systematic review master thesis

Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe

• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Damir Sapunar 3  

Systematic Reviews volume  6 , Article number:  253 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

25 Citations

63 Altmetric

Metrics details

Systematic reviews (SRs) have been proposed as a type of research methodology that should be acceptable for a graduate research thesis. The aim of this study was to analyse whether PhD theses in European biomedical graduate programs can be partly or entirely based on SRs.

In 2016, we surveyed individuals in charge of European PhD programs from 105 institutions. The survey asked about acceptance of SRs as the partial or entire basis for a PhD thesis, their attitude towards such a model for PhD theses, and their knowledge about SR methodology.

We received responses from 86 individuals running PhD programs in 68 institutions (institutional response rate of 65%). In 47% of the programs, SRs were an acceptable study design for a PhD thesis. However, only 20% of participants expressed a personal opinion that SRs meet the criteria for a PhD thesis. The most common reasons for not accepting SRs as the basis for PhD theses were that SRs are ‘not a result of a PhD candidate’s independent work, but more of a team effort’ and that SRs ‘do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation’. The majority of participants were not familiar with basic concepts related to SRs; questions about meta-analyses and the type of plots frequently used in SRs were correctly answered by only one third of the participants.

Conclusions

Raising awareness about the importance of SRs and their methodology could contribute to higher acceptance of SRs as a type of research that forms the basis of a PhD thesis.

Peer Review reports

Systematic reviews (SRs) are a type of secondary research, which refers to the analysis of data that have already been collected through primary research [ 1 ]. Even though SRs are a secondary type of research, a SR needs to start with a clearly defined research question and must follow rigorous research methodology, including definition of the study design a priori, data collection, appraisal of study quality, numerical analyses in the form of meta-analyses and other analyses when relevant and formulation of results and conclusions. Aveyard and Sharp defined SRs as ‘original empirical research’ because they ‘review, evaluate and synthesise all the available primary data, which can be either quantitative or qualitative’ [ 2 ]. Therefore, a SR represents a new research contribution to society and is considered the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence in medicine [ 3 ].

SRs have been proposed as a type of research methodology that should be acceptable as the basis for a graduate research thesis [ 4 , 5 ]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the acceptance of SRs as the basis for PhD theses. A recent review addressed potential advantages and disadvantages of such a thesis type and presented opposing arguments about the issue [ 5 ]. However, there were no actual data that would indicate how prevalent one opinion is over another with regard to the acceptance of a SR as the primary research methodology for a PhD thesis. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess whether a PhD thesis in European biomedical graduate programs can be partly or entirely based on a SR, as well as to explore the attitudes and knowledge of individuals in charge of PhD programs with regard to a thesis of this type.

Participants

The Organization of PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System (ORPHEUS) includes 105 institutional members from 40 countries and six associate members from Canada, Georgia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and the USA [ 6 ]. The ORPHEUS encompasses a network of higher education institutions committed to developing and disseminating best practice within PhD training programs in biomedicine, health sciences and public health. ORPHEUS approved the use of their mailing list for the purpose of this study. The mailing list had 1049 contacts. The study authors were not given the mailing list due to data protection and privacy. Instead, it was agreed that ORPHEUS officials would send the survey via email to the mailing list. The General Secretary of the ORPHEUS contacted individuals responsible for PhD programs (directors or deputy directors) among the institutional members, via e-mail, on 5th of July 2016. These individuals were sent an invitation to complete an online survey about SRs as the basis for PhD theses. We invited only individuals responsible for PhD programs (e.g., directors, deputy directors, head of graduate school, vice deans for graduate school or similar). We also asked them to communicate with other individuals in charge of their program to make sure that only one person per PhD program filled out the survey. If there were several PhD programs within one institution, we asked for participation of one senior person per program.

The survey was administered via Survey Monkey (Portland, OR, USA). The survey took 5–10 min to complete. One reminder was sent to the targeted participants 1 month after the first mail.

The ethics committee of the University of Split School of Medicine approved this study, which formed part of the Croatian Science Foundation grant no. IP-2014-09-7672 ‘Professionalism in Health Care’.

Questionnaire

The 20-item questionnaire, designed specifically for this study by both authors (LP and DS), was first tested for face validity and clarity among five individuals in charge of PhD programs. The questionnaire was then modified according to their feedback. The questionnaire included questions about their PhD program; whether PhD candidates are required to publish manuscript(s) before thesis defence; the minimum number of required manuscripts for defending a PhD thesis; the authorship requirements for a PhD candidate with regard to published manuscript(s); whether there is a requirement for a PhD candidate to publish manuscript(s) in journals indexed in certain databases or journals of certain quality, and how the quality is defined; the description about other requirements for defending a PhD thesis; whether a SR partly or fully meets requirements for approval of a PhD thesis in their graduate program; what are the rules related to the use of a SR as the basis for a PhD thesis; and the number of PhD theses based on SRs relative to other types of research methods.

Participants were also asked about their opinion with regard to the main reasons that SRs are not recognised in some institutions as the basis for a doctoral dissertation, and their opinion about literature reviews, using a four-item Likert scale, ranging from ‘agree’ to ‘disagree’, including an option for ‘don’t know’. In the last question, the participants’ knowledge about SR methodology was examined using nine statements; participants had to rate each statement as either ‘correct’, ‘incorrect’, ‘unsure’ or ‘I don’t know’. Finally, participants were invited to leave their email address if they wanted to receive survey results. The survey sent to the study participants can be found in an additional file (Additional file  1 ).

Data analysis

Survey responses were entered into a spreadsheet, checked by both authors and analysed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA). Descriptive data are presented as frequencies and percentages. All raw data and analysed data sets used in the manuscript are available from authors on request. A point-biserial correlation (SPSS, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to measure the strength of the association between results on the knowledge test (continuous variable) and the attitude towards SRs as the basis for dissertations (dichotomous variable; we used the answer to the following question as this measure: ‘Do you agree that a systematic review, in whole or in part, meets the criteria for a publication on which a doctoral dissertation can be based?’).

Study participants

There are 105 institutions included in the ORPHEUS network. We received a response from 86 individuals representing 68 institutions from 37 countries (65% institutional response rate). There were more respondents than institutions because some institutions have several PhD programs and thus several program directors. Those responders were used as a unit of analysis in the analysis of attitudes and knowledge; institutions were the unit of analysis when analysing criteria for theses. Some of the questionnaires ( n  = 15) were only partly completed. In most cases, the missing data were related to knowledge about SR methodology.

Overview of requirements for a dissertation

Based on the information provided by the graduate program directors, in the majority of the included PhD programs, students were required to publish a research manuscript prepared within their PhD thesis prior to their thesis defence (83%; n  = 64). Among 13 programs (17%) that did not have this requirement, five respondents (38%) indicated that in their opinion their school’s rules related to a PhD thesis should be changed such as to specify that each thesis should be based on work that is already published in a journal.

The minimum number of published manuscripts necessary for the PhD thesis defence was prespecified in 94% ( n  = 60) of the programs that required publication of research manuscripts prior to the thesis defence. In most of the programs (37%; n  = 22), the number of required manuscripts was three or more. Two manuscripts were required in 30% ( n  = 18) and one was required in 33% ( n  = 20) of the programs. In four programs, there was no formal policy on this matter, but there was a strong expectation that the student will have contributed substantially to several manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.

In most cases, the PhD candidates’ contribution to published manuscripts within the PhD thesis was determined through first authorship. A requirement that a PhD candidate should be the first author on a manuscript(s) that constitutes a PhD thesis was reported in 82% ( n  = 64) of the graduate programs.

In 60% ( n  = 52) of the graduate programs, the quality of the journals where a PhD candidate has to publish research manuscripts as a part of a PhD thesis was defined by the database in which these journals are indexed. The most commonly specified databases were Web of Science (41%; n  = 35) and MEDLINE/PubMed (13%; n  = 11), followed by Science Citation Index, Scopus, Current Contents, a combination of several databases or, in two cases, a combination of journals from a list defined by some governing body.

Systematic reviews as a PhD thesis

SRs, in whole or in part, met the criteria for acceptable research methodology for a PhD thesis in 47% ( n  = 40) of programs, whereas 53% ( n  = 46) of programs specifically stated that they did not accept SRs in this context (Fig.  1 a, b). Among the programs that accepted SRs, theses could be exclusively based on a SR in 42% ( n  = 17) of programs, while in the remaining programs, SRs were acceptable as one publication among others in a dissertation.

a European PhD programs that recognise a systematic review as a PhD thesis (green dot) and those that do not (red dot). Half red and half green dots indicate the five universities with institutions that have opposite rules regarding recognition of a systematic review as a PhD thesis. The pie chart presents b the percentage of the programs in which systematic reviews, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a dissertation and c the opinion of participants about whether systematic reviews should form the basis of a publication within a PhD dissertation

The majority of participants (80%; n  = 69) indicated that SRs did not meet criteria for a publication on which a PhD dissertation should be based (Fig.  1 c). The main arguments for not recognising a SR as the basis for a PhD thesis are listed in Table  1 . The majority of respondents were neutral regarding the idea that scoping reviews or SRs should replace traditional narrative reviews preceding the results of clinical and basic studies in doctoral theses. Most of the respondents agreed that narrative or critical/discursive literature reviews preceding clinical studies planned as part of a dissertation should be replaced with systematic reviews (Table  2 ).

Most of the programs that accepted SRs as a research methodology acceptable for PhD theses had defined rules related to the use of an SR as part of a PhD thesis (Fig.  2 ). The most common rule was that a SR can be one publication among others within a PhD thesis. Some of the respondents indicated that empty (reviews that did not find a single study that should be included after literature search) or updated reviews could also be used for a PhD thesis (Fig.  2 ).

Frequency of different rules that define the use of systematic reviews as a part of a PhD thesis in European biomedical graduate programs

The results of the survey regarding knowledge about SR methodology indicated that the majority of respondents were not familiar with this methodology. Only three out of nine questions were correctly answered by more than 80% of the participants, and questions about meta-analyses and the type of plots frequently used in a SR were correctly answered by only one third of the participants (Table  3 ). The association between participants’ results on the knowledge test and attitudes towards SRs was tested using a point-biserial correlation; this revealed that lack of knowledge was not correlated with negative attitudes towards SRs ( r pb  = 0.011; P  = 0.94).

In this study conducted among individuals in charge of biomedical graduate programs in Europe, we found that 47% of programs accepted SRs as research methodology that can partly or fully fulfil the criteria for a PhD thesis. However, most of the participants had negative attitudes about such a model for a PhD thesis, and most had insufficient knowledge about the basic aspects of SR methodology. These negative attitudes and lack of knowledge likely contribute to low acceptance of SRs as an acceptable study design to include in a PhD thesis.

A limitation of this study was that we relied on participants’ responses and not on assessments of formal rules of PhD programs. Due to a lack of familiarity with SRs, it is possible that the respondents gave incorrect answers. We believe that this might be the case since we received answers from different programs in the same university, where one person claimed that SRs were accepted in their program, and the other person claimed that they were not accepted in the other program. We had five such cases, so it is possible that institutions within the same university have different rules related to accepted research methodology in graduate PhD programs. This study may not be generalisable to different PhD programs worldwide that were not surveyed. The study is also not generalisable to Europe, as there are no universal criteria or expectations for PhD theses in Europe. Even in the same country, there may be different models and expectations for a PhD in different higher education institutions.

A recent study indicated a number of opposing views and disadvantages related to SRs as research methodology for graduate theses, including lack of knowledge and understanding by potential supervisors, which may prevent them from being mentors and assisting students to complete such a study [ 5 ]. This same manuscript emphasised that there may be constraints if the study is conducted in a resource-limited environment without access to electronic databases, that there may be a very high or very low number of relevant studies that can impact the review process, that methods may not be well developed for certain types of research syntheses and that it may be difficult to publish SRs [ 5 ].

Some individuals believe that a SR is not original research. Indeed, it has been suggested that SRs as ‘secondary research’ are different than ‘primary or original research’, implying that they are inferior and lacking in novelty and methodological rigour as compared to studies that are considered primary research. In 1995, Feinstein suggested that such studies are ‘statistical alchemy for the 21st century’ and that a meta-analysis removes or destructs ‘scientific requirements that have been so carefully developed and established during the 19th and 20th centuries’ [ 7 ]. There is little research about this methodological issue. Meerpohl et al. surveyed journal editors and asked whether they consider SRs to be original studies. The majority of the editors indicated that they do think that SRs are original scientific contributions (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. That study also highlighted that the definition of original research may be a grey area [ 8 ]. They argued that, in an ideal situation, ‘the research community would accept systematic reviews as a research category of its own, which is defined by methodological criteria, as is the case for other types of research’ [ 8 ]. Biondi-Zoccai et al. pointed out that the main criteria to judge a SR should be its novelty and usefulness, and not whether it is original/primary or secondary research [ 9 ].

In our study, 80% of the participants reported negative attitudes, and more than half of the respondents agreed with a statement that SRs are ‘not a result of the candidate’s independent work since systematic reviews tend to be conducted by a team’. This opinion is surprising since other types of research are also conducted within a team, and single authorship is very rare in publications that are published within a PhD thesis. On the contrary, the mean number of authors of research manuscripts is continuously increasing [ 10 ]. At the very least, the authors of manuscripts within a PhD will include the PhD candidate and a mentor, which is a team in and of itself. Therefore, it is unclear why somebody would consider it a problem that a SR is conducted within a team.

The second most commonly chosen argument against such a thesis was that SRs ‘do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation’. The volume of a SR largely depends on the number of included studies and the available data for numerical analyses. Therefore, it is unfair to label a SR as a priori lacking in new knowledge. There are SRs with tens or hundreds of included studies, and some of them not only include meta-analyses, but also network meta-analyses, which are highly sophisticated statistical methods. However, limiting SRs within a thesis only to those with meta-analysis would be unfair because sometimes meta-analysis is not justified due to clinical or statistical heterogeneity [ 11 ] and the presence or absence of a meta-analysis is not an indicator of the quality of a SR. Instead, there are relevant checklists for appraising methodological and reporting quality of a SR [ 12 , 13 ].

The third most commonly chosen argument against SRs within PhD theses was ‘lack of adequate training of candidates in methodology of systematic reviews’. This could refer to either insufficient formal training or insufficient mentoring. The graduate program and the mentor need to ensure that a PhD candidate receives sufficient knowledge to complete the proposed thesis topic. Successful mentoring in academic medicine requires not only commitment and interpersonal skills from both the mentor and mentee, but also a facilitating institutional environment [ 14 ]. This finding could be a result of a lack of capacity and knowledge for conducting SRs in the particular institutions where the survey was conducted, and not general opinion related to learning a research method when conducting a PhD study. Formal training in skills related to SRs and research synthesis methods [ 15 , 16 ], as well as establishing research collaborations with researchers experienced in this methodology, could alleviate this concern.

One third of the participants indicated a ‘lack of appreciation of systematic review methodology among faculty members’ as a reason against such a thesis model. This argument, as well as the prevalent negative attitude towards SRs as PhD theses, perhaps can be traced to a lack of knowledge about SR methodology; however, although the level of knowledge was quite low in our study, there was no statistically significant correlation between knowledge and negative attitudes. Of the nine questions about SR research methodology, only three questions were correctly answered by more than half of the participants. This could be a cause for concern because it has been argued that any health research should begin with a SR of the literature [ 17 ]. It has also been argued that the absence of SRs in the context of research training might severely hamper research trainees and may negatively impact the research conducted [ 18 ]. Thus, it has been recommended that SRs should be included ‘whenever appropriate, as a mandatory part of any PhD program or candidature’ [ 18 ].

It has recently been suggested that the overwhelming majority of investment in research represents an ‘avoidable waste’ [ 19 ]. Research that is not necessary harms both the public and patients, because funds are not invested where they are really necessary, and necessary research may not be conducted [ 17 ]. This is valid not only for clinical trials, but also for other types of animal and human experiments [ 20 ]. SRs can help improve the design of new experiments by relying on current evidence in the field and by helping to clarify which questions still need to be addressed. SRs can be instrumental in improving methodological quality of new experiments, providing evidence-based recommendations for research models, reducing avoidable waste, and enabling evidence-based translational research [ 20 ].

Four respondents from three institutions indicated that empty SRs are accepted as a PhD thesis. While it makes sense to include such a SR as a part of the thesis to indicate lack of evidence in a certain field, it is highly unlikely that an entire thesis can be based on an empty SR, without a single included study.

There are many advantages of a SR as a graduate thesis [ 4 , 5 ], especially as a research methodology suitable for low-resource settings. A PhD candidate can prepare a Cochrane SR as a part of the PhD thesis, yielding a high-impact publication [ 4 ]. Non-Cochrane SRs can also be published in high-impact journals. A PhD candidate involved in producing a SR within a PhD thesis goes through the same research process as those conducting primary research, from setting up a hypothesis and a research question, to development of a protocol, data collection, data analysis and appraisal, and formulation of conclusions. Graduate programs can set limits, such as the prevention of empty reviews and the recognition of updated reviews as valid for a PhD thesis, and engage experienced researchers as advisors and within thesis evaluation committees, to ensure that a candidate will conduct a high-quality SR [ 4 ]. Conducting a SR should not be mandatory, but candidates and mentors willing to produce such research within a graduate program should be allowed to do so.

Further studies in this field could provide better insight into attitudes related to SRs as graduate theses and explore interventions that can be used to change negative attitudes and improve knowledge of SRs among decision-makers in graduate education.

Raising awareness about the importance of SRs in biomedicine, the basic aspects of SR methodology and the status of SRs as original secondary research could contribute to greater acceptance of SRs as potential PhD theses. Our results can be used to create strategies that will enhance acceptance of SRs among graduate education program directors.

Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J. Fam. Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9–14.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Aveyard H, Sharp P. A beginner’s guide to evidence-based practice in health and social care. Glasgow: McGraw Open Press University; 2011.

Google Scholar  

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Puljak L, Sambunjak D. Cochrane systematic review as a PhD thesis: an alternative with numerous advantages. Biochemia Medica. 2010;20(3):319–2.

ten Ham-Baloyi W, Jordan P. Systematic review as a research method in post-graduate nursing education. Health SA Gesondheid. 2016;21:120–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Organisation for PhD Education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System (ORPHEUS). Available at: http://www.orpheus-med.org/ .

Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):71–9.

Meerpohl JJ, Herrle F, Reinders S, Antes G, von Elm E. Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35732.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Landoni G, Modena MG. The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. HSR proc intensive care cardiovascular anesth. 2011;3(3):161–73.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Baethge C. Publish together or perish: the increasing number of authors per article in academic journals is the consequence of a changing scientific culture. Some researchers define authorship quite loosely. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2008;105(20):380–3.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statist Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):72–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Balajic K, Barac-Latas V, Drenjancevic I, Ostojic M, Fabijanic D, Puljak L. Influence of a vertical subject on research in biomedicine and activities of the Cochrane collaboration branch on medical students’ knowledge and attitudes toward evidence-based medicine. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):367–73.

Marusic A, Sambunjak D, Jeroncic A, Malicki M, Marusic M. No health research without education for research—experience from an integrated course in undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):609.

Mahtani KR. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(7):264–8.

Olsson C, Ringner A, Borglin G. Including systematic reviews in PhD programmes and candidatures in nursing - ‘Hobson’s choice’? Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(2):102–5.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

de Vries RB, Wever KE, Avey MT, Stephens ML, Sena ES, Leenaars M. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):427–37.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the ORPHEUS secretariat for administering the survey and the study participants for taking time to participate in the survey. We are grateful to Prof. Ana Marušić for the critical reading of the manuscript.

This research was funded by the Croatian Science Foundation, grant no. IP-2014-09-7672 ‘Professionalism in Health Care’. The funder had no role in the design of this study or its execution and data interpretation.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Cochrane Croatia, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment, Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare, Planinska 13, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Laboratory for Pain Research, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia

Livia Puljak & Damir Sapunar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors participated in the study design, data collection and analysis and writing of the manuscript, and both read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Ethics Committee of the University of Split School of Medicine approved the study. All respondents consented to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Online survey used in the study. Full online survey that was sent to the study participants. (PDF 293 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Puljak, L., Sapunar, D. Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe. Syst Rev 6 , 253 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0653-x

Download citation

Received : 29 August 2017

Accepted : 30 November 2017

Published : 12 December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0653-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• PhD program
• Biomedicine
• Study design

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Academic Process
• Systematic Reviews

Systematic Reviews: Home

Created by health science librarians.

• Systematic review resources

What is a Systematic Review?

A simplified process map, how can the library help, publications by hsl librarians, systematic reviews in non-health disciplines, resources for performing systematic reviews.

• Step 1: Complete Pre-Review Tasks
• Step 2: Develop a Protocol
• Step 3: Conduct Literature Searches
• Step 4: Manage Citations
• Step 5: Screen Citations
• Step 6: Assess Quality of Included Studies
• Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies
• Step 8: Write the Review

  Check our FAQ's

   Email us

   Call (919) 962-0800

   Make an appointment with a librarian

  Request a systematic or scoping review consultation

A systematic review is a literature review that gathers all of the available evidence matching pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods, documented in a protocol, to minimize bias , provide reliable findings , and inform decision-making.  ¹  

There are many types of literature reviews.

Before beginning a systematic review, consider whether it is the best type of review for your question, goals, and resources. The table below compares a few different types of reviews to help you decide which is best for you. 

• Scoping Review Guide For more information about scoping reviews, refer to the UNC HSL Scoping Review Guide.

• UNC HSL's Simplified, Step-by-Step Process Map A PDF file of the HSL's Systematic Review Process Map.
• Text-Only: UNC HSL's Systematic Reviews - A Simplified, Step-by-Step Process A text-only PDF file of HSL's Systematic Review Process Map.

The average systematic review takes 1,168 hours to complete. ¹   A librarian can help you speed up the process.

Systematic reviews follow established guidelines and best practices to produce high-quality research. Librarian involvement in systematic reviews is based on two levels. In Tier 1, your research team can consult with the librarian as needed. The librarian will answer questions and give you recommendations for tools to use. In Tier 2, the librarian will be an active member of your research team and co-author on your review. Roles and expectations of librarians vary based on the level of involvement desired. Examples of these differences are outlined in the table below.

• Request a systematic or scoping review consultation

The following are systematic and scoping reviews co-authored by HSL librarians.

Only the most recent 15 results are listed. Click the website link at the bottom of the list to see all reviews co-authored by HSL librarians in PubMed

Researchers conduct systematic reviews in a variety of disciplines.  If your focus is on a topic outside of the health sciences, you may want to also consult the resources below to learn how systematic reviews may vary in your field.  You can also contact a librarian for your discipline with questions.

• EPPI-Centre methods for conducting systematic reviews The EPPI-Centre develops methods and tools for conducting systematic reviews, including reviews for education, public and social policy.

Environmental Topics

• Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) CEE seeks to promote and deliver evidence syntheses on issues of greatest concern to environmental policy and practice as a public service

Social Sciences

• Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:747-770. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803. A resource for psychology systematic reviews, which also covers qualitative meta-syntheses or meta-ethnographies
• The Campbell Collaboration

Social Work

Software engineering

• Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering The objective of this report is to propose comprehensive guidelines for systematic literature reviews appropriate for software engineering researchers, including PhD students.

Sport, Exercise, & Nutrition

• Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition by Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center Publication Date: 2009
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis — Open & Free (Open Learning Initiative) The course follows guidelines and standards developed by the Campbell Collaboration, based on empirical evidence about how to produce the most comprehensive and accurate reviews of research

• Systematic Reviews by David Gough, Sandy Oliver & James Thomas Publication Date: 2020

Updating reviews

• Updating systematic reviews by University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center Publication Date: 2007
• Next: Step 1: Complete Pre-Review Tasks >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 4:55 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

• 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30089228
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Aromataris E, et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015. PMID: 26360830
• RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. Wong G, et al. BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:20. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20. BMC Med. 2013. PMID: 23360661 Free PMC article.
• A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nguyen NH, Singh S. Nguyen NH, et al. Semin Liver Dis. 2018 May;38(2):103-111. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1655776. Epub 2018 Jun 5. Semin Liver Dis. 2018. PMID: 29871017 Review.
• Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Hedin RJ, Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen L, Vassar M. Hedin RJ, et al. Anesth Analg. 2016 Oct;123(4):1018-25. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001452. Anesth Analg. 2016. PMID: 27537925 Review.
• The role of emotion regulation in perinatal depression and anxiety: a systematic review. Verhelst P, Sels L, Lemmens G, Verhofstadt L. Verhelst P, et al. BMC Psychol. 2024 Oct 2;12(1):529. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-02033-9. BMC Psychol. 2024. PMID: 39358735 Free PMC article.
• Preventive interventions for diabetic foot ulcer adopted in different healthcare settings: A scoping review protocol. Leal de Araújo A, Negreiros FDDS, Florêncio RS, Garces TDS, Cestari VRF, Mattos SM, Marques SJS, Albuquerque FEF, Araújo WCO, Poveda VB, Moreira TMM. Leal de Araújo A, et al. PLoS One. 2024 Oct 2;19(10):e0306486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306486. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39356711 Free PMC article. Review.
• Toward a roadmap for sustainable lean adoption in hospitals: a Delphi study. Van Zyl-Cillié MM, van Dun DH, Meijer H. Van Zyl-Cillié MM, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Sep 18;24(1):1088. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11529-4. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 39294661 Free PMC article.
• The Association between Emotional Intelligence and Prosocial Behaviors in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cao X, Chen J. Cao X, et al. J Youth Adolesc. 2024 Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s10964-024-02062-y. Online ahead of print. J Youth Adolesc. 2024. PMID: 39198344
• The impact of chemical pollution across major life transitions: a meta-analysis on oxidative stress in amphibians. Martin C, Capilla-Lasheras P, Monaghan P, Burraco P. Martin C, et al. Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Aug;291(2029):20241536. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1536. Epub 2024 Aug 28. Proc Biol Sci. 2024. PMID: 39191283 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ingenta plc
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content

This article aims to provide an overview of the structure, form and content of systematic reviews. It focuses in particular on the literature searching component, and covers systematic database searching techniques, searching for grey literature and the importance of librarian involvement in the search. It also covers systematic review reporting standards such as PRISMA-P and PRISMA, critical appraisal and tools and resources to support the review and ensure it is conducted efficiently and effectively. Finally, it summarizes the requirements when screening search results for inclusion in the review, and the statistical synthesis of included studies’ findings.

Provenance and Peer review: Solicited contribution; Peer reviewed; Accepted for publication 24 January 2021.

Introduction

A systematic review collects secondary data, and is a synthesis of all available, relevant evidence which brings together all existing primary studies for review ( Cochrane 2016 ). A systematic review differs from other types of literature review in several major ways. It requires a transparent, reproducible methodology which indicates how studies were identified and the criteria upon which they were included or excluded. As well as synthesis of these studies' findings, there should be an element of evaluation and quality assessment. The systematic review methodology originated in medical and healthcare research, but it has now been adopted by other disciplines, such as engineering, education, economics and business studies. The processes and requirements for conducting a systematic review can seem arduous or time consuming, but with the use of appropriate tools and resources, and with thorough planning undertaken before beginning the review, researchers will be able to conduct their systematic reviews efficiently and smoothly.

This article provides an overview of the structure, form and content of systematic reviews, with a particular focus on the literature searching component. It will also discuss tools and resources – including those relating to reporting standards and critical appraisal of the articles included in the review – which will be of use to researchers conducting a systematic review.

Topic selection and planning

In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published ( Chalmers & Fox 2016 , Fontelo & Liu 2018 , Page et al 2015 ) – although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions. Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons. It may be that the topic is too new and there are not enough relevant published papers to synthesise and analyse for a systematic review, or, conversely, that many other researchers have already published systematic reviews on the topic. However, if a scoping search appears to yield sufficient relevant studies for evidence synthesis, and indicates that no previous systematic reviews have been published (or that those previously published require an update or have methodological flaws), systematic reviews are likely to be appropriate.

Most systematic reviews take between six and 18 months to complete, and require a minimum of three authors to independently screen search results. Although many university modules require students to complete systematic reviews, due to this time and authorship requirement, it would be better to describe such student reviews as ‘reviews with systematic literature searches,’ as it is not possible to fulfil all the methodological requirements of a systematic review in a piece of work with a single author. Researchers without the available time or number of potential co-authors may prefer to adopt a different approach, such as narrative, scoping, or umbrella reviews. The systematic, transparent searching techniques outlined in this article can be adopted and adapted for use in other forms of literature review ( Grant & Booth 2009 ), for example, while the critical appraisal tools highlighted are appropriate for use in other contexts in which the reliability and applicability of medical research require evaluation.

Once it has been determined that a systematic review is the appropriate methodology for the research, and that there is sufficient time and resources to conduct it, researchers should then spend some time developing their review topic. It is appropriate at this point to do some scoping searches in relevant subject databases, first to ensure that the proposed review is unique, and meets a research need, and second to obtain a broad overview of the literature that exists, and which is likely to be included in the eventual systematic review. Based on this scoping work, the review topic may need to be refined or adapted, possibly to broaden or narrow it in focus. Once reviewers are satisfied with their chosen topic, the next step is to prepare a protocol which states transparently the methodology they intend to follow when conducting their review.

Creating a protocol

A protocol is a description of the proposed systematic review, including methods, the rationale for the review, and steps which will be taken to eliminate bias while conducting the review. Registering the protocol stakes a claim on the research, and it also means that researchers have done a significant portion of the work required before they formally begin the review, as they will have written the Methods section in draft form and planned what will be necessary to document and report by the time the protocol is finished.

Most protocols are registered with PROSPERO (2020), although it is also possible to upload your protocol on an institutional or subject repository, or publish the protocol in a journal. Guidance for creating a protocol can be found at PRISMA-P (The PRISMA Group et al 2015), or by working through the online training on protocols available at the Cochrane Library ( Cochrane Interactive Learning 2019 ).

Reporting standards and structure

PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) is 'an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses' ( Moher et al 2009 ). The PRISMA checklist is a useful guideline of content that should be reported and included in the final published version of the systematic review, and will help when in the planning stages as well. Most systematic reviews will be written up using the PRISMA checklist as their underlying structure, so familiarity with this checklist and the content required when reporting the findings of the systematic review should be established at the earliest planning stages of the research.

PRISMA-P (The PRISMA Group et al 2015) is the reporting guidelines for protocols. The EQUATOR Network lists reporting standards for multiple different types of study design ( EQUATOR Network 2020 ). Researchers can search for the right guideline for their type of study. Those undertaking a Cochrane review should select the correct Cochrane Handbook ( Cochrane Training 2020 ) for their review type.

Search strategy

The search strategy for systematic reviews is the main method of collecting the data which will underpin the review's findings. This means that the search must be sufficiently robust – both sensitive and specific – to capture all relevant articles. Ideally, multiple databases and other sources of information should be searched, using a consistent, predetermined search string. Generally, this will involve multiple synonyms for each theme of the review's topic, and a multifield search including freetext terms in (at minimum) the title and abstract, and the controlled vocabulary in the database thesaurus. These words are then combined with the Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT so that search results are both sensitive and specific.

Grey literature

It is likely that systematic reviews will need to include a search of grey literature as well as the peer-reviewed journal articles found through database searching. Grey literature includes unpublished theses, conference proceedings, government reports, unpublished trial data and more. Leaving grey literature out can run the risk of biasing the reviews results ( Goldacre 2011 ).

Searching grey literature can be challenging. Most sources of grey literature cannot be searched with complex Boolean operators and myriad synonymous keywords in the manner of a database. Likewise, the websites and other sources used to search for grey literature are unlikely to have a controlled vocabulary thesaurus. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) tool is designed to help adapt complex systematic database search strategies for use when searching for grey literature ( CADTH 2009 ).

Snowballing, hand-searching and reference lists

Sometimes it may be appropriate to 'snowball' a search. This involves screening all the articles that cite included papers (the articles which meet the inclusion criteria after screening). Search for the titles of each included article in Web of Science or Scopus (or both), and any listed citing article which meets your inclusion criteria should also be included in the review.

Hand searching involves looking back through the tables of contents of key journals, conference proceedings, or lists of conference presentations relevant to the systematic review topic. Once key journals have been identified, reviewers should plan how many years back they will look – this will need to be done consistently across all journals that are hand-searched.

After reviewers have screened all the papers identified by the database and grey literature searches, and agreed on which will be included in the review, they should check through these articles' reference lists. Any articles in their reference lists which meet all inclusion criteria should also be included in the review.

Librarian co-authorship

There is some evidence that having a librarian co-author on a systematic review can improve the review's quality. A number of recent studies have indicated that librarian involvement improves the reproducibility of the literature searching ( Hameed et al 2020 , Koffel 2015 , Rethlefsen et al 2015 ). Reviews without librarian involvement often have problems with their search strategies – for example Boolean operators used incorrectly, inappropriate search syntax, or a lack of sufficient synonyms for each search term, meaning that relevant studies might be missed ( Golder et al 2008 , Li et al 2014 ). Unfortunately, in some instances, systematic reviews without librarian co-authors will still be published, even if their search strategies have significant methodological flaws ( Brasher & Giustini 2020 ). Librarian involvement will help ensure that the search strategy is robust, and that it is described accurately in the methodology to ensure that the systematic review is reproducible. Generally, if a librarian is developing the search terms, running the searches in databases and writing the search methods, they should be a co-author of the systematic review, whereas if the librarian supports researchers who then conduct the searches themselves, co-authorship is not necessary. This also aligns with the Vancouver recommendations on co-authorship ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2019 ).

After database and grey literature searches are completed, and researchers have identified other papers through hand-searching, they will need to screen the titles and abstracts to determine if they meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria should be pre-defined (ie: stated in the protocol before searches have begun). Inclusion criteria might relate to the following:

Date range of publication. Study design type. Whether a study focuses on the review's specific disease, condition, or patient population. Whether a study focuses mainly on the review's specific intervention. Whether a study focused on a certain country, region, or healthcare context (for example primary care, outpatient department, critical care unit, or similar).

This list is not exhaustive, and there are many other inclusion criteria to apply, depending on the scope of the topic of the systematic review. It is important that these criteria are stated clearly in the Methods section of both the protocol and systematic review, and that all co-authors understand them.

Generally, articles are screened against these criteria independently by at least two authors. Initially they should screen the titles and abstracts, and then move on to screening the full text for any articles which could not be judged as fulfilling (or not fulfilling) all inclusion criteria on the basis of the information in their titles and abstracts.

Referencing software such as Endnote, EndnoteWeb, Mendeley or Zotero can be used for screening, or reviewers may prefer to use systematic review screening software such as Covidence or Rayyan.

Critical appraisal tools

There are a number of tools and checklists available to help assess the quality of studies to be included in a review. Studies included in a systematic review should be assessed for their quality and reliability. While poor quality studies should not be excluded if they fulfil predefined inclusion criteria, the systematic review should make clear that all included studies have been assessed according to consistent principles of critical appraisal, and the results of that appraisal should be included in the review.

Most critical appraisal tools consist of different checklists to apply to different types of study design. If a systematic review includes multiple types of study design, it is advisable that researchers are consistent about which tools they use – it is preferable to use different checklists from a single source, rather than picking and choosing from a variety of sources.

If the systematic review is only including peer-reviewed, published journal articles, the checklists from either CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme), Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network), or Joanna Briggs Institute will be appropriate ( Brice 2020 , Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2020 , Joanna Briggs Institute 2020 , SIGN 2020 ). Reviews which include grey literature should use a grey literature appraisal tool, such as AACODS ( Tyndall 2008 ). There are also risk of bias assessment tools, such as RoBiS for evaluating systematic reviews, and RoB 2 for evaluating randomized controlled trials ( Bristol Medical School 2020 , Sterne et al 2019 ).

One of the main advantages of systematic reviews is that they combine the analysis of the data from a number of primary studies. Most commonly, this is done through meta-analysis – the statistical combination of results from two or more studies. As outlined in the Cochrane Handbook, in interventional studies, a systematic review meta-analysis will seek to answer these three main questions:

What is the direction of effect? What is the size of effect? Is the effect consistent across [all included] studies? ( Higgins et al 2019 )

The researchers will then make a judgement as to the strength of evidence for the effect. If the systematic review is assessing the effectiveness of a variety of different interventions, it may not be possible to combine all studies for meta-analysis as the studies may be sufficiently different to make meta-analysis inappropriate. Researchers should ensure that when interpreting the results they consider the limitations and potential biases of included studies. When reporting the findings it is also usually necessary to consider applicability, and make recommendations – such as for a change in practice.

Systematic reviews – when an appropriate approach to the topic being researched – are a way to synthesize and evaluate the range of evidence available in multiple primary studies. Their methodology is complex, but if the correct reporting guidelines are followed, and researchers make use of tools, resources and the support of librarians and other information specialists, the process will be more straightforward. Planning is key: researchers should have a clear picture of what is involved, and what will need to be documented and reported in any resulting publications, and put measures in place to ensure that they capture all of this essential information.

No competing interests declared .

ORCID iD: Veronica Phillips https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4383-9434

Structured literature reviews – A guide for students

This is a step-by-step guide aimed at Master's students undertaking a structured literature review as part of their Master's thesis.

There are several different kinds of literature reviews, but any literature review typically includes an extensive literature search. Whenever a systematic approach is used, the literature search features a methodical step-by-step procedure. However, as a Master's student, it might not be possible to fulfill all the criteria of a systematic review when writing a literature review-based thesis; you should rather do a structured literature review, which will include only certain aspects of the systematic review methodology.

In this guide we will go through the different steps of a structured literature review and provide tips on how to make your search strategy more structured and extensive. Additionally, make sure to follow any programme and course specific requirements.

Step 1: Formulate and delimit your research question

• It will be much easier for you to perform a structured information search if you first define and delimit your research question in a clear way.
• One way to define and structure your question is to break it down into different parts .
• PICO and PEO are two different frameworks that can be used for breaking down a research question into different parts.
• You also need to define the most important key concepts of your research question.

The formulation of your research question is partly connected to what kind of literature review you are doing. This article by Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth usefully compares different kinds of reviews . While a systematic literature review is usually grounded in a clearly delimited and structured question, a scoping review may, for instance, feature a wider problem formulation. The wider a research question is, the larger number of search hits it tends to generate.

To be able to perform a literature review, you need to consider a subject area in which there seems to be a sufficiently large number of original research studies. Therefore, it may be a good idea to test search a database for previous research on the subject while you are trying to formulate and delimit your research question.

One way to structure your research question is to break it down into different parts. A well-delimited question often consists of three to four different parts. PICO and PEO are two examples of frameworks that can help you identify and define your research question.

• PICO ( P opulation, I ntervention, C omparison, O utcome) is primarily used for quantitative research questions.
• PEO ( P opulation, E xposure, O utcome) is primarily used for qualitative research questions.

Structuring your research question in accordance with a framework, such as PICO or PEO, will also help you decide on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of your literature review.

PICO & PEO

After you have delimited your research question, you also need to identify the key concepts that make up your question. Based on these key concepts, you will create " search blocks " that you will use to organise your search terms.

Step 2: Find search terms and create search blocks

• Test searching is a good way to investigate the terminology of a subject area and find search terms.
• Reading key articles can help you gather additional search terms for your final search strategy.
• Find subject headings  for PubMed with the help of the US National Library of Medicine's MeSH database.
• Find& free-text search terms by investigating what words that occur in the title and abstract of relevant articles.
• A good way of achieving a structured final search query is to arrange your search terms into search blocks ; these blocks should arise from the key concepts of your research question.

While working on a literature review-based thesis, you will need to search for articles on several occasions. In the beginning of your project, it is often good to do a couple of unstructured and simple search queries, so-called test searches, in academic databases. This way you are off to a good start, as test searching helps you investigate the terminology of your subject area and find relevant search terms. While the final search strategy is typically reported in full, you don't need to present your test queries in your thesis.

Try to find a couple of key articles, that is, articles that correspond to the type of studies that you are planning to include in your review. Use key articles to gather additional search terms for your final search strategy. Analyse the terminology of your key articles by examining what subject headings (MeSH terms, etc.) that the articles have been tagged with and what words that occur in the titles and abstracts.

Test search - find keywords and narrow down your topic

Test search in pubmed & cinahl.

To retrieve as many relevant studies as possible, you will need to include free-text search terms as well as subject headings in your final search strategy. Free-text search terms are words that occur in the article's title and abstract – words used by the authors themselves. Subject headings are subject-related words that an article is tagged with when the article is added to the database.

• In PubMed , articles are tagged with MeSH terms ( Me dical  S ubject  H eadings). You can look up and browse MeSH terms in the US National Library of Medicine's  MeSH database .
• Databases such as CINAHL , PsycInfo , ERIC , and Sociological Abstracts  have their own subject heading lists; look up subject headings in each database's subject heading list.
• There are also so-called free-text databases, such as Web of Science . These databases lack subject heading lists. Hence, when searching a free-text database, you can only use free-text search terms.

Find subject headings

An effective way to increase the structure of your final search strategy is to arrange your search terms in so-called  search blocks . Create your search blocks based on the key concepts of your research question.

Create search blocks

This search strategy worksheet might help you document and organise your search terms.

Download worksheet

• Worksheet for search terms (Word, 30.54 KB)

Step 3: Search in a structured way

• To get a comprehensive search result, you will need to search for articles in  several different databases .
• Your search strategy should be as uniform as possible in every database, but you may have to  adapt your use of subject headings .
• As you search the databases, combine your search terms and blocks with the help of  AND  and  OR .
• Save time by  documenting your search queries .

When doing a literature review-based thesis it is often wise to use at least two different databases. Many databases overlap, but may also contain unique content. At KI it is common for Master's students to use PubMed and Web of Science when doing a structured literature review as part of their Master's thesis. Depending on your research question, other databases may also be appropriate and useful. Read more about the most frequently used databases at KI .

Your search strategy should be as uniform as possible in every database. However, as mentioned in Step 2, databases may use different subject headings, and some databases only let you use free-text search terms. This means that you need to adapt your use of subject headings depending on the database.

Example: How subject headings may differ between databases 

If you want to search for articles about day surgery in PubMed, you should use the MeSH term Ambulatory Surgical Procedures . However, if you also want to perform your search in a database such as CINAHL, you need to use the corresponding CINAHL Headings term instead: Ambulatory Surgery .

There are many different ways of searching databases. Most databases have one simple, basic Google-like search box and one advanced search form. One advantage of the latter is that combining search terms with AND and OR is usually easier in an advanced search form, especially if you will be using both AND and OR within the same search query. However, you can often combine search terms with AND and OR in a basic search box too, and in that case, you often isolate your different search blocks from each other by enclosing each block in parentheses.

Example: A search query that contains AND, OR, and parentheses

( inflammatory bowel diseases OR ulcerative colitis OR crohn disease) AND (adolescent OR child OR young adult OR teenager) AND (self-management OR self care OR self efficacy )

By choosing the advanced search form you will also be able to exert more control over your search process. The advanced search form lets you specify more closely and decide exactly how you want the database to interpret your search terms; this way you can make your search query more precise.

You should always document your search strategy in order to remember what search terms you have used, how these search terms have been combined, and whether you have applied any limits to your search. The easiest way to do this is to copy and paste your search history from the database into a text document. Also, academic databases often let you create a personal account, so that you may save your searches online.

How to do a structured search in PubMed

Step 4: narrowing or broadening your search.

• Briefly examine your search results to see if you need to narrow or broaden your search query.
• Investigate whether your key articles are present in the search results.
• By using the advanced search form you can improve your search.

Prepare yourself for having to modify and redo your search query several times, before deciding on your final search strategy. After you have combined all your search terms and made your very first database search, you should examine the search results and analyse whether your search query is able to generate the type of search hits that you are looking for.

Analyse your search results

• Are all your key articles present in the search results, or are there some key articles that your search query is unable to retrieve?
• Are you getting too few search hits ? Investigate why. Perhaps you need to remove one of your search blocks, add one or several synonyms within a search block, or search for parts of words by truncating one or several of your free-text search terms, in order to broaden your search ?
• Does your search strategy generate too many non-relevant search hits that have nothing to do with your research question? Investigate why. Perhaps you need to add another search block, remove one of the synonyms from one of your search blocks, or search for phrases by enclosing one or several of your free-text terms in quotation marks, in order to narrow your search ?
• More tips on how to improve your search strategy .

It is important to remember that there is nothing wrong, per se, if your search query generates irrelevant hits. This is quite normal when performing a structured literature search. What's important is that your search strategy is able to retrieve the type of articles that you are looking for, and that you are not overwhelmed by the total number of hits (given the time frame of your thesis project).

We recommend that you use the advanced search form when improving your search strategy. By using the advanced search form, you will for example be able to specify which search fields your search terms must be present in.

Narrowing your search 

Broaden your search, how to specify the field you would like to search in pubmed, step 5: select and review articles.

• After you have completed your search, you will need to go through all your search hits and select which articles to include in your review.
• When selecting articles, read through the titles and abstracts of each article to decide its relevancy .
• Check the quality of each study that you include in your review.
• When checking the quality of articles, it is common to use critical appraisal worksheets or checklists .

Selecting articles

When you have completed and feel satisfied with your search, it is time to go through all the search hits and select which studies to include in your review. All relevant studies, that is, those studies that correspond to your research question and your previously set inclusion criteria, should be included. You decide on the relevancy of a study primarily by reading through the title and abstract. If you feel unsure, go through the whole article. You can describe your selection process with the help of a flow chart, such as the frequently used PRISMA flow diagram .

One of the challenges of systematic literature searches is that the search strategy should be exhaustive, but at the same time the number of search hits also needs to be kept within reasonable boundaries. A search query needs to be broad enough to retrieve all relevant studies, but on the other hand, this also means that a large portion of the search results will be irrelevant. Hence, even though your search strategy may have generated hundreds of hits, it is fine to only include ten to twenty articles in your review in the end.

Saving articles

If you create a personal account in a database it will be easier for you to save any references that you may find there. Another way of saving and organising article references is to use reference management software. There are several different reference management software, for example Endnote Online and Zotero.

Read more about reference management and see software guides.

Reviewing articles

When you have made your selection, you should critically examine the quality of all articles included in your review. The assessment is typically performed with the help of a critical appraisal guide or checklist. The purpose is to assess the reliability of the study results and whether there are any methodological flaws that may have impacted the results. Qualitative research articles are often reviewed with a focus on authenticity, credibility, and validity.

There are many different critical appraisal worksheets and checklists. Some examples are the SBU checklists for assessing the quality of randomized studies, observational studies, and qualitative research. In the course book How to do a systematic review in nursing there is a review guide that can be used for assessing different kinds of studies (both qualitative and quantitative); the original source is Caldwell, Henshaw & Taylor, 2011 .

Review worksheets and checklists contain criteria and questions that may help you identify flaws, errors, or bias. Sometimes different aspects of the study are scored separately. Later, all scores make up a final score that indicates whether the study is of high, medium, or low quality.

Many programmes and courses provide instructions on which checklists to use when reviewing articles, so check your course guidelines.

Step 6: Report your search strategy

• Describe your search strategy in a manner that makes it possible for your readers to replicate the search and get the same results.
• The search strategy is often presented in the form of a table .
• Look at the search history to see what words and limits that you have used when searching a database.

An important aspect of doing a structured literature review is transparency. It has to be easy for your readers to follow what you did when you searched and selected the articles that you have included in your review. In the method section of your literature review you should describe how you searched different databases. This is also where you describe any manual searches that you did. Search strategies are commonly reported in the form of tables. Present one table for each database.

You can examine your search terms and any limits you have applied when searching a database by visiting its search history.

Read more about how to report your search strategy and view examples.

Checklist for search strategies

Here is a checklist to help you review your own or someone else's search strategy.

If you would like us to get back to you, please submit your contact information in the form below along with your feeback.

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Doing a Systematic Review: A Student's Guide

Student resources.

The resources on this website have been specifically designed to support your study:

• Author Videos
• Example Documents
• Further Reading
• Online Presentations and Podcasts
• Further Useful Resources

Just click on the links to the left.

Disclaimer:

This website may contain links to both internal and external websites. All links included were active at the time the website was launched. SAGE does not operate these external websites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. SAGE cannot take responsibility for the changing content or nature of linked sites, as these sites are outside of our control and subject to change without our knowledge. If you do find an inactive link to an external website, please try to locate that website by using a search engine. SAGE will endeavour to update inactive or broken links when possible. 

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 70, 2019, review article, how to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses.

• Andy P. Siddaway 1 , Alex M. Wood 2 , and Larry V. Hedges 3
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 70:747-770 (Volume publication date January 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
• First published as a Review in Advance on August 08, 2018
• Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• APA Publ. Commun. Board Work. Group J. Artic. Rep. Stand. 2008 . Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?. Am. Psychol . 63 : 848– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Baumeister RF 2013 . Writing a literature review. The Portable Mentor: Expert Guide to a Successful Career in Psychology MJ Prinstein, MD Patterson 119– 32 New York: Springer, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Baumeister RF , Leary MR 1995 . The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117 : 497– 529 [Google Scholar]
• Baumeister RF , Leary MR 1997 . Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 3 : 311– 20 Presents a thorough and thoughtful guide to conducting narrative reviews. [Google Scholar]
• Bem DJ 1995 . Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychol . Bull 118 : 172– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Borenstein M , Hedges LV , Higgins JPT , Rothstein HR 2009 . Introduction to Meta-Analysis New York: Wiley Presents a comprehensive introduction to meta-analysis. [Google Scholar]
• Borenstein M , Higgins JPT , Hedges LV , Rothstein HR 2017 . Basics of meta-analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res. Synth. Methods 8 : 5– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Braver SL , Thoemmes FJ , Rosenthal R 2014 . Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9 : 333– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Bushman BJ 1994 . Vote-counting procedures. The Handbook of Research Synthesis H Cooper, LV Hedges 193– 214 New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
• Cesario J 2014 . Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9 : 40– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Chalmers I 2007 . The lethal consequences of failing to make use of all relevant evidence about the effects of medical treatments: the importance of systematic reviews. Treating Individuals: From Randomised Trials to Personalised Medicine PM Rothwell 37– 58 London: Lancet [Google Scholar]
• Cochrane Collab. 2003 . Glossary Rep., Cochrane Collab. London: http://community.cochrane.org/glossary Presents a comprehensive glossary of terms relevant to systematic reviews. [Google Scholar]
• Cohn LD , Becker BJ 2003 . How meta-analysis increases statistical power. Psychol. Methods 8 : 243– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Cooper HM 2003 . Editorial. Psychol. Bull. 129 : 3– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Cooper HM 2016 . Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 5th ed.. Presents a comprehensive introduction to research synthesis and meta-analysis. [Google Scholar]
• Cooper HM , Hedges LV , Valentine JC 2009 . The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis New York: Russell Sage Found, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Cumming G 2014 . The new statistics: why and how. Psychol. Sci. 25 : 7– 29 Discusses the limitations of null hypothesis significance testing and viable alternative approaches. [Google Scholar]
• Earp BD , Trafimow D 2015 . Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Front. Psychol. 6 : 621 [Google Scholar]
• Etz A , Vandekerckhove J 2016 . A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: psychology. PLOS ONE 11 : e0149794 [Google Scholar]
• Ferguson CJ , Brannick MT 2012 . Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychol. Methods 17 : 120– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Fleiss JL , Berlin JA 2009 . Effect sizes for dichotomous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis H Cooper, LV Hedges, JC Valentine 237– 53 New York: Russell Sage Found, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Garside R 2014 . Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how. Innovation 27 : 67– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Hedges LV , Olkin I 1980 . Vote count methods in research synthesis. Psychol. Bull. 88 : 359– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Hedges LV , Pigott TD 2001 . The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol. Methods 6 : 203– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Higgins JPT , Green S 2011 . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 London: Cochrane Collab. Presents comprehensive and regularly updated guidelines on systematic reviews. [Google Scholar]
• John LK , Loewenstein G , Prelec D 2012 . Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23 : 524– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Juni P , Witschi A , Bloch R , Egger M 1999 . The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282 : 1054– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Klein O , Doyen S , Leys C , Magalhães de Saldanha da Gama PA , Miller S et al. 2012 . Low hopes, high expectations: expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7 : 6 572– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Lau J , Antman EM , Jimenez-Silva J , Kupelnick B , Mosteller F , Chalmers TC 1992 . Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 327 : 248– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Light RJ , Smith PV 1971 . Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educ. Rev. 41 : 429– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Lipsey MW , Wilson D 2001 . Practical Meta-Analysis London: Sage Comprehensive and clear explanation of meta-analysis. [Google Scholar]
• Matt GE , Cook TD 1994 . Threats to the validity of research synthesis. The Handbook of Research Synthesis H Cooper, LV Hedges 503– 20 New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
• Maxwell SE , Lau MY , Howard GS 2015 . Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?. Am. Psychol. 70 : 487– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Moher D , Hopewell S , Schulz KF , Montori V , Gøtzsche PC et al. 2010 . CONSORT explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340 : c869 [Google Scholar]
• Moher D , Liberati A , Tetzlaff J , Altman DG PRISMA Group. 2009 . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339 : 332– 36 Comprehensive reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. [Google Scholar]
• Morrison A , Polisena J , Husereau D , Moulton K , Clark M et al. 2012 . The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28 : 138– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Nelson LD , Simmons J , Simonsohn U 2018 . Psychology's renaissance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69 : 511– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Noblit GW , Hare RD 1988 . Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies Newbury Park, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Olivo SA , Macedo LG , Gadotti IC , Fuentes J , Stanton T , Magee DJ 2008 . Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys. Ther. 88 : 156– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Open Sci. Collab. 2015 . Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 : 943 [Google Scholar]
• Paterson BL , Thorne SE , Canam C , Jillings C 2001 . Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Patil P , Peng RD , Leek JT 2016 . What should researchers expect when they replicate studies? A statistical view of replicability in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11 : 539– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Rosenthal R 1979 . The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86 : 638– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Rosnow RL , Rosenthal R 1989 . Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. Am. Psychol. 44 : 1276– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Sanderson S , Tatt ID , Higgins JP 2007 . Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int. J. Epidemiol. 36 : 666– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Schreiber R , Crooks D , Stern PN 1997 . Qualitative meta-analysis. Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue JM Morse 311– 26 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Shrout PE , Rodgers JL 2018 . Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69 : 487– 510 [Google Scholar]
• Stroebe W , Strack F 2014 . The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9 : 59– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Stroup DF , Berlin JA , Morton SC , Olkin I , Williamson GD et al. 2000 . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE): a proposal for reporting. JAMA 283 : 2008– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Thorne S , Jensen L , Kearney MH , Noblit G , Sandelowski M 2004 . Qualitative meta-synthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual. Health Res. 14 : 1342– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Tong A , Flemming K , McInnes E , Oliver S , Craig J 2012 . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12 : 181– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Trickey D , Siddaway AP , Meiser-Stedman R , Serpell L , Field AP 2012 . A meta-analysis of risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 32 : 122– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Valentine JC , Biglan A , Boruch RF , Castro FG , Collins LM et al. 2011 . Replication in prevention science. Prev. Sci. 12 : 103– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, mediation analysis, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved October 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Factors influencing job satisfaction among mental health nurses: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. search strategy, 2.2. inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.3. search outcomes, 2.4. data abstraction, 2.5. data synthesis, 2.6. quality appraisal, 3.1. characteristics of the included studies, 3.2. synthesize the outcomes, 3.2.1. comparison between studies conducted in psychiatric hospitals and other psychiatric settings, 3.2.2. extrinsic factors affecting job satisfaction, 3.2.3. intrinsic factors affecting job satisfaction, 3.2.4. personal and emotional factors affecting job satisfaction, 3.2.5. psychosocial factors affecting job satisfaction, 4. discussion, 4.1. comparison between studies conducted in psychiatric hospitals and other psychiatric settings, 4.2. extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting job satisfaction, 4.3. personal and emotional factors affecting job satisfaction, 4.4. psychosocial factors affecting job satisfaction, 4.5. strengths and limitations, 4.6. burnout, stress, and negative emotions in nurses: implications for healthcare, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Robbins, S.P.; Judge, T.A.; Millett, B. OB: The Essentials ; Pearson: Melboourne, Australia, 2015; ISBN 978-1-4860-1959-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Surimi, K.; Almuhayshir, A.; Ghailan, K.Y.; Shaheen, N.A. Impact of Patient Safety Culture on Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave Among Healthcare Workers: Evidence from Middle East Context. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2022 , 15 , 2435–2451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shin, J.I.; Lee, E. The Effect of Social Capital on Job Satisfaction and Quality of Care among Hospital Nurses in South Korea. J. Nurs. Manag. 2016 , 24 , 934–942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pressley, C.; Garside, J. Safeguarding the Retention of Nurses: A Systematic Review on Determinants of Nurse’s Intentions to Stay. Nurs. Open 2023 , 10 , 2842–2858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Y.; Duan, Y.; Guo, M. Turnover Intention and Its Associated Factors among Nurses: A Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Public. Health 2023 , 11 , 1141441. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dall’Ora, C.; Ball, J.; Reinius, M.; Griffiths, P. Burnout in Nursing: A Theoretical Review. Hum. Resour. Health 2020 , 18 , 41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, H.; Zhao, Y.; While, A. Job Satisfaction among Hospital Nurses: A Literature Review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2019 , 94 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seo, J.-W.; Ran, K.M.; Joo, J.N. A Study on the Factors Influencing Burnout of Psychiatric Ward Nurses—Violence Experience, Violence Coping, Social Support. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2019 , 20 , 393–405. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alameddine, M.; Mourad, Y.; Dimassi, H. A National Study on Nurses’ Exposure to Occupational Violence in Lebanon: Prevalence, Consequences and Associated Factors. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0137105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Staempfli, S.; Lamarche, K. Top Ten: A Model of Dominating Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Emergency Nurses. Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2020 , 49 , 100814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jester, R. Editorial—Global Shortage of Nurses—Rebecca Jester for May 2023 Issue. Int. J. Orthop. Trauma Nurs. 2023 , 49 , 101018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Council of Nurses (ICN). International Council of Nurses Policy Brief: The Global Nursing Shortage and Nurse Retention ; International Council of Nurses: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Council of Nurses. The Global Mental Health Nursing Workforce: Time to Prioritize and Invest in Mental Health and Wellbeing ; International Council of Nurses: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO Mental Health Atlas Mental Health ATLAS 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240036703 (accessed on 26 May 2024).
• Delaney, K.R. Inclusion of Psychiatric–Mental Health Advanced Practice Nurses in Federal Behavioral Workforce Planning. Psychiatr. Serv. 2023 , 75 , 594–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hackman, J.R.; Oldham, G.R. Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1976 , 16 , 250–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Snyderman, B. The Motivation to Work , 2nd ed.; John Wiley: Oxford, UK, 1959; p. xv, 157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality ; Harpers: Oxford, UK, 1954; p. xiv, 411. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation ; Wiley: Oxford, UK, 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alshmemri, M. Job Satisfaction of Saudi Nurses Working in Saudi Arabian Public Hospitals. Ph.D. Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garza, J.A.; Taliaferro, D. Job Satisfaction Among Home Healthcare Nurses. Home Healthc. Now 2021 , 39 , 20–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holmberg, C.; Sobis, I.; Carlström, E. Job Satisfaction Among Swedish Mental Health Nursing Staff: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016 , 39 , 429–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holmberg, C.; Caro, J.; Sobis, I. Job Satisfaction among Swedish Mental Health Nursing Personnel: Revisiting the Two-Factor Theory. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2018 , 27 , 581–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rai, R.; Thekkekara, J.V.; Kanhare, R. Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory: A Study on Nurses’s Motivation. RGUHS J. Allied Health Sci. 2021 , 1 , 13–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dion, M.J. The Impact of Workplace Incivility and Occupational Stress on the Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention of Acute Care Nurses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, CT, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzberg, F.I. Work and the Nature of Man ; World: Oxford, UK, 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bohm, J. Two-Factor Theory—At the Intersection of Health Care Management and Patient Satisfaction. Clin. Outcomes Res. 2012 , 4 , 277–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alrawahi, S.; Sellgren, S.F.; Altouby, S.; Alwahaibi, N.; Brommels, M. The Application of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation to Job Satisfaction in Clinical Laboratories in Omani Hospitals. Heliyon 2020 , 6 , e04829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goetz, K.; Campbell, S.M.; Broge, B.; Dörfer, C.E.; Brodowski, M.; Szecsenyi, J. The Impact of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors on the Job Satisfaction of Dentists. Comm. Dent. Oral. Epid 2012 , 40 , 474–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, T.L. Effects of Motivating and Hygiene Factors on Job Satisfaction Among School Nurses. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aloisio, L.D.; Coughlin, M.; Squires, J.E. Individual and Organizational Factors of Nurses’ Job Satisfaction in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2021 , 123 , 104073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alwawi, A.; Koç, A.; İnkaya, B. Factors affecting nurses’ job satisfaction in medical surgical nursing care in Turkey: A systematic review. Int. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2020 , 5 , 178–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dilig-Ruiz, A.; MacDonald, I.; Demery Varin, M.; Vandyk, A.; Graham, I.D.; Squires, J.E. Job Satisfaction among Critical Care Nurses: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018 , 88 , 123–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Geese, F.; Zwakhalen, S.; Lucien, B.; Hahn, S. Job Satisfaction of Advanced Practice Nurses in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2022 , 56 , 102089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Halcomb, E.; Smyth, E.; McInnes, S. Job Satisfaction and Career Intentions of Registered Nurses in Primary Health Care: An Integrative Review. BMC Fam. Pract. 2018 , 19 , 136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Han, R.M.; Carter, P.; Champion, J.D. Relationships among Factors Affecting Advanced Practice Registered Nurses’ Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave: A Systematic Review. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2018 , 30 , 101–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hudays, A.; Gary, F.; Voss, J.G.; Zhang, A.Y.; Alghamdi, A. Utilizing the Social Determinants of Health Model to Explore Factors Affecting Nurses’ Job Satisfaction in Saudi Arabian Hospitals: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 2394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, P.S.; Viscardi, M.K.; McHugh, M.D. Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of New Graduate Nurses Participating in Nurse Residency Programs: A Systematic Review. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2014 , 45 , 439–450. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yanriatuti, I.; Fibriola, T.N.; Nama Beni, K.; Patarru, F. Work Environment, Spiritual, and Motivational Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction among Hospital Nurses: A Systematic Review. J. NERS 2019 , 14 , 227–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yasin, Y.M.; Kerr, M.S.; Wong, C.A.; Bélanger, C.H. Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction among Acute Care Nurses Working in Rural and Urban Settings. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020 , 76 , 2359–2368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yasin, Y.M.; Alomari, A.; Al-Hamad, A.; Kehyayan, V. The Impact of COVID-19 on Nurses’ Job Satisfaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Public Health 2024 , 11 , 1285101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Reprint—Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Phys. Ther. 2009 , 89 , 873–880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alsaraireh, F.; Quinn Griffin, M.T.; Ziehm, S.R.; Fitzpatrick, J.J. Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention among Jordanian Nurses in Psychiatric Units. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2014 , 23 , 460–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Emmanuel Olatunde, B.; Odusanya, O. Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-Being among Mental Health Nurses. Int. J. Transl. Community Med. 2015 , 3 , 64–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baum, A.; Kagan, I. Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave among Psychiatric Nurses: Closed versus Open Wards. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2015 , 29 , 213–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Toren, O.; Kerzman, H.; Kagan, I. The Difference Between Professional Image and Job Satisfaction of Nurses Who Studied in a Post-Basic Education Program and Nurses With Generic Education: A Questionnaire Survey. J. Prof. Nurs. 2011 , 27 , 28–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Behilak, S.; Abdelraof, A.S. The Relationship between Burnout and Job Satisfaction among Psychiatric Nurses. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2019 , 10 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, R. Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Psychiatric Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China—The Moderation of Family Support. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 13 , 1006518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kabeel, A.R.A.; Mosa Eisa, S.A.E.-M. Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Professional Identity among Psychiatric Nurses. Egypt. Nurs. J. 2017 , 14 , 9–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kagwe, J.; Jones, S.; Johnson, S.L. Factors Related to Intention to Leave and Job Satisfaction among Registered Nurses at a Large Psychiatric Hospital. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2019 , 40 , 754–759. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, C.-F.; Lai, F.-C.; Huang, W.-R.; Huang, C.-I.; Hsieh, C.-J. Satisfaction with the Quality Nursing Work Environment Among Psychiatric Nurses Working in Acute Care General Hospitals. J. Nurs. Res. 2020 , 28 , e76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoder, L.H. Staff Nurses’ Career Development Relationships and Self-Reports of Professionalism, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Stay. Nurs. Res. 1995 , 44 , 290–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Matsumoto, Y.; Yoshioka, S.-I. Factors Influencing Psychiatric Nurses’ Job Satisfaction Levels: Focusing on Their Frequency of Experiencing Negative Emotions Toward Patients and Support at Their Workplaces. Yonago Acta Med. 2019 , 62 , 293–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Payne, A.; Koen, L.; Niehaus, D.J.H.; Smit, I.-M. Burnout and Job Satisfaction of Nursing Staff in a South African Acute Mental Health Setting. S. Afr. J. Psychiatr. 2020 , 26 , 1454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perkins, R.T.; Bamgbade, S.; Bourdeanu, L. Nursing Leadership Roles and Its Influence on the Millennial Psychiatric Nurses’ Job Satisfaction and Intent to Leave. J. Am. Psychiatr. Nurses Assoc. 2023 , 29 , 15–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Quinn, R.E. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance ; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1988; p. xxii, 199. ISBN 1-55542-075-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mobley, W.H. Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 1977 , 62 , 237–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Z.; Gangaram, P.; Xie, H.; Chua, S.; Ong, S.B.C.; Koh, S.E. Job Satisfaction and Resilience in Psychiatric Nurses: A Study at the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2017 , 26 , 612–619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, H.; Jiang, F.; Rakofsky, J.; Hu, L.; Liu, T.; Wu, S.; Liu, H.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.-L. Job Satisfaction and Associated Factors among Psychiatric Nurses in Tertiary Psychiatric Hospitals: Results from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019 , 75 , 3619–3630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbdElhamid, M.; Saeed AbdElmohsen, N.; Abd.ElHalim, O.Z. Reletionship between Workplace Violence and Job Satisfaction among Nurses Working In Psychitric Setting. Egypt. J. Health Care 2017 , 8 , 256–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohamed Ali, N.; Sayed Mohamed, H. Correlation between Workplace Violence, Work Stress, and Job Satisfaction among Psychiatric Nursing Staff. Egypt. J. Health Care 2021 , 12 , 1713–1730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moola, S.; Munn, Z.; Tufanaru, C.; Aromataris, E.; Sears, K.; Sfetc, R.; Currie, M.; Lisy, K.; Qureshi, R.; Mattis, P.; et al. Chapter 7: Systematic Reviews of Etiology and Risk. JBI Man. Evid. Synth. 2020 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Armstrong-Stassen, M.; Stassen, K. Professional Development, Target-Specific Satisfaction, and Older Nurse Retention. Career Dev. Int. 2013 , 18 , 673–693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schaufeli, W.B. Applying the Job Demands-Resources Model: A ‘How to’ Guide to Measuring and Tackling Work Engagement and Burnout. Organ. Dyn. 2017 , 46 , 120–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, G.A. Resilience and Leadership: The Self-Management of Failure. In Self-Management and Leadership Development ; Rothstein, M.G., Ed.; New Horizons in Management; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 361–394. ISBN 978-1-84844-323-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayalew, F.; Kibwana, S.; Shawula, S.; Misganaw, E.; Abosse, Z.; van Roosmalen, J.; Stekelenburg, J.; Kim, Y.M.; Teshome, M.; Mariam, D.W. Understanding Job Satisfaction and Motivation among Nurses in Public Health Facilities of Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Nurs. 2019 , 18 , 46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, L.; Hu, W.; Cai, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Deng, Y.; Yu, K.; Chen, X.; Zhu, L.; Ma, J.; et al. Early Mobilization of Critically Ill Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2019 , 14 , e0223185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellín Gil, M.F.; Ruiz Hernández, J.A.; Ibáñez-López, F.J.; Seva Llor, A.M.; Roldán Valcárcel, M.D.; Mikla, M.; López Montesinos, M.J. Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Workload of Nurses in Adult Inpatient Units. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 11701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maqbali, M.A.A. Factors That Influence Nurses’ Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review. Nurs. Manag. 2015 , 22 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chien, W.-T.; Yick, S.-Y. An Investigation of Nurses’ Job Satisfaction in a Private Hospital and Its Correlates. Open Nurs. J. 2016 , 10 , 99–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shahrbabaki, P.M.; Abolghaseminejad, P.; Lari, L.A.; Zeidabadinejad, S.; Dehghan, M. The Relationship between Nurses’ Psychological Resilience and Job Satisfaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive-Analytical Cross-Sectional Study in Iran. BMC Nurs. 2023 , 22 , 137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heidari, S.; Parizad, N.; Goli, R.; Mam-Qaderi, M.; Hassanpour, A. Job Satisfaction and Its Relationship with Burnout among Nurses Working in COVID-19 Wards: A Descriptive Correlational Study. Ann. Med. Surg. 2022 , 82 , 104591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart, P.L.; Brannan, J.D.; De Chesnay, M. Resilience in Nurses: An Integrative Review. J. Nurs. Manag. 2014 , 22 , 720–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zander, M.; Hutton, A.; King, L. Coping and Resilience Factors in Pediatric Oncology Nurses. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2010 , 27 , 94–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chang, H.E.; Cho, S.-H. Workplace Violence and Job Outcomes of Newly Licensed Nurses. Asian Nurs. Res. 2016 , 10 , 271–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cheung, T.; Yip, P.S.F. Workplace Violence towards Nurses in Hong Kong: Prevalence and Correlates. BMC Public Health 2017 , 17 , 196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pappa, D.; Koutelekos, I.; Evangelou, E.; Dousis, E.; Mangoulia, P.; Gerogianni, G.; Zartaloudi, A.; Toulia, G.; Kelesi, M.; Margari, N.; et al. Investigation of Nurses’ Wellbeing towards Errors in Clinical Practice—The Role of Resilience. Medicina 2023 , 59 , 1850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kousar, R.; Afzal, M.; Sarwar, H.; Waqas, A.; Gillani, D.S.A. The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Nurses’ Burnout among Registered Nurses at Jinnah Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. Saudi J. Med. Pharm. Sci. 2017 , 3 , 528–533. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly, L.A.; Gee, P.M.; Butler, R.J. Impact of Nurse Burnout on Organizational and Position Turnover. Nurs. Outlook 2021 , 69 , 96–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishop, G.D. Emotions and Health. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences ; Smelser, N.J., Baltes, P.B., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 4454–4459. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hudays, A.; Gary, F.; Voss, J.G.; Arishi, A.; Alfar, Z.A.; Algodimi, A.M.; Fitzpatrick, J.J. Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction among Mental Health Nurses: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12202040

Hudays A, Gary F, Voss JG, Arishi A, Alfar ZA, Algodimi AM, Fitzpatrick JJ. Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction among Mental Health Nurses: A Systematic Review. Healthcare . 2024; 12(20):2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12202040

Hudays, Ali, Faye Gary, Joachim G. Voss, Amal Arishi, Zainab A. Alfar, Ali M. Algodimi, and Joyce J. Fitzpatrick. 2024. "Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction among Mental Health Nurses: A Systematic Review" Healthcare 12, no. 20: 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12202040

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals