primary sources in literature review

• Library Guides

The Literature Review

Primary and secondary sources, the literature review: primary and secondary sources.

• Searching the literature
• Grey literature
• Organising and analysing
• Systematic Reviews
• The Literature Review Toolbox

On this page

• Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained 

Can something be both a primary and secondary source?

Research for your literature review can be categorised as either primary or secondary in nature. The simplest definition of primary sources is either original information (such as survey data) or a first person account of an event (such as an interview transcript). Whereas secondary sources are any publshed or unpublished works that describe, summarise, analyse, evaluate, interpret or review primary source materials. Secondary sources can incorporate primary sources to support their arguments.

Ideally, good research should use a combination of both primary and secondary sources. For example, if a researcher were to investigate the introduction of a law and the impacts it had on a community, he/she might look at the transcripts of the parliamentary debates as well as the parliamentary commentary and news reporting surrounding the laws at the time. 

Examples of primary and secondary sources

Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained

Finding primary sources

• VU Special Collections  - The Special Collections at Victoria University Library are a valuable research resource. The Collections have strong threads of radical literature, particularly Australian Communist literature, much of which is rare or unique. Women and urban planning also feature across the Collections. There are collections that give you a picture of the people who donated them like Ray Verrills, John McLaren, Sir Zelman Cowen, and Ruth & Maurie Crow. Other collections focus on Australia's neighbours – PNG and Timor-Leste.
• POLICY - Sharing the latest in policy knowledge and evidence, this database supports enhanced learning, collaboration and contribution.
• Indigenous Australia  -  The Indigenous Australia database represents the collections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Library.
• Australian Heritage Bibliography - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Subset (AHB-ATSIS)  - AHB is a bibliographic database that indexes and abstracts articles from published and unpublished material on Australia's natural and cultural environment. The AHB-ATSIS subset contains records that specifically relate to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.include journal articles, unpublished reports, books, videos and conference proceedings from many different sources around Australia. Emphasis is placed on reports written or commissioned by government and non-government heritage agencies throughout the country.
• ATSIhealth  - The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography (ATSIhealth), compiled by Neil Thomson and Natalie Weissofner at the School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Kurongkurl Katitjin, Edith Cowan University, is a bibliographic database that indexes published and unpublished material on Australian Indigenous health. Source documents include theses, unpublished articles, government reports, conference papers, abstracts, book chapters, books, discussion and working papers, and statistical documents. 
• National Archive of Australia  - The National Archives of Australia holds the memory of our nation and keeps vital Australian Government records safe. 
• National Library of Australia: Manuscripts  - Manuscripts collection that is wide ranging and provides rich evidence of the lives and activities of Australians who have shaped our society.
• National Library of Australia: Printed ephemera  - The National Library has been selectively collecting Australian printed ephemera since the early 1960s as a record of Australian life and social customs, popular culture, national events, and issues of national concern.
• National Library of Australia: Oral history and folklore - The Library’s Oral History and Folklore Collection dates back to the 1950’s and includes a rich and diverse collection of interviews and recordings with Australians from all walks of life.
• Historic Hansard - Commonwealth of Australia parliamentary debates presented in an easy-to-read format for historians and other lovers of political speech.
• The Old Bailey Online - A fully searchable edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing 197,745 criminal trials held at London's central criminal court.

Whether or not a source can be considered both primary and  secondary, depends on the context. In some instances, material may act as a secondary source for one research area, and as a primary source for another. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince , published in 1513, is an important secondary source for any study of the various Renaissance princes in the Medici family; but the same book is also a primary source for the political thought that was characteristic of the sixteenth century because it reflects the attitudes of a person living in the 1500s.

Source: Craver, 1999, as cited in University of South Australia Library. (2021, Oct 6).  Can something be a primary and secondary source?.  University of South Australia Library. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/historycultural/sourcetypes

• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Searching the literature >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 2:06 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/the-literature-review

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

Literature Review Basics

• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Literature Review Introduction
• Writing Literature Reviews
• Tutorials & Samples

The Literature

The Literature refers to the collection of scholarly writings on a topic. This includes peer-reviewed articles, books, dissertations and conference papers.

• When reviewing the literature, be sure to include major works as well as studies that respond to major works. You will want to focus on primary sources, though secondary sources can be valuable as well.

Primary Sources

The term primary source is used broadly to embody all sources that are original. P rimary sources provide first-hand information that is closest to the object of study. Primary sources vary by discipline.

• In the natural and social sciences, original reports of research found in academic journals detailing the methodology used in the research, in-depth descriptions, and discussions of the findings are considered primary sources of information.
• Other common examples of primary sources include speeches, letters, diaries, autobiographies, interviews, official reports, court records, artifacts, photographs, and drawings.  

Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences . Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Secondary Sources

A secondary source is a source that provides non-original or secondhand data or information. 

• Secondary sources are written about primary sources.
• Research summaries reported in textbooks, magazines, and newspapers are considered secondary sources. They typically provide global descriptions of results with few details on the methodology. Other examples of secondary sources include biographies and critical studies of an author's work.

Secondary Source. (2005). In W. Paul Vogt (Ed.), Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. (3 rd ed., p. 291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Weidenborner, S., & Caruso, D. (1997). Writing research papers: A guide to the process . New York: St. Martin's Press.

More Examples of Primary and Secondary Sources

• << Previous: Writing Literature Reviews
• Next: Tutorials & Samples >>
• Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023 9:19 AM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/litreviews

• 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 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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.

How to Write a Literature Review: Primary and Secondary Sources

• Writing a Literature Review in APA Format
• Chicago/Turabian Citation Style
• Primary and Secondary Sources
• Basic Research Strategies
• Evaluating Sources
• Using the Library's Ebooks
• Using the Library's Catalog
• Copyright Information
• Contact Information & Feedback

Primary versus Secondary Sources

Primary vs. secondary videos.

Primary, Secondary, & Tertiary Sources The content of research papers may come from different types of sources, such as:

• Your own opinion and analysis
• Primary sources
• Secondary sources
• Tertiary sources

It may not be necessary to include each of these types of sources in every paper you write, but your instructor may require you to include them. It is important to understand the characteristics of primary, secondary and tertiary sources–they each serve a different purpose throughout the research process, and can strengthen your assignment, too.

It can be difficult to figure out if a source is considered primary, secondary, or tertiary. We will explain the differences and provide examples of each in this tutorial. If you are still not sure if a source you would like to use is primary, secondary, or tertiary, ask a librarian or teacher.

What is a Primary Source? Primary sources are first-hand, authoritative accounts of an event, topic, or historical time period. They are typically produced at the time of the event by a person who experienced it, but can also be made later on in the form of personal memoirs or oral histories.

Anything that contains original information on a topic is considered a primary source. Usually, primary sources are the object discussed in your paper. For instance, if you are writing an analysis on Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, the book would be a primary source. But, just because a source is old does not mean it is a primary source.

Some examples of original, first-hand, authoritative accounts include:

• Letters, diaries or journals (Personal thoughts)
• Original photographs
• First-hand newspaper reports
• Speeches, autobiographies
• Creative works like plays, paintings and songs
• Research data and surveys

What is a Secondary Source? Secondary sources interpret or critique primary sources. They often include an analysis of the event that was discussed or featured in the primary source.  They are second-hand accounts that interpret or draw conclusions from one or more primary sources.

Some examples of works that interpret or critique primary sources include:

• Textbooks (May also be considered tertiary)
• Essays or reviews
• Articles that analyze or discuss ideas and events
• Criticisms or commentaries

What is a Tertiary Source? Tertiary sources generally provide an overview or summary of a topic, and may contain both primary and secondary sources. The information is displayed as entirely factual, and does not include analysis or critique.  Tertiary sources can also be collections of primary and secondary sources, such as databases, bibliographies and directories.

Some examples of sources that provide a summary or collection of a topic include:

• Textbooks (May also be considered secondary)
• Bibliographies or abstracts
• Wikipedia articles
• Encyclopedias

Using Primary, secondary and Tertiary Sources in Research Let’s say you are writing a research paper on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of 1972, but you are unfamiliar with it. A good place to gather a general idea or understanding of the ERA would be a tertiary source, such as Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica. There, you can read a summary of events on its history, key people involved, and legislation.

To find more in-depth analysis on the Equal Rights Amendment, you consult a secondary source: the nonfiction book Why We Lost the ERA by Jane Mansbridge and a newspaper article from the 1970’s that discuss and review the legislation. These provide a more focused analysis of the Equal Rights Amendment that you can include as sources in your paper (make sure you cite them!).  A primary source that could bolster your research would be a government document detailing the ERA legislation that initially passed in Congress, giving a first-hand account of the legislation that went through the House and Senate in 1972.

This video provides a great overview of primary and secondary sources: [ youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= PgfQC4d3pKc &w=420&h=315]

Source:  http://content.easybib.com/students/research-guide/primary-secondary-tertiary-sources/

• << Previous: Guide to Writing a Research Paper
• Next: Basic Research Strategies >>
• Last Updated: Sep 25, 2023 2:24 PM
• URL: https://tuskegee.libguides.com/c.php?g=692585

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 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.

Literature Review: Lit Review Sources

• Lit Review Types
• GRADE System
• Do a Lit Review
• Citation Justice
• Lit Review Sources
• AI for Research This link opens in a new window

Where do I find information for a literature review?

Research is done by...

...by way of...

...communicated through...

...and organized in...

Types of sources for a review...

• Primary source: Usually a report by the original researchers of a study (unfiltered sources)
• Secondary source: Description or summary by somebody other than the original researcher, e.g. a review article (filtered sources)
• Conceptual/theoretical: Papers concerned with description or analysis of theories or concepts associated with the topic
• Anecdotal/opinion/clinical: Views or opinions about the subject that are not research, review or theoretical (case studies or reports from clinical settings)

A Heirarchy of research information:

Source: SUNY Downstate Medical Center. Medical Research Library of Brooklyn. Evidence Based Medicine Course. A Guide to Research Methods: The Evidence Pyramid: http://library.downstate.edu/EBM2/2100.htm

Life Cycle of Publication

Click image to enlarge

Scientific information has a ‘life cycle’ of its own… it is born as an idea, and then matures and becomes more available to the public. First it appears within the so-called ‘invisible college’ of experts in the field, discussed at conferences and symposia or posted as pre-prints for comments and corrections. Then it appears in the published literature (the primary literature), often as a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Researchers can use the indexing and alerting services of the secondary literature to find out what has been published in a field. Depending on how much information is added by the indexer or abstracter, this may take a few months (though electronic publication has sped up this process). Finally, the information may appear in more popular or reference sources, sometimes called the tertiary literature.

The person beginning a literature search may take this process in reverse: using tertiary sources for general background, then going to the secondary literature to survey what has been published, following up by finding the original (primary) sources, and generating their own research Idea.

(Original content by Wade Lee-Smith)

• << Previous: Citation Justice
• Next: Readings >>
• Last Updated: May 24, 2024 9:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utoledo.edu/litreview

Primary Sources - Literature: Home

• Historic News and Reviews
• Online Texts
• Author Archives

Finding Primary Sources

Primary sources in literature are original, uninterpreted information (often, but not exclusively textual) relevant to a literary research topic. Examples include original works of fiction, art, or music; letters; diaries; interviews; or even works of criticism.

The key question to ask when trying to classify a source as primary versus secondary is how you intend to use it . If a work was written or created during the time period that you are researching, it can be used as a primary source.

For example:

A 1922 review of T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land would be considered a secondary source if your project is an analysis of Eliot's poem, but would be a primary source if your topic is the critical reception of Eliot's works, or the perception of modernism as a literary style in the 1920s.

Visit Special Collections to use original texts in print or manuscript.

Subject Librarian

Image via avrenim_acceber at Flickr , used under Creative Commons license.

• Next: Historic News and Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 3:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wellesley.edu/primarylit

Literature review sources

Sources for literature review can be divided into three categories as illustrated in table below. In your dissertation you will need to use all three categories of literature review sources:

Sources for literature review and examples

Generally, your literature review should integrate a wide range of sources such as:

• Books . Textbooks remain as the most important source to find models and theories related to the research area. Research the most respected authorities in your selected research area and find the latest editions of books authored by them. For example, in the area of marketing the most notable authors include Philip Kotler, Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell, Emanuel Rosen and others.
• Magazines . Industry-specific magazines are usually rich in scholarly articles and they can be effective source to learn about the latest trends and developments in the research area. Reading industry magazines can be the most enjoyable part of the literature review, assuming that your selected research area represents an area of your personal and professional interests, which should be the case anyways.
• Newspapers can be referred to as the main source of up-to-date news about the latest events related to the research area. However, the proportion of the use of newspapers in literature review is recommended to be less compared to alternative sources of secondary data such as books and magazines. This is due to the fact that newspaper articles mainly lack depth of analyses and discussions.
• Online articles . You can find online versions of all of the above sources. However, note that the levels of reliability of online articles can be highly compromised depending on the source due to the high levels of ease with which articles can be published online. Opinions offered in a wide range of online discussion blogs cannot be usually used in literature review. Similarly, dissertation assessors are not keen to appreciate references to a wide range of blogs, unless articles in these blogs are authored by respected authorities in the research area.

Your secondary data sources may comprise certain amount of grey literature as well. The term grey literature refers to type of literature produced by government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, which is not controlled by commercial publishers. It is called ‘grey’ because the status of the information in grey literature is not certain. In other words, any publication that has not been peer reviewed for publication is grey literature.

The necessity to use grey literature arises when there is no enough peer reviewed publications are available for the subject of your study.

John Dudovskiy

Literature Research Guide: Primary Sources

• Books and eBooks
• Primary Sources
• Literary Criticism
• Streaming Videos
• Websites: Information on Authors
• Research Help

Ask a Librarian

Chat with a Librarian

Lisle: (630) 829-6057 Mesa: (480) 878-7514 Toll Free: (877) 575-6050 Email: [email protected]

Book a Research Consultation Library Hours

Primary Sources in Literature

A primary source is "first-hand" information, sources as close as possible to the origin of the information or idea under study.

Primary sources are contrasted with secondary sources, works that provide analysis, commentary, or criticism on the primary source.

In literary studies, primary sources are often creative works, including poems, stories, novels, and so on.

In historical studies, primary sources include written works, recordings, or other source of information from people who were participants or direct witnesses to the events in question.

Examples of commonly used primary sources include government documents, memoirs, personal correspondence, oral histories, and contemporary newspaper accounts.

• See also our Research Guide on Primary Sources
• << Previous: Books and eBooks
• Next: Literary Criticism >>
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.ben.edu/literature

Kindlon Hall 5700 College Rd. Lisle, IL 60532 (630) 829-6050

Gillett Hall 225 E. Main St. Mesa, AZ 85201 (480) 878-7514

University Libraries

• Research Guides
• Blackboard Learn
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms
• University of Arkansas

Literature Reviews

• Primary sources? Peer-reviewed?
• Getting Started
• Finding articles
• Review Articles/ Annual Reviews...?
• Books, ebooks, dissertations, book reviews
• Qualitative or Quantitative?

Director for Research & Instruction

Primary Sources are the Leading Edge

Primary sources are the leading edge of research-- the first discussion of what is going on in the field, in the sciences and sometimes in the social sciences. They will use other publications as support, but contribute new knowledge to the scholarly conversation. But historians and scholars of literature and art think of primary works differently-- see below.

What's a Primary Source? Information in the Various Disciplines

What is considered a primary source varies somewhat by discipline. In any case, think of a primary source as first-hand knowledge, eyewitness accounts, reports or testimony about (X topic).

In the fields commonly considered sciences, a primary source is the first report of research, published as a journal article, a research report or conference proceeding, or if extensive, a book or book chapter. They include methodology, data and results, and discussion.

In social sciences, such as anthropology, ethnography, psychology, sociology or social work, a primary source may be the first report of research, especially of empirical studies, or, since some areas of these fields depend on direct observation of behavior or analysis of interviews or personal narratives, the products of this analysis may still be considered a primary work. For history, and in some other disciplines, a primary source is a letter, a diary, speech, lecture, piece of legislation, document or manuscript-- an original source which forms the basis of secondary work. A narrative is a personal account, by a single individual, of a period of time or an event. In the arts, a primary source may be a piece of art, such as a painting or sculpture, a musical score, a poem, a book or chapter, or an essay--whatever is directly created by the artist, writer, photographer, etc.

A secondary source is based on other sources. It includes analysis, criticism, or other intellectual input. Review articles are based on analysis of the published 'literature' (books, articles and dissertations about the topic). Secondary sources can include books, book chapters, articles, especially literature reviews, and some book reviews.

A tertiary source is commonly a resource or tool that helps people find primary or secondary sources. Tertiary sources include most bibliographies, databases and indexes, and library catalogs.

What are Primary Sources?

Here's a great definition from the American Library Association:

"Primary sources are original records created at the time historical events occurred or well after events in the form of memoirs and oral histories. Primary sources may include letters, manuscripts, diaries, journals, newspapers, speeches, interviews, memoirs, documents produced by government agencies such as Congress or the Office of the President, photographs, audio recordings, moving pictures or video recordings, research data, and objects or artifacts such as works of art or ancient roads, buildings, tools, and weapons. These sources serve as the raw material to interpret the past, and when they are used along with previous interpretations by historians, they provide the resources necessary for historical research."

-- Using Primary Sources on the Web , rev. 2008.

Peer-reviewed/Scholarly?

Peer review is the process by which articles or other works are critiqued before they are published. Authors send articles to an editor, who decides whether the work should be forwarded to reviewers for the journal. The most stringent form is anonymous or blind review, where neither the author nor the reviewers know whose work is being examined by whom. This helps reduce bias.

Reviewers are usually well-published researchers and experts. They return the articles to the editor with remarks and recommendations-- usually publish as is (rare), publish if edited or changed in specific ways, or don't publish. Editors most often go with the recommendation of the majority of the reviewers.

The process is intended to improve the studies published-- more eyes on a project, and one's reputation on the line with peers, tends to improve the quality of what's published. There are cases where it hasn't worked, and critics of the peer review cycle (some claim that it limits innovative studies, among other issues), but it is the best system that has been developed to this point.

Peer-reviewed or referreed or scholarly are often descriptions used interchangably for reputable journals. Not all scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, but many are.

• A Retrospective Self-critique by One Scholar of His Own Studies--Food for Thought
• << Previous: Finding articles
• Next: Review Articles/ Annual Reviews...? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:51 PM
• URL: https://uark.libguides.com/litreview
• See us on Instagram
• Follow us on Twitter
• Phone: 479-575-4104

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Literature Reviews: Types of Literature

• Library Basics
• 1. Choose Your Topic
• How to Find Books
• Types of Clinical Study Designs

Types of Literature

• 3. Search the Literature
• 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• 5. Write the Review
• Keeping Track of Information
• Style Guides
• Books, Tutorials & Examples

Different types of publications have different characteristics.

Primary Literature Primary sources means original studies, based on direct observation, use of statistical records, interviews, or experimental methods, of actual practices or the actual impact of practices or policies. They are authored by researchers, contains original research data, and are usually published in a peer-reviewed journal. Primary literature may also include conference papers, pre-prints, or preliminary reports. Also called empirical research .

Secondary Literature Secondary literature consists of interpretations and evaluations that are derived from or refer to the primary source literature. Examples include review articles (such as meta-analysis and systematic reviews) and reference works. Professionals within each discipline take the primary literature and synthesize, generalize, and integrate new research.

Tertiary Literature Tertiary literature consists of a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, and guidebooks or handbooks. The purpose of tertiary literature is to provide an overview of key research findings and an introduction to principles and practices within the discipline.

Adapted from the Information Services Department of the Library of the Health Sciences-Chicago , University of Illinois at Chicago.

Types of Scientific Publications

These examples and descriptions of publication types will give you an idea of how to use various works and why you would want to write a particular kind of paper.

• Scholarly article aka empirical article
• Review article
• Conference paper

Scholarly (aka empirical) article -- example

Empirical studies use data derived from observation or experiment. Original research papers (also called primary research articles) that describe empirical studies and their results are published in academic journals.  Articles that report empirical research contain different sections which relate to the steps of the scientific method.

      Abstract - The abstract provides a very brief summary of the research.

     Introduction - The introduction sets the research in a context, which provides a review of related research and develops the hypotheses for the research.

     Method - The method section describes how the research was conducted.

     Results - The results section describes the outcomes of the study.

     Discussion - The discussion section contains the interpretations and implications of the study.

     References - A references section lists the articles, books, and other material cited in the report.

Review article -- example

A review article summarizes a particular field of study and places the recent research in context. It provides an overview and is an excellent introduction to a subject area. The references used in a review article are helpful as they lead to more in-depth research.

Many databases have limits or filters to search for review articles. You can also search by keywords like review article, survey, overview, summary, etc.

Conference proceedings, abstracts and reports -- example

Conference proceedings, abstracts and reports are not usually peer-reviewed.  A conference article is similar to a scholarly article insofar as it is academic. Conference articles are published much more quickly than scholarly articles. You can find conference papers in many of the same places as scholarly articles.

How Do You Identify Empirical Articles?

To identify an article based on empirical research, look for the following characteristics:

     The article is published in a peer-reviewed journal .

     The article includes charts, graphs, or statistical analysis .

     The article is substantial in size , likely to be more than 5 pages long.

     The article contains the following parts (the exact terms may vary): abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, references .

• << Previous: Types of Clinical Study Designs
• Next: 3. Search the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Dec 29, 2023 11:41 AM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/litrev

× All floors of the JFK Library are open for summer quarter. For details see Library Access

Research Guides

Eastern Washington University Libraries

Distinguishing Scholarly Articles

• What Is a Scholarly Article?
• Where Can I Find Scholarly Articles?
• Types of Scholarly Articles

Source Provenance

• Glossary of Specialized Terms

For preliminary assessment of reliability or authenticity, academics frequently distinguish between Primary and Secondary sources of information.  Note that this distinction is based on content, and not format.

Primary sources are those that adhere most closely to the original experience or evidence being presented.

In history and the humanities, a primary source is a person, document or account relating direct experience from the time period under study (for example an eyewitness report to an event) or a later recapitulation of events from someone with direct experience (for example an oral history, autobiography or memoir).  Historical artifacts such as letters, diaries, interviews, or photographs are all considered primary sources, as are government documents presenting original work, e.g. legislation, hearings, speeches, reports, etc.  Creative works such as films, plays, music, poetry and art works can also be considered primary.

In the sciences, a primary source is the original publication of new data, research or theories by the individual(s) producing the data, conducting the research, or formulating the theory.  Examples of primary scientific sources include experimental studies, opinion surveys, clinical trials, and data sets.  Typically, primary research articles are published in peer-reviewed journal articles with standardized sections, often including a Literature Review , description of Methods , tables of Data , and a summary of Results or formal Conclusion .

Secondary sources are those that summarize, critique or comment on events, data or research presented previously.  Since they are one or more steps removed from the event, these sources are considered less reliable in terms of evidence.

Examples of secondary sources include textbooks, review articles, magazine articles, histories, news reports, encyclopedias and other reference books.  There can be significant variation in how strictly the terms "primary" and "secondary" are applied by academics, e.g. history professors may consider news articles that were published in the same time period as an historical event to be primary, for purposes of instruction.  If in doubt, a student should consult the classroom instructor for guidance.

• << Previous: Types of Scholarly Articles
• Next: Glossary of Specialized Terms >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://research.ewu.edu/scholarly_articles

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

• Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Databases and Articles
• Specific Journal or Article

Original Research Article/Primary Research Article

Parts of the Article

Sample Author Search in Google Scholar

This is a search for the author, U Fayyad. Search for your author by first initial and last name. Note the number of times the article is cited. Use SJSU GetText to retrieve the article.

• << Previous: Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
• Next: Databases and Articles >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

Search for books, articles, media and more

Check the current status of our systems, applications, and online resources

Search the Library Website

Looking for a book, article, database or something else for your research.

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system

Examples of Primary and Secondary Sources

Source: The Evolution of Scientific Information (from  Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , vol. 26).

Still Have Questions?

• Finding Primary and Secondary Sources
• Check Your Knowledge

What are Primary Sources?

Do you panic if your professor tells you to find a primary source? When does a news article stop being primary and start being secondary? This guide will clarify what's what in the humanities and give you some examples to look at.

Definitions

Primary sources are first hand accounts of real events. They may describe a national crisis or the ordinary routines of daily life.

Some primary sources are created at the time an event occurs. News accounts of daily events, journal entries, ships' logs and passenger manifests, laws, treaties, birth or death certificates, letters, telegrams, even e-mails: all of these are records of events as the events are unfolding. Other primary sources are created well after an event has passed. A first hand witness to an event may tell his or her story years later. Memoirs, oral histories, and interviews are all primary sources.

Not all primary sources are written. History has been captured on film and all manner of video and audio recordings, in photographs, drawings, and in ancient art works and archeological artifacts. Primary sources give us a glimpse into history as witnessed by the people who were there. With each new generation of technology, humans create new ways to record their experiences. Future generations may look at today's blogs to see how 21st century people described their lives.

Secondary sources then are one step removed from a primary source. They may quote a primary source, but they are more inclined to focus on analyzing or explaining or rebuking the content of a primary source. Secondary sources are incredibly useful for deepening understanding and exploring what other experts have said about a topic, but it is important to know how they are different from primary sources.

Tertiary sources are even further removed from a primary source. A tertiary source is an accumulation or consolidation of primary and secondary sources that does not add commentary to either, but instead tries to summarize, index, or give an overview on a particular topic, such as an encyclopedia or a digest or even the website Wikipedia. While these are not usually material that should be used as citations, they can be a powerful tool for finding appropriate primary and secondary sources on a given topic.

• Next: Finding Primary and Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 11:17 AM
• URL: https://stevenson.libguides.com/c.php?g=1399182

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Collections
• Editor's Choice
• Ilona Kickbusch Award
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Online
• Open Access Option
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Health Promotion International
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, supplementary material, authorship contributions, acknowledgements, data availability.

• < Previous

Unleashing the potential of Health Promotion in primary care—a scoping literature review

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Adela Bisak, Martin Stafström, Unleashing the potential of Health Promotion in primary care—a scoping literature review, Health Promotion International , Volume 39, Issue 3, June 2024, daae044, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae044

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the role and extent of health promotion lifestyle interventions targeting adults in primary care, and especially those who are considered overall healthy, i.e. to study the outcomes of research applying salutogenesis. We performed a literature review, with three specific aims. First, to identify studies that have targeted the healthy population in intervention within the primary health care field with health promotion activities. Second, to describe these interventions in terms of which health problems they have targeted and what the interventions have entailed. Third, to assess what these programs have resulted in, in terms of health outcomes. This scoping review of 42 studies, that applied salutogenesis in primary care interventions shows that health promotion targeting healthy individuals is relevant and effective. The PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting on scoping review were used. Most interventions were successful in reducing disease-related risks including CVD, CVD mortality, all-cause mortality, but even more importantly success in behavioural change, sustained at follow-up. Additionally, this review shows that health promotion lifestyle interventions can improve mental health, even when having different aims.

This article describes the importance of including healthy individuals in health promotion activities, applying salutogenesis, as there are significant positive health outcomes effects if they participate in health interventions.

The study amplifies that the prevention paradox should always be considered when designing health promotion interventions.

This article shows that the greatest effects when targeting healthy individuals are found in lower all-cause mortality and CVD risks, mainly because these programs manage to lead to long-lasting lifestyle changes.

Health Promotion is, according to Nutbeam and Muscat (2021 , p. 1580), ‘[…] the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health’. This process entails a comprehensive approach to change on all levels, from structures to individuals, improving health mainly through addressing the social determinants of health.

Whereas the most overarching processes are initiated on a structural level through global and national health policies ( Cross et al ., 2020 ), health promotion strategies are also widely employed in health interventions targeting individuals. It could entail smoking cessation programs, weight loss programs and adolescent alcohol use, just to mention some common health outcome target areas ( Green et al. , 2019 ). Even when deploying health promotion strategies at a national policy level, it is not uncommon that the programs designed to target individuals and groups are more inspired by pathogenesis, rather than salutogenesis ( Nutbeam and Muscat, 2021 ).

A widespread strategy in the latter programs is that individuals are screened for a need to receive an intervention, so-called secondary or indicated prevention programs, where those who report a riskier lifestyle, or test worse on psychometric or biometric indicators are eligible for receiving the intervention, and those not having the same risks are excluded from the program on the premise that they are, based on study protocol definitions, healthy individuals.

Based on the principles of salutogenesis, this is a somewhat inappropriate approach. Within the strategy of health promotion, it is assumed that all people, no matter their level of risk, would find feedback on their health valuable. Those in need of change should receive the necessary resources and tools to change, whereas those who do not have to change should have their lifestyles positively reinforced. In addition, the prevention paradox ( Rose, 1981 ) postulates that it is important to address the majority, as there will be plenty of adverse health outcomes stemming from them. In conventional indicated prevention programs, attention to those who are non-eligible for interventions is, thus, often completely disregarded.

One common arena for such programs is primary health care. There is a wide range of evidence-based programs that have shown efficacy in reducing the health risks among those who have the riskiest lifestyles in relation to, e.g. alcohol use ( Beyer et al ., 2019 ), smoking ( Cantera et al ., 2015 ), depression ( Bortolotti et al ., 2008 ), diabetes ( Galaviz et al ., 2018 ) and cardiovascular diseases ( Álvarez-Bueno et al. , 2015 ). The at-risk groups vary across the different diseases, but a vast majority of patients targeted in the above studies were identified after screening as non-eligible to participate in the intervention in question. From this follows that a large number of individuals do not receive any substantial health information, nor are their health outcomes measured as they are not included in the intervention. From a health promotion perspective, this seems like a lost opportunity. Additionally, this raises the question of whether a healthy population is systematically disadvantaged compared to those individuals at high risk, which might point to some less-known health inequities or disparities ( Braveman, 2006 ) present in primary care.

In order to gain a better understanding of the effects of health promotion as an overall approach, and to understand the implications of the prevention paradox, it would be pertinent to include the non-eligible group in both the feedback loop—mainly offering them structured positive reinforcement—and to subsequently measure their health and attributed lifestyles.

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the role and extent of health promotion lifestyle interventions targeting adults in primary care, especially those who are considered overall healthy. More precisely we aim to assess to what extent health promotion practices in primary care address healthy individuals, not only those who need to undergo a lifestyle change. In order to do so, we performed a literature review, with three specific aims. First, to identify studies that have only targeted the healthy population, or healthy population in addition to high-risk group in intervention within the primary health care field with health promotion activities. Second, to describe these interventions in terms of which health problems they have targeted and what the interventions have entailed. Third, to assess what the initiatives published in the research literature have resulted in terms of health outcomes.

Due to the width of the topic and study designs we chose to perform a scoping review, with the aim of summarizing and disseminating previous research and identifying research gaps in the literature ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ). The search process was iterative and non-linear, reflecting upon the results from the literature search at each stage and then repeating steps where necessary to cover the literature more comprehensively ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ).

A few terms demand some further definition within the scope of this review . Healthy individual is a fluid term varying across different studies and contexts, yet it is a key concept in this particular study. The term involves those without chronic disease, who are indicated as not being of an elevated risk of developing a disease linked to the health outcome they have been screened for, but they could very well be at risk for diseases beyond the scope of the study they have been examined within. Primary health care may in this review indicates different types of settings from the most common one relating to general practitioners and family doctors to occupational medicine or periodical work-related health check-ups but also dental health care. Health promotion interventions in this study are understood as interventions that aim to keep people healthy longer, by providing positive feedback in relation to current and new health behaviours, rather than controlling health status by medication use.

Search strategy

The search was done across two databases PubMed and Embase, by combining different strings related to keywords ‘health promotion’ and ‘primary care’, while the rest of the strings varied, more specific search queries are available in Supplementary Appendix A . The search was conducted during June and July 2023 and consisted of publications dated between July 2008 and July 2023 (i.e. the last 15 years). Additional studies were identified manually from references of the included articles and by ‘See all similar articles’ option in PubMed and ‘similar records’ in Embase. The article titles were scanned from databases, followed by screening titles and abstracts through the Covidence software, and then finally the full articles were read. Results were filtered for adult humans, defined as age 18–75, abstracts being available and the studies were authored in English.

Articles were included if (i) the population consisted of working-age adults, (ii) the population included those screened as healthy within a whole sample followed by an intervention or interventions ideally at follow-up, (iii) the study focused on primary prevention (iv) the study focused on lifestyle interventions, (v) the study examined lifestyle-related behaviours. Exclusion criteria for papers were (i) focused on children—below the age of 18 or elderly, (ii) addiction behaviours, (iii) excluding healthy individuals from intervention after screening or using them exclusively in the control group, (iv) using only high-risk population as healthy, (v) promoting only mental health, (vi) secondary prevention, (vii) screening is the only intervention, (viii) reviews and study protocols.

After full-text screening, the data charting process for reviewing, sorting and documenting information ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ) was done using Covidence, Data Extraction version 2 recommended for scoping reviews. The Data Extraction Template included columns for article title, author, country in which the study was conducted, methods (aim, design, population description, inclusion and exclusion criteria) intervention description, outcome measures, relevant results, follow-up (yes/no), study setting (primary care, worksite/occupational, population-based), study category (lifestyle, physical activity and diet, cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption) and a field for additional notes where needed.

Due to great inconsistencies between studies in the design, populations and outcomes, critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence—an optional step in PRISMA-ScR ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ) guideline list was not done, although concerning research aim it would be useful for assessing the quality of evidence. Although exclusion/inclusion criteria were respected, what was considered as ‘healthy’, ‘middle-’ or ‘high-risk population’ differed significantly in studies, due to differences in definition of terms. Moreover, this decision was made as the AMSTAR tool would not be an adequate choice due to the inclusion of a non-randomized design, and although the AMSTAR 2 tool could potentially be used, this review also included several economic evaluations and follow-ups ( Supplementary Table S1 for more details), or indicators differing highly across studies.

For the synthesis of results ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ), the studies were grouped by the type of the outcome—disease, i.e. CVD or lifestyle/behaviour: physical activity and diet or alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the studies were summarized by setting, risk group and follow-up. None of the systematic reviews with similar research aims were detected during the search.

The selection of sources of evidence ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ) was done as described: 353 references were imported for screening, 72 duplicates were removed, 268 studies were screened against title and abstract during which 198 studies were excluded while 69 studies were assessed for full-text eligibility, when 27 studies were excluded: 12 for wrong intervention, 8 for wrong patient population, 4 for wrong study design 1 was not in English, 1 for wrong indication and 1 for wrong setting, after which 42 studies were included. PRISMA of full screening is found in Figure 1 .

PRISMA of full screening strategy.

Lifestyle interventions

A summary of the study setting, samples and the main outcomes of the 42 studies analysed in this scoping review is presented in Supplementary Table S1 .

In general, the intervention studies analysed here had different main strategies, including: individually tailored programs ( Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Gram et al ., 2012 ; Watson et al ., 2015 ) risk-based, group-based ( Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ) or mixed variants ( Matano et al ., 2007 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ).

Cardiovascular health

We found several different lifestyle interventions targeting CVD risk. There were a set of programs that addressed physical activity in the workplace, which significantly reduced the CVD risk in healthy participants adhering to the program ( Gram et al ., 2012 ; Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Eng et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ). In primary care, an observational study by Journath et al . (2020) , showed an association between healthy participant participation in a CVD prevention programme promoting physical activity and a healthy lifestyle with lower risk of CV events (12%), CV mortality (21%) and all-cause mortality (17%) after 20 years of follow-up.

Similarly, we found interventions in primary care settings that led to changes in physical activity and dietary patterns among all participants—not only those at high risk of CVD morbidity and mortality. These studies described generally decreased CVD risks ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ), CVD-related mortality ( Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Persson et al ., 2015 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ) and all-cause mortality ( Blomstedt et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ).

In a prospective observational study on healthy individuals and those with CVD conducted by Lidin et al . (2018) , the prevalence within the sample at risk of CVD decreased significantly at 12-month follow-up by 15%. In several studies, the changes in health behaviours among the participants showed to be sustained in follow-ups conducted after intervention discontinuation ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2015 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ), while some cardiovascular risk factors, such as salty diets and smoking, showed evidence of significant decrease in a relatively short period ( Nguyen et al ., 2012 ).

Physical activity and diet

In interventions addressing physical activity and diet, it was evident that healthy individuals were more likely to adhere to physical activity interventions ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ) compared to those with a disease. One community-based walking intervention ( Yang and Kim, 2022 ) affected not only the level of physical activity significantly but also a positive overall change towards a health-promoting lifestyle and decreased perceived stress. Similarly, several mental health measures including general mental health ( Oude Hengel et al ., 2014 ), anxiety and depression ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ) and stress ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ) in participants improved during interventions and at follow-up when targeting physical activity and diet.

Additionally, concerning physical activity and diet outcomes, there were a higher feasibility of uptake among participants in health promotion programs compared to those only receiving standard care in primary care ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Zabaleta-Del-Olmo et al ., 2021 ). Anokye et al. (2014) argued that brief advice intervention was more effective—leading to 466 QALYs gained, compared to standard care—implying greater cost-effectiveness.

Healthier lifestyles were also maintained at the follow-up. Reduction in risk factors was found to be sustained in follow-ups at 12 months ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ) or improvements in dietary outcomes over 5 years ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), and sustained lower blood pressure over 6 years ( Eng et al ., 2016 ).

Several interventions promoting physical activity in primary care settings showed significant results in increasing it in all patients, not only in those with chronic disease diagnosis ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Gram et al ., 2012 ; Hardcastle et al ., 2012 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Eng et al ., 2016 ; Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Matzer et al ., 2018 ; Yang and Kim, 2022 ), and similar patterns were also found concerning a change towards a healthier diet ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Kosendiak et al ., 2021 ).

There was disagreement among the above studies in relation to the effectiveness of these interventions among healthy individuals. For example, in the case of implementing a Mediterranean diet, one report argued that a healthy diet should be prioritized, indicating significant hazard ratios (HR) of attaining a Mediterranean diet for all-cause mortality (HR = 0.83), CV mortality (HR = 0.75) and CV events (HR = 0.79) among low-risk individuals ( Bo et al ., 2016 ). Others, however, claimed that there was no evidence of healthier participants being more susceptible to changes in physical activity and diet ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ).

Alcohol consumption

Interventions aimed at decreasing alcohol consumption were divided between those being most effective in high-risk drinkers ( Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Kirkman et al ., 2018 ), and both moderate and low-risk drinkers ( Matano et al ., 2007 ). These interventions were, at large, seen as cost-saving ( Watson et al ., 2015 ) and feasible in primary care ( Neuner-Jehle et al ., 2013 ). Some studies found a sustained decrease in alcohol consumption in those adhering to the interventions, compared to the control groups at 1 ( Pemberton et al ., 2011 ) and 4 months after the intervention ( Kirkman et al ., 2018 ), whereas others failed to find a significant difference between groups.

Intervention setting

The interventions took place in primary care settings, though these were either in community-based or occupational settings. The findings suggested that there were some discrepancies between these different settings.

When it comes to a community-based setting, the difference is made between interventions conducted on a sample of those visiting primary health care or a sample representative for a population of one community—town, or region. Primary care community-based studies tended to either include participants who were primary care visitors with a long follow-up period, or interventions conducted in primary care clinic centres with a shorter follow-up period, most often using experimental design, sampling individuals living in the community that did not necessarily had an intention to seek care ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Hardcastle et al ., 2012 ; Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Grunfeld et al ., 2013 ; Baumann et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lidin et al ., 2018 ; Zabaleta-Del-Olmo et al ., 2021 ).

Overall, the community-based studies were conducted on a sample representative for a population of a smaller community ( Kosendiak et al ., 2021 ; Yang and Kim, 2022 ), region ( Lingfors et al ., 2009 ; Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Gibson et al ., 2014 ; Persson et al ., 2015 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ; Journath et al ., 2020 ) or a country ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Neuner-Jehle et al ., 2013 ), often followed by a longer follow-up period. Finally, some studies were evaluations of previous interventions ( Richardson et al ., 2008 ; Anokye et al ., 2014 ).

Worksite interventions comprised of different occupational roles, often including several of those in the same sample ( Eng et al ., 2016 ), or segmenting based on how physically active the occupation was, e.g. office workers ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ), construction workers ( Gram et al ., 2012 ; Oude Hengel et al ., 2014 ; Viester et al ., 2015 ), sailors ( Hjarnoe and Leppin, 2013 ), farmers ( van Doorn et al ., 2019 ) or simply more active individuals ( Biffi et al ., 2018 ). This had the implication that approaches to intervention differed widely across the studies.

Several interventions were conducted online using a web-based interface, while others were in a professional setting ( Matano et al ., 2007 ; Doumas and Hannah, 2008 ; Robroek et al ., 2010 ; Pemberton et al ., 2011 ; Khadjesari et al ., 2014 ) or in some cases community-based ( Recio-Rodriguez et al ., 2016 ; Kirkman et al ., 2018 ).

Categorization of risk among participants

Many studies applied specific risk criteria based on the participants’ morbidity risks: including groups of low, middle, high risk ( Persson et al ., 2015 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ; Lingfors and Persson, 2019 ), low and high risk ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), middle and high risk ( Gibson et al ., 2014 ). While some did not distinguish between risk groups ( Wendel-Vos et al ., 2009 ; Blomstedt et al ., 2011 ; Byrne et al ., 2016 ; Journath et al ., 2020 ). In some studies, however, the protocol included mixed populations of those who were healthy and those who had a chronic disease ( Anokye et al ., 2014 ; Bonaccio et al ., 2019 ). Finally, different studies came up with their own meaning of ‘healthy individual’ or ‘healthy population’ based on the health problem they addressed, i.e. having a sedentary lifestyle or high alcohol consumption. Other criteria for being a part of a healthy population were having a high risk for a disease, one or several risks but not the disease itself, or being above a reference value without having a diagnosis.

Ethical implications of healthy controls

Some interventions were screening-result-based, meaning that there was a difference in the treatment of those with good health and those with some complications. In other words, although not excluding healthy individuals, the study protocol included healthy individuals partially receiving full treatment, in the intervention. Studies that excluded those who were healthy from the sample after screening or used them as a control group were excluded from this review. However, some included studies had a healthy control group. Overall, the studies included in this review did not discuss the ethical implications of including healthy populations as controls, or when that was the case, the ethical impact of excluding healthy participants from an intervention.

This scoping review speaks not only of the role and extent of health promotion for healthy individuals in primary care but also of the importance and effects it has on population health. The results showing the association of lifestyle interventions with CVD risk show great implications for future use in primary care, different contexts and feasibility. Physical activity interventions were additionally found to be related to some improvements in mental health.

Interventions aimed at alcohol consumption were found successful in decreasing the amount of drinking sustainably, while the main discussion was based on whether they should be aimed at high-risk only, or at middle- and low-risk drinkers as well, due to mixed results in said groups. The majority of interventions were based in a worksite setting, meaning that this context might be useful for tackling the issue. This approach showed that outcomes might be beneficial even when not reaching the primary goal. Examples of this are findings showing that although not reducing CVD risk, changes in health behaviours were sustained in follow-up ( Baumann et al ., 2015 ), less drastic changes decreasing CVD risk in the healthy population ( Buckland et al ., 2009 ) and beneficial effects of physical activity intervention on worker’s health without an overall increase in physical activity ( McEachan et al ., 2011 ). Finally, in most cases, as mentioned, changes in health behaviours were associated with changes in CVD risk.

Some interventions showed that health promotion benefits could be even bigger ( Bo et al ., 2016 ) or that adherence is higher in healthy participants ( Dalager et al ., 2016 ; Biffi et al ., 2018 ; Jeong et al ., 2019 ), while other authors disagree ( Robroek et al ., 2010 ). This could be traced to the topic of prioritising primary care for healthy, versus only those at high risk/ already with a disease—secondary care approach according to this review definitions. Designing interventions only for high-risk can make them less successful in healthy participants, as displayed in a study by Blomstedt et al . (2011) where self-rated health decreased in 21% of the good baseline health participants at the 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, from the Rose’s (1981) term of prevention paradox—a great benefit for the population can be almost non-existent for an individual, while if we only focus on high-risk cases, many individuals at low-risk can mean worse health outcomes compared to a small number at high-risk ( Rose, 2001 ). In other words, by focusing only on high-risk population, the downsides are care that can be less efficient, less feasible, more expensive and lead to worse health outcomes. This choice should not be exclusive, as excluding either populations can cause ethical concerns. However, this article gives priority to early prevention, by health promotion for healthy individuals in primary care. Additionally, if it is shown that ‘ Systems based on primary care have better population health, health equity, and health care quality, and lower health care expenditure… ’ ( Stange et al. , 2023 ), different treatment of those who are currently healthy presents an obstacle worth mentioning for achieving health equity in primary care. Furthermore, the role of promoting health to healthy populations and their inclusion in interventions is crucial for improving population health in the future.

Articles focusing on smoking cessation, alcoholism, substance misuse interventions were excluded from this scoping review as they represent addictions and are therefore different from lifestyle interventions. Originally, oral health and dental care interventions were to be included, but there were not enough studies matching the scoping review inclusion requirements.

As expected, the process of finding articles appropriate for inclusion was challenging. Even when the inclusion criteria, at first glance, were satisfied, most studies we came across had excluded healthy participants from the sample after screening for being asymptomatic or not having enough risk factors. They were, however, often a part of a control group, and usually received standard care or no care at all. This approach puts healthy individuals in a vulnerable position, by not addressing their needs to change lifestyles that eventually could contribute to an early death or becoming unwell. Our findings suggest that interventions that include healthy individuals could improve quality of life and health status both at the population and individual levels.

Due to studies using different risk criteria, as well as including many study designs and topics, it was hard to make general conclusions. Nevertheless, as a scoping review, we mapped the area of research by identifying the gaps in the evidence base, and summarizing and disseminating research findings ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ), instead of appraising the quality of evidence in different studies.

Concerning the above, a big research gap was detected in studies focusing on, or even including healthy populations. Furthermore, there is a lack of a coherent or comprehensive methodology in assessing the effects of what is considered health promotion, which calls for a more specific approach and a clear definition of the term. Additionally, the question of intervention staff skills should be raised. Is it necessary that health promotion interventions should be conducted by clinically trained professionals or, innovatively, by staff trained in the topic at hand when possible? Another aspect that is important to problematize is whether it is ethical to exclude healthy individuals in health promotion intervention studies even if they would benefit from participating if included? Furthermore, if healthy individuals are systematically discriminated ( Braveman, 2006 ), receive worse treatment and have the risk of worse health outcomes in the future, it is critical to include them in interventions for achieving better health of populations. This has great practical implications for primary care. Similarly, from a cost-benefit perspective, research should address if excluding healthy individuals might affect the cost-effectiveness of health promotion interventions.

An apparent limitation within this review is the culturally uniform sample of studies. Most studies that we were able to identify were a result of research in the global north, with a strong emphasis on either North America or the EU. Only two studies were from less affluent settings in Southeast Asia ( Nguyen et al ., 2012 ; Bo et al ., 2016 ). Given that the findings suggest that these interventions are cost-effective and do not require substantial investments, these programs could have great potential in low-resource settings if more systematically researched.

This scoping review of 42 studies applying salutogenesis in primary care interventions shows that health promotion targeting healthy individuals is relevant and effective. Most interventions were successful in reducing disease-related risks including CVD, CVD mortality, all-cause mortality, but even more importantly success in behavioural change, sustained at follow-up. Additionally, this review shows that health promotion lifestyle interventions can improve mental health, even when having different aims.

Supplementary material is available at Health Promotion International online.

A.B. performed the literature search, performed most of the data analysis and was the major contributor in writing the Methods and Results sections of the manuscript. M.S. formulated the research questions and scope of the study. He gave considerable input to the data analysis, gave input on all sections of the study—including writing and editing—and was the main author of the Introduction and Discussion. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

We would like to express our gratitude to Maria Björklund, librarian, at the Faculty of Medicine Library, Lund University at CRC in Malmö, who assisted us in the literature search.

A.B.’s contribution was in part funded by a scholarship she received from the Faculty of Medicine and in part by internal funds at the Division of Social Medicine and Global Health, Lund University, the latter also funded M.S.’s contribution.

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.

Álvarez-Bueno , C. , Cavero-Redondo , I. , Martínez-Andrés , M. , Arias-Palencia , N. , Ramos-Blanes , R. and Salcedo-Aguilar , F. ( 2015 ) Effectiveness of multifactorial interventions in primary health care settings for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of systematic reviews . Preventive Medicine , 76 , S68 – S75 .

Google Scholar

Anokye , N. K. , Lord , J. and Fox-Rushby , J. ( 2014 ) Is brief advice in primary care a cost-effective way to promote physical activity ? British Journal of Sports Medicine , 48 , 202 – 206 .

Arksey , H. and O’Malley , L. ( 2005 ) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 , 19 – 32 .

Baumann , S. , Toft , U. , Aadahl , M. , Jørgensen , T. and Pisinger , C. ( 2015 ) The long-term effect of screening and lifestyle counseling on changes in physical activity and diet: the Inter99 Study—a randomized controlled trial . The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 12 , 33 .

Beyer , F. R. , Campbell , F. , Bertholet , N. , Daeppen , J. B. , Saunders , J. B. , Pienaar , E. D. et al. . ( 2019 ) The Cochrane 2018 review on brief interventions in primary care for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption: a distillation for clinicians and policy makers . Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) , 54 , 417 – 427 .

Biffi , A. , Fernando , F. , Adami , P. E. , Messina , M. , Sirico , F. , Di Paolo , F. et al. . ( 2018 ) Ferrari corporate wellness program: results of a pilot analysis and the ‘Drag’ impact in the workplace . High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention , 25 , 261 – 266 .

Blomstedt , Y. , Emmelin , M. and Weinehall , L. ( 2011 ) What about healthy participants? The improvement and deterioration of self-reported health at a 10-year follow-up of the Västerbotten Intervention Programme . Global Health Action , 4 , 5435 .

Blomstedt , Y. , Norberg , M. , Stenlund , H. , Nyström , L. , Lönnberg , G. , Boman , K. et al. . ( 2015 ) Impact of a combined community and primary care prevention strategy on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a cohort analysis based on 1 million person-years of follow-up in Västerbotten County, Sweden, during 1990-2006 . BMJ Open , 5 , e009651 .

Bo , S. , Ponzo , V. , Goitre , I. , Fadda , M. , Pezzana , A. , Beccuti , G. et al. . ( 2016 ) Predictive role of the Mediterranean diet on mortality in individuals at low cardiovascular risk: a 12-year follow-up population-based cohort study . Journal of Translational Medicine , 14 , 91 .

Bonaccio , M. , Di Castelnuovo , A. , Costanzo , S. , De Curtis , A. , Persichillo , M. , Cerletti , C. et al. ; Moli-sani Study Investigators . ( 2019 ) Impact of combined healthy lifestyle factors on survival in an adult general population and in high-risk groups: prospective results from the Moli-sani Study . Journal of Internal Medicine , 286 , 207 – 220 .

Bortolotti , B. , Menchetti , M. , Bellini , F. , Montaguti , M. B. and Berardi , D. ( 2008 ) Psychological interventions for major depression in primary care: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials . General Hospital Psychiatry , 30 , 293 – 302 .

Braveman , P. ( 2006 ) Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement . Annual Review of Public Health , 27 , 167 – 194 .

Buckland , G. , González , C. A. , Agudo , A. , Vilardell , M. , Berenguer , A. , Amiano , P. et al. . ( 2009 ) Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and risk of coronary heart disease in the Spanish EPIC cohort study . American Journal of Epidemiology , 170 , 1518 – 1529 .

Byrne , D. W. , Rolando , L. A. , Aliyu , M. H. , McGown , P. W. , Connor , L. R. , Awalt , B. M. et al. . ( 2016 ) Modifiable healthy lifestyle behaviors: 10-year health outcomes from a health promotion program . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 51 , 1027 – 1037 .

Cantera , C. M. , Puigdomènech , E. , Ballvé , J. L. , Arias , O. L. , Clemente , L. , Casas , R. et al. . ( 2015 ) Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review . BMJ Open , 5 , e008807 .

Cross , R. , Foster , S. , O’Neil , I. , Rowlands , S. , Warwick-Booth , L. and Woodall , J . ( 2020 ) Health Promotion: Global Principles and Practice . CABI , Wallingford .

Google Preview

Dalager , T. , Justesen , J. B. , Murray , M. , Boyle , E. and Sjøgaard , G. ( 2016 ) Implementing intelligent physical exercise training at the workplace: health effects among office workers—a randomized controlled trial . European Journal of Applied Physiology , 116 , 1433 – 1442 .

Doumas , D. M. and Hannah , E. ( 2008 ) Preventing high-risk drinking in youth in the workplace: a web-based normative feedback program . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 34 , 263 – 271 .

Eng , J. Y. , Moy , F. M. and Bulgiba , A. ( 2016 ) Impact of a workplace health promotion program on employees’ blood pressure in a public university . PLoS One , 11 , e0148307 .

Galaviz , K. I. , Weber , M. B. , Straus , A. , Haw , J. S. , Narayan , K. V. and Ali , M. K. ( 2018 ) Global diabetes prevention interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the real-world impact on incidence, weight, and glucose . Diabetes Care , 41 , 1526 – 1534 .

Gibson , I. , Flaherty , G. , Cormican , S. , Jones , J. , Kerins , C. , Walsh , A. M. et al. . ( 2014 ) Translating guidelines to practice: findings from a multidisciplinary preventive cardiology programme in the west of Ireland . European Journal of Preventive Cardiology , 21 , 366 – 376 .

Gram , B. , Holtermann , A. , Søgaard , K. and Sjøgaard , G. ( 2012 ) Effect of individualized worksite exercise training on aerobic capacity and muscle strength among construction workers—a randomized controlled intervention study . Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health , 38 , 467 – 475 .

Green , J. , Cross , R. , Woodall , J. and Tones , K. ( 2019 ) Health Promotion: Planning & Strategies , 4th edition. Sage , London .

Grunfeld , E. , Manca , D. , Moineddin , R. , Thorpe , K. E. , Hoch , J. S. , Campbell-Scherer , D. et al. ; BETTER Trial Investigators . ( 2013 ) Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial . BMC Family Practice , 14 , 175 .

Hardcastle , S. , Blake , N. and Hagger , M. S. ( 2012 ) The effectiveness of a motivational interviewing primary-care based intervention on physical activity and predictors of change in a disadvantaged community . Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 35 , 318 – 333 .

Hjarnoe , L. and Leppin , A. ( 2013 ) Health promotion in the Danish maritime setting: challenges and possibilities for changing lifestyle behavior and health among seafarers . BMC Public Health , 13 , 1 – 12 .

Jeong , S. W. , Kim , S. H. , Kang , S. H. , Kim , H. J. , Yoon , C. H. , Youn , T. J. et al. . ( 2019 ) Mortality reduction with physical activity in patients with and without cardiovascular disease . European Heart Journal , 40 , 3547 – 3555 .

Journath , G. , Hammar , N. , Vikström , M. , Linnersjö , A. , Walldius , G. , Krakau , I. et al. . ( 2020 ) A Swedish primary healthcare prevention programme focusing on promotion of physical activity and a healthy lifestyle reduced cardiovascular events and mortality: 22-year follow-up of 5761 study participants and a reference group . British Journal of Sports Medicine , 54 , 1294 – 1299 .

Khadjesari , Z. , Freemantle , N. , Linke , S. , Hunter , R. and Murray , E. ( 2014 ) Health on the web: randomised controlled trial of online screening and brief alcohol intervention delivered in a workplace setting . PLoS One , 9 , e112553 .

Kirkman , J. J. L. , Leo , B. and Moore , J. C. ( 2018 ) Alcohol consumption reduction among a web-based supportive community using the hello Sunday morning blog platform: observational study . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 20 , e196 .

Kosendiak , A. , Felińczak , A. and Szymańska-Chabowska , A. ( 2021 ) The role of physical training in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in a population of healthy people . The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness , 61 , 844 – 850 .

Lidin , M. , Hellénius , M. L. , Rydell-Karlsson , M. and Ekblom-Bak , E. ( 2018 ) Long-term effects on cardiovascular risk of a structured multidisciplinary lifestyle program in clinical practice . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 18 , 59 .

Lingfors , H. and Persson , L. -G. ( 2019 ) All-cause mortality among young men 24–26 years after a lifestyle health dialogue in a Swedish primary care setting: a longitudinal follow-up register study . BMJ Open , 9 , e022474 .

Lingfors , H. , Persson , L. G. , Lindström , K. , Bengtsson , C. and Lissner , L. ( 2009 ) Effects of a global health and risk assessment tool for prevention of ischemic heart disease in an individual health dialogue compared with a community health strategy only results from the Live for Life health promotion programme . Preventive Medicine , 48 , 20 – 24 .

Matano , R. A. , Koopman , C. , Wanat , S. F. , Winzelberg , A. J. , Whitsell , S. D. , Westrup , D. et al. . ( 2007 ) A pilot study of an interactive web site in the workplace for reducing alcohol consumption . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 32 , 71 – 80 .

Matzer , F. , Nagele , E. , Lerch , N. , Vajda , C. and Fazekas , C. ( 2018 ) Combining walking and relaxation for stress reduction—a randomized cross-over trial in healthy adults . Stress and Health , 34 , 266 – 277 .

McEachan , R. R. C. , Lawton , R. J. , Jackson , C. , Conner , M. , Meads , D. M. and West , R. M. ( 2011 ) Testing a workplace physical activity intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 8 , 29 .

Neuner-Jehle , S. , Schmid , M. and Grüninger , U. ( 2013 ) The ‘Health Coaching’ programme: a new patient-centred and visually supported approach for health behaviour change in primary care . BMC Family Practice , 14 , 100 .

Nguyen , Q. N. , Pham , S. T. , Nguyen , V. L. , Weinehall , L. , Wall , S. , Bonita , R. et al. . ( 2012 ) Effectiveness of community-based comprehensive healthy lifestyle promotion on cardiovascular disease risk factors in a rural Vietnamese population: a quasi-experimental study . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 12 , 56 .

Nutbeam , D. and Muscat , D. M. ( 2021 ) Health promotion glossary 2021 . Health Promotion International , 36 , 1578 – 1598 .

Oude Hengel , K. M. , Bosmans , J. E. , Van Dongen , J. M. , Bongers , P. M. , Van der Beek , A. J. and Blatter , B. M. ( 2014 ) Prevention program at construction worksites aimed at improving health and work ability is cost-saving to the employer: results from an RCT . American Journal of Industrial Medicine , 57 , 56 – 68 .

Pemberton , M. R. , Williams , J. , Herman-Stahl , M. , Calvin , S. L. , Bradshaw , M. R. , Bray , R. M. et al. . ( 2011 ) Evaluation of two web-based alcohol interventions in the U.S. military . Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs , 72 , 480 – 489 .

Persson , L. G. , Lingfors , H. , Nilsson , M. and Mölstad , S. ( 2015 ) The possibility of lifestyle and biological risk markers to predict morbidity and mortality in a cohort of young men after 26 years follow-up . BMJ Open , 5 , e006798 .

Recio-Rodriguez , J. I. , Agudo-Conde , C. , Martin-Cantera , C. , González-Viejo , M. N. , Fernandez-Alonso , M. D. C. , Arietaleanizbeaskoa , M. S. et al. ; EVIDENT Investigators . ( 2016 ) Short-term effectiveness of a mobile phone app for increasing physical activity and adherence to the Mediterranean diet in primary care: a randomized controlled trial (EVIDENT II study) . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 18 , e331 .

Richardson , G. , van Woerden , H. C. , Morgan , L. , Edwards , R. , Harries , M. , Hancock , E. et al. . ( 2008 ) Healthy hearts—a community-based primary prevention programme to reduce coronary heart disease . BMC Cardiovascular Disorders , 8 , 18 .

Robroek , S. J. , Brouwer , W. , Lindeboom , D. , Oenema , A. and Burdorf , A. ( 2010 ) Demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial correlates of using the website component of a worksite physical activity and healthy nutrition promotion program: a longitudinal study . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 12 , e44 .

Rose , G. ( 1981 ) Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease . British Medical Journal , 282 , 1847 – 1851 .

Rose , G. ( 2001 ) Sick individuals and sick populations . International Journal of Epidemiology , 30 , 427 – 432; discussion 433 .

Stange , K. C. , Miller , W. L. and Etz , R. S. ( 2023 ) The role of primary care in improving population health . The Milbank Quarterly , 101 , 795 – 840 .

Tricco , A. C. , Lillie , E. , Zarin , W. , O’Brien , K. K. , Colquhoun , H. , Levac , D. et al. . ( 2018 ) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation . Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 , 467 – 473 .

van Doorn , D. , Richardson , N. , Osborne , A. and Blake , C. ( 2019 ) The impact of a workplace cardiovascular health screening programme ‘Farmers have hearts’ on health behaviour change among Irish farmers . Work , 63 , 113 – 123 .

Viester , L. , Verhagen , E. A. , Bongers , P. M. and van der Beek , A. J. ( 2015 ) The effect of a health promotion intervention for construction workers on work-related outcomes: results from a randomized controlled trial . International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health , 88 , 789 – 798 .

Watson , H. , Godfrey , C. , McFadyen , A. , McArthur , K. , Stevenson , M. and Holloway , A. ( 2015 ) Screening and brief intervention delivery in the workplace to reduce alcohol-related harm: a pilot randomized controlled trial . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 52 , 39 – 48 .

Wendel-Vos , G. C. , Dutman , A. E. , Verschuren , W. M. , Ronckers , E. T. , Ament , A. , van Assema , P. et al. . ( 2009 ) Lifestyle factors of a five-year community-intervention program: the Hartslag Limburg intervention . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 37 , 50 – 56 .

Yang , S. and Kim , H. ( 2022 ) Effects of a walking exercise-focused health promotion program for middle-aged women in the Korean community . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 , 14947 .

Zabaleta-Del-Olmo , E. , Casajuana-Closas , M. , López-Jiménez , T. , Pombo , H. , Pons-Vigués , M. , Pujol-Ribera , E. et al. . ( 2021 ) Multiple health behaviour change primary care intervention for smoking cessation, physical activity and healthy diet in adults 45 to 75 years old (EIRA study): a hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised trial . BMC Public Health , 21 , 2208 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2245
• Print ISSN 0957-4824
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.