of articles involved more than five PRPs. Notably, single-centre studies commonly involved one or two PRPs as coauthors. One study, which engaged four PRPs, found this number to be beneficial due to the diverse perspectives they brought. 45 Larger-scale international consortia projects recruited a higher number of PRPs, with around six PRPs being identified as an effective group size for facilitating participation and decision-making. 2

On the other hand, when reporting all PRP involvement and activities in a research project, 36% of the articles reported a number of PRP higher than nine ( online supplemental figure 1 ). Therefore, the number of PRPs involved in research can be higher than the number of PRPs mentioned as coauthors.

Selection and recruitment processes for PRPs

The selection process of PRPs was reported in 34% of articles ( figure 2 ). PRP selection criteria were mainly language proficiency (11%), research knowledge (6%), disease diagnosis (9%), communication skills and constructive assertiveness (9%), motivation (8%), educational background (6%), experiential knowledge and expertise (6%) as well as travel capability (4%). 2 3 15 19 21 23 24 27 34 35 55–58 Recruitment methods for PRPs were diverse, relying on patient organisations, marketing companies, rheumatology associations, social media, community outreach, clinic visits, personal connections with patients or researchers, word-of-mouth referrals and volunteering. 2 21 34 38 41 44 53 59 Furthermore, 28% of studies emphasised the importance of clarifying patient roles through clear goal-setting and exchanging mutual expectations early in the project initiation phase. 15 19–21 27 29 36 42 45 47 Additionally, 28% of studies highlighted the need for inclusivity and diverse representation in PRP recruitment. 2 4 15 35 41 42 52

The selection criteria of PRPs reported in the studies. PRP, patient research partner.

Creating a supportive environment for PRPs

A supportive environment for PRPs was reported to depend on several key principles ( table 1 ) 4 19 20 25 36 42 52 53 60 : ensuring a balanced and manageable workload that respects PRP abilities, providing adequate resources and time for PRP involvement, offering support to overcome language barriers, promoting flexibility and offering accessible accommodation to participate in meetings and scientific conferences. 7 21 38 40 43 44 Equal relationships and co-leadership between PRPs and researchers were cited in several papers as crucial, emphasising mutual respect, trust, and open, transparent communication. 7 15 19 Building strong team communication, and establishing informal personal relationships between PRPs and researchers were also found to be important factors to enhance collaboration. 20 38 47 Regular feedback and discussions about the quality of collaboration, combined with ongoing adjustments to meet the needs and preferences of PRPs, were proposed in two papers. 34 45

Roles of a PRP coordinator

A PRP ‘coordinator’ was defined in some papers, as an individual or a role within a research team responsible for facilitating and supporting the collaboration between researchers and PRPs. 2 20 25 47 61 The presence of a PRP coordinator was reported or advised in 29% of the included articles. 2 3 19 28 34 35 40 42 44 48 61 PRP coordinators were reported to be helpful in facilitating effective communication among PRPs, researchers and stakeholders, aligning expectations, organising logistics, moderating group discussions, providing ongoing education and support, and assisting in the recruitment and selection of PRPs in projects ( table 5 ). 2 20 25 35 36 42 47 This role was reported to be taken by a member of the research team, a PRP or a designated person within a patient organisation or academic institution. 2 38

Potential roles of a PRP coordinator

Training of researchers

We found that 34% of the included articles included in the SLR reported or advised training or education of researchers. 4 7 19 21 25 28 29 38–40 44 Researchers could receive training concerning various aspects of working with PRPs ( table 6 ).

Reported training content for researchers and PRPs

Training of PRPs

Educating and training PRPs was proposed in many papers to enhance the quality of their collaboration with researchers. Notably, nearly half of the publications emphasised the importance of training, with 21% recommending it and 25% providing it. 25 28 29 35 37 45 51 62–64 PRP training and support included various aspects ( table 6 ). Training of PRPs was reported to foster well-prepared and empowered PRPs ready to engage effectively in research collaborations. 22 26 29

Evaluation and monitoring related to PRP involvement

Around 21% of the included publications recommended or reported some form of evaluation, 3 4 15 19–21 25 34 35 with 28% collecting feedback from PRPs on their involvement. Regular discussions and evaluations of the quality and impact of PRPs’ collaboration and contributions were reported to enhance understanding, satisfaction and impact, allowing for adjustments and improvements as needed. 4 5 37 60 Some tools were reported for monitoring such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute conceptual framework, an evaluative framework for research engagement, 19 surveys to evaluate the impact of PRPs in the project, 3 26 the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework Guidance, 53 and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public. 25 34

Recognition, compensation and acknowledgement of PRPs

Recognising, compensating and acknowledging the contributions of PRPs during their involvement in a scientific project were reported to be essential components of equal and meaningful partnerships. 27

In the context of recognition, coauthorship was cited as proof of PRP involvement and equality in research collaborations. 5 39 The SLR revealed a growing trend in recognising PRPs through coauthorship in 68% of articles, 2–6 8 15 19–21 23–26 28 29 34 36–40 42 43 45 47–50 52 54 56 58 60 63 65 and acknowledgement in 45% of articles. 3 6 7 25 27 28 34 37 43–45 48 51 53 56–61 63 65–67

Compensation refers to the payment of salary, wages, honorarium, fees or allowances for the time commitment and expertise of PRPs; this is different from reimbursing PRPs for expenses (eg, travel expenses and accommodation). 49 Non-compensation for PRPs was reported as a limitation and challenge for their effective involvement. 4 While PRPs can opt out of payment, several papers reported that researchers should consider compensation in their budget planning. 2 39 49 Some articles advised that institutions should simplify processes for fair PRP payment, and funders should enable researchers to allocate resources for PRP involvement. 5

The role of PRPs in rheumatology research has significantly expanded over recent years. The findings of this SLR underscore the important roles and contributions of PRPs in research projects, and the added value of PRP involvement, not only in clinical research, but also in basic, translational, registry and longitudinal observational studies. This review also highlighted current challenges and barriers, and pulled together proposals of strategies to overcome them.

The exact definition and roles of PRPs remain unclear for some researchers. A wide proportion of the reviewed studies had adopted the 2011 EULAR definition of PRP which reflects the global acknowledgement of the importance of PRP involvement in rheumatology research and the need for specific recommendations. 14 PRPs hold a crucial position in recognising and actively integrating the patient perspective, their voice and needs into research decision-making processes. Diverse roles and activities were undertaken by PRPs in this SLR, from research partners to patient advocates, reflecting the many ways PRPs can contribute. Their involvement, as evident in recent papers shaping research priorities, guideline development, and scientific and clinical committees, suggests a trend towards more inclusive and patient-centred research practices.

Our review revealed specific barriers and challenges in communication, training, research processes and collaboration. These challenges highlight difficulties in communication and relationship dynamics during research, the necessity for training and support for both PRPs and researchers, concerns about the research process and its pace, and obstacles in PRP collaboration, including issues of recognition and diversity. Inclusivity and diversity are important topics for future research. To address these challenges effectively, targeted strategies such as fostering open communication, creating a supportive environment, ensuring early and sustained involvement, using a PRP coordinator and providing appropriate training and support for PRPs and researchers are crucial. These findings underscore the ongoing need for refining and implementing these strategies to enhance PRP involvement more efficiently. 26

A key observation from the SLR is the importance of early and sustained PRP involvement in research projects. Engaging PRPs from the research project’s inception ensures that research questions and methodologies are aligned with patients’ priorities and perspectives right from the start. Sustained involvement further reinforces the trust and collaboration between PRPs and researchers, leading to research outcomes that are more relevant and impactful. The OMERACT recommendations proposed that the level and timing of PRP involvement should vary based on the scope and type of project, emphasising adaptability as a key factor for successful involvement. 15

Evaluation and monitoring are also integral aspects of PRP involvement. This ongoing reflection and feedback process is vital for fostering effective and meaningful PRP involvement in research. Recognition, compensation and acknowledgement of PRPs stand as key elements for fostering a meaningful partnership. Coauthorship serves not only to document the PRP’s contribution but also reinforces the idea of collaborative research. Of note, we observed disparity between the involvement of PRPs in research activities versus their acknowledgement as coauthors. This disparity may arise from some PRPs not prioritising or desiring coauthorship, or being unable to participate in producing and writing a research paper due to health-related challenges such as disease flare-ups or fatigue. In ensuring equitable recognition, a collective effort is essential to guarantee that PRPs receive due acknowledgement and compensation for their valuable contributions to scientific research.

Our study has strengths and weaknesses. One important strength of this SLR is that the findings will equip researchers, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders with evidence-based solutions to improve PRP involvement in medical research. To this end, the findings have supported the process of updating the EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement and made them more evidence based. 1 Another strength is the obtention of a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and complexities surrounding PRP involvement in rheumatology research. Furthermore, our study stands out for its comprehensive approach, analysing a broad spectrum of study types, including quantitative and qualitative studies, reviews, opinion pieces and information from websites. The inclusion of various rheumatic musculoskeletal disease conditions, encompassing both paediatric and adult populations, enhances the robustness of our findings. Another notable strength lies in the co-production of this work by three PRPs. The project was initiated and led by a PRP (MdW) who gave the work direction, participated in article screening, article analysis, overall interpretation and manuscript writing. The two other PRPs brought important insights into PRP roles, facilitators and barriers.

A limitation of the study might be the heterogeneity of the included papers. Because of the expected limited reporting of PRP involvement in rheumatology research, we decided to include a diversity of papers in the SLR, varying from qualitative studies, case studies and original research papers to conference reports and opinion articles. This heterogeneity did not allow for any form of meta-analysis, nor for identifying themes that would benefit individual groups of PRPs such as people with rare diseases, children or young adults, or people with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, quality assessments could not be uniformly applied across all study types. It is important to note that the traditional evidence hierarchy may not be applicable to this SLR, given the expected absence of randomised controlled studies. Despite this, certain papers were assessed to be of high quality of evidence within their respective study types. While the systematic approach ensured a comprehensive gathering of data, there might be relevant grey literature or non-English-language publications that were not included. Another limitation might be the time period of the last 6 years, including data from articles published between January 2017 and January 2023. This time frame was chosen to reflect studies performed after the 2011 EULAR recommendations were published, taking into account the implementation time gap. 14 Furthermore, the chosen time span resulted in 53 articles which was deemed sufficient for gathering relevant data related to our research questions.

In conclusion, this SLR identified numerous publications reporting on PRP involvement in rheumatology research. Most authors reported that PRP involvement not only enriches the research process but also ensures that research outcomes are more relevant, meaningful and patient centred. However, for this involvement to be genuinely effective, it is essential to address the barriers and challenges that PRPs and researchers are facing. By updating the EULAR 2011 recommendations, based on the findings of this SLR, we can look forward to a future where research is more inclusive, collaborative, and aligned with patient needs and perspectives.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Elhai M , et al
• Jurg D , et al
• Wähämaa H , et al
• Tugwell P , et al
• Schöpf AC ,
• Schlöffel M ,
• Amos T , et al
• Pollock J ,
• Pratt AG , et al
• O’Sullivan DP ,
• Steinkoenig I
• Nikiphorou E ,
• Carmona L , et al
• Costa Alencar AB ,
• Selig WKD ,
• Geissler J , et al
• ↵ ESC patient engagement . Available : https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/What-we-do/esc-patient-engagement [Accessed 18 Sep 2023 ].
• Diabetes UK
• de Wit MPT ,
• Aanerud GJ , et al
• Cheung PP ,
• Bingham CO , et al
• ↵ OMERACT patient research partner network . Available : https://omeractprpnetwork.org/ [Accessed 18 Sep 2023 ].
• ↵ FOREUM – involving PRP . Available : https://www.foreum.org/involving_prp.cfm [Accessed 18 Sep 2023 ].
• GRAPPA Network
• Kirwan JR ,
• Frank L , et al
• Scott A , et al
• Koelewijn-van Loon M , et al
• Koelewijn-Van Loon M , et al
• Koenders MI ,
• Neijland Y , et al
• Studenic P ,
• Costello W ,
• Maxwell LJ ,
• Graham ID , et al
• French DP ,
• Fàbregues S , et al
• Hsieh H-F ,
• de Souza S ,
• Johansson EC ,
• Karlfeldt S , et al
• Campbell W ,
• FitzGerald O , et al
• Ortiz MM , et al
• Del Gaizo V ,
• Haribhai-Thompson J ,
• Dalbeth N ,
• Stewart S , et al
• Fergusson DA ,
• Daham Z , et al
• Golenya R ,
• Chloros GD ,
• Panteli M , et al
• Coates LC , et al
• Guillemin F ,
• Grimm S , et al
• Parsons S ,
• Thomson W ,
• Cresswell K , et al
• Schöpf-Lazzarino AC ,
• Garske U , et al
• Stewart S ,
• Darlow B , et al
• Kaminstein D ,
• Olivos A , et al
• Macdonald G ,
• Kerr S , et al
• Richards DP ,
• Proulx L , et al
• Schoemaker CG ,
• Djekic-Ivankovic M ,
• Funnell L , et al
• McKinnon A , et al
• Gnanenthiran S ,
• Lunt L , et al
• Van der Elst K ,
• De Cock D ,
• Bangels L , et al
• Kiltz U , et al
• Elliott RS ,
• Ainsworth J , et al
• Larsen JB ,
• Birnie KA , et al
• Goodman SM ,
• Miller AS ,
• Turgunbaev M , et al
• Shoop-Worrall SJW ,
• Cresswell K ,
• Bolger I , et al
• Jongsma KR ,
• Armbrust W ,
• Swart JF , et al
• O’Sullivan D ,
• de Wit M , et al
• Pauling JD ,
• Domsic RT , et al
• Steinkoenig I , et al
• Bywall KS ,
• Esbensen BA ,
• Lason M , et al
• Staniszewska S ,
• Simera I , et al
• Helliwell PS ,
• Gladman DD ,
• Gottlieb AB
• PARE-PRP-2326 . Available : https://esor.eular.org/enrol/index.php?id=398 [Accessed 16 Oct 2023 ].

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2

Handling editor Kimme L Hyrich

X @krystelaouad, @Stiddyo, @LGossec

Contributors All authors have contributed to this work and approved the final version. KA, MDW and LG accept full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of thestudy, had access to the data and controlled the decision to publish.

Funding Funded by EULAR grant RES005.

Competing interests KA—research grant (EULAR grant RES005); over the last 3 years, research grants from UCB; consulting fees from Novartis. MdW—over the last 3 years, Stichting Tools has received fees for lectures or consultancy provided by MdW from UCB. ME—congress travel support from Janssen and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. DB—research grants from Novartis; speakers bureau from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen and Lilly; consulting fees from Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB. PS—speakers bureau from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AbbVie; travel support from Janssen and Galapagos. LG—research grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF: