importance and roles of literature review

Library databases
Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

The role of the literature review.

Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

demonstrate that you are a well-informed scholar with expertise and knowledge in the field by giving an overview of the current state of the literature
find a gap in the literature, or address a business or professional issue, depending on your doctoral study program; the literature review will illustrate how your research contributes to the scholarly conversation
provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research

importance and roles of literature review

Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to search, find out about these new themes, and incorporate them into your review.

The purpose of this guide is to help you through the literature review process. Take some time to look over the resources in order to become familiar with them. The tabs on the left side of this page have additional information.

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript

Literature review as a dinner party

To think about the role of the literature review, consider this analogy: pretend that you throw a dinner party for the other researchers working in your topic area. First, you’d need to develop a guest list.

The guests of honor would be early researchers or theorists; their work likely inspired subsequent studies, ideas, or controversies that the current researchers pursue.
Then, think about the important current researchers to invite. Which guests might agree with each other? Which others might provide useful counterpoints?
You likely won’t be able to include everyone on the guest list, so you may need to choose carefully so that you don’t leave important figures out.
Alternatively, if there aren’t many researchers working in your topic area, then your guest list will need to include people working in other, related areas, who can still contribute to the conversation.

After the party, you describe the evening to a friend. You’ll summarize the evening’s conversation. Perhaps one guest made a comment that sparked a conversation, and then you describe who responded and how the topic evolved. There are other conversations to share, too. This is how you synthesize the themes and developments that you find in your research. Thinking about your literature research this way will help you to present your dinner party (and your literature review) in a lively and engaging way.

Short video: Empirical research

Video: How to locate and identify empirical research for your literature review

(6 min 16 sec) Recorded May 2020 Transcript

Here are some useful resources from the Writing Center, the Office of Research and Doctoral Services, and other departments within the Office of Academic Support. Take some time to look at what is available to help you with your capstone/dissertation.

Familiarize yourself with Walden support
Doctoral Capstone Resources website
Capstone writing resources
Office of Student Research Administration
Office of Research and Doctoral Services
Visit the Writing Center

You can watch recorded webinars on the literature review in our Library Webinar Archives .

Next Page: Scope
Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

Academic Residencies
Academic Skills
Career Planning and Development
Customer Care Team
Field Experience
Military Services
Student Success Advising
Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

Center for Social Change
Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
Office of Degree Acceleration
Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

Doctoral Writing Assessment
Form & Style Review
Quick Answers
ScholarWorks
SKIL Courses and Workshops
Walden Bookstore
Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
Student Safety/Title IX
Legal & Consumer Information
Website Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Accessibility
Accreditation
State Authorization
Net Price Calculator
Contact Walden

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should:

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

From S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

Next: Planning the Review >>
Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

Conducting the Literature Review
Structure and Writing Style
Types of Literature Reviews
Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

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

The purpose of a literature review is to:

Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
<< Previous: Definition
Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 3:26 PM
URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

Log in to your Library account
Hours and Maps
Connect from Off Campus
UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

How To Find "The Literature"
Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

core research in the field
experts in the subject area
methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

Publish and share your findings
Justify requests for grants and other funding
Identify best practices to inform practice
Set wider context for a program evaluation
Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 10:11 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
Purposes of a Literature Review
Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
Identifying the Research Topic
The Persuasive Argument
Searching the Literature
Creating a Synthesis
Critiquing the Literature
Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
Presenting the Literature Review

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

English as an International Language for Academic Publishing
Girls' Education in the Developing World
History of Education in Europe
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Education »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Academic Achievement
Academic Audit for Universities
Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
Action Research in Education
Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
Administrator Preparation
Adolescence
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
African American Racial Identity and Learning
Alaska Native Education
Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
Alternative Schools
American Indian Education
Animals in Environmental Education
Art Education
Artificial Intelligence and Learning
Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
Assessment, Behavioral
Assessment, Educational
Assessment in Early Childhood Education
Assistive Technology
Augmented Reality in Education
Beginning-Teacher Induction
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
Blended Learning
Case Study in Education Research
Changing Professional and Academic Identities
Character Education
Children’s and Young Adult Literature
Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
Citizenship Education
Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
Classroom Management
Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
College Admissions in the United States
College Athletics in the United States
Community Relations
Comparative Education
Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Computer-Based Testing
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
Counseling in Schools
Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
Critical Race Theory
Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
Culturally Responsive Leadership
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
Curriculum Design
Data Collection in Educational Research
Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
Deaf Education
Desegregation and Integration
Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
Development, Moral
Dialogic Pedagogy
Digital Age Teacher, The
Digital Citizenship
Digital Divides
Disabilities
Distance Learning
Distributed Leadership
Doctoral Education and Training
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Childhood Education in Australia
Early Childhood Education in China
Early Childhood Education in Europe
Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
Early Childhood Education in Sweden
Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
Early Childhood Education Policy
Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
Early Childhood Mathematics
Early Childhood Science
Early Childhood Teacher Education
Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
Economics of Education
Education For Children with Autism
Education for Sustainable Development
Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
Education of Native Hawaiian Students
Education Reform and School Change
Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
Environmental Education
Environmental Education in Brazil
Epistemic Beliefs
Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
Ethical Research with Young Children
Ethics and Education
Ethics of Teaching
Ethnic Studies
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Family and Community Partnerships in Education
Family Day Care
Federal Government Programs and Issues
Feminization of Labor in Academia
Finance, Education
Financial Aid
Formative Assessment
Future-Focused Education
Gender and Achievement
Gender and Alternative Education
Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
Gifted Education
Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
Global University Rankings
Governance, Education
Grounded Theory
Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
Higher Education and Globalization
Higher Education and the Developing World
Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
Higher Education Finance
Higher Education Governance
Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
Higher Education in Africa
Higher Education in China
Higher Education in Latin America
Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
Higher Education, International Issues in
Higher Education Management
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Student Assessment
High-stakes Testing
History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
History of Education in the United States
History of Technology Integration in Education
Homeschooling
Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
Inclusive Education
Indigenous Education in a Global Context
Indigenous Learning Environments
Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
Inservice Teacher Education
Integrating Art across the Curriculum
Intelligence
Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
Intersectionality and Education
Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
Leadership in Early Childhood Education
Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
Learning Analytics in Higher Education
Learning Difficulties
Learning, Lifelong
Learning, Multimedia
Learning Strategies
Legal Matters and Education Law
LGBT Youth in Schools
Linguistic Diversity
Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
Literature Reviews
Mathematics Identity
Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
Mathematics Teacher Education
Measurement for Improvement in Education
Measurement in Education in the United States
Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
Motherscholars
Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
Multivariate Research Methodology
Museums, Education, and Curriculum
Music Education
Narrative Research in Education
Native American Studies
Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
Note-Taking
Numeracy Education
One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
Online Education
Open Education
Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
Outdoor Play and Learning
Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
Pedagogical Leadership
Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
Performance Objectives and Measurement
Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
Performance-based Research Funding
Phenomenology in Educational Research
Physical Education
Podcasts in Education
Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
Post-humanism and Environmental Education
Pre-Service Teacher Education
Problem Solving
Productivity and Higher Education
Professional Development
Professional Learning Communities
Program Evaluation
Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
Psychology Learning and Teaching
Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
Qualitative Research Design
Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Reading Education
Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
Reliability in Educational Assessments
Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
Response to Intervention
Restorative Practices
Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
School Accreditation
School Choice
School Culture
School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
School Improvement through Inclusive Education
School Reform
Schools, Private and Independent
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Science Education
Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
Service-Learning
Severe Disabilities
Single Salary Schedule
Single-sex Education
Single-Subject Research Design
Social Context of Education
Social Justice
Social Network Analysis
Social Pedagogy
Social Science and Education Research
Social Studies Education
Sociology of Education
Standards-Based Education
Statistical Assumptions
Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
Student Assignment Policy
Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
Student Participation
Student Voice in Teacher Development
Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Higher Education
Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
Teacher Preparation
Teacher Training and Development
Teacher Unions and Associations
Teacher-Student Relationships
Teaching Critical Thinking
Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
Technology Education in Early Childhood
Technology, Educational
Technology-based Assessment
The Bologna Process
The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
Theories of Educational Leadership
Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
Tracking and Detracking
Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
Transformative Learning
Transitions in Early Childhood Education
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
Using Ethnography in Educational Research
Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
Virtual Learning Environments
Vocational and Technical Education
Wellness and Well-Being in Education
Women's and Gender Studies
Young Children and Spirituality
Young Children's Learning Dispositions
Young Children's Working Theories
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
81.177.182.154

Library Homepage

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

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

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

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

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

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

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

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

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

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

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

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

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

Social Sciences

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

Hard science and health sciences:

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

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.

Literature Review Editing Services

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I. Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II. Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV. Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V. Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

<< Previous: Theoretical Framework
Next: Citation Tracking >>
Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Collections
Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

Biomedical Databases
Global (Public Health) Databases
Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
Grey Literature
Trials Registers
Data and Statistics
Public Policy
Google Tips
Recommended Books
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search.

Where to find databases:

use the tabs on this guide
Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
More on the Medical Library web page
... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
Ask your librarian for help at any time.
Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips:

Review the abstracts carefully.
Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
<< Previous: Recommended Books
Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Research Process :: Step by Step

Introduction
Select Topic
Identify Keywords
Background Information
Develop Research Questions
Refine Topic
Search Strategy
Popular Databases
Evaluate Sources
Types of Periodicals
Reading Scholarly Articles
Primary & Secondary Sources
Organize / Take Notes
Writing & Grammar Resources
Annotated Bibliography
Literature Review
Citation Styles
Paraphrasing
Privacy / Confidentiality
Research Process
Selecting Your Topic
Identifying Keywords
Gathering Background Info
Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
identify areas of controversy in the literature
formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

<< Previous: Annotated Bibliography
Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 12:43 PM
URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

Internet Privacy
Accessibility
Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

Literature Review
Purpose of a Literature Review
Work in Progress
Compiling & Writing
Books, Articles, & Web Pages
Types of Literature Reviews
Departmental Differences
Citation Styles & Plagiarism
Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
<< Previous: Literature Review
Next: Searching >>
Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

Open access
Published: 19 April 2024

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

Lluna Maria Bru-Luna 1 ,
Manuel Martí-Vilar 2 ,
César Merino-Soto 3 ,
José Livia-Segovia 4 ,
Juan Garduño-Espinosa 5 &
Filiberto Toledano-Toledano 5 , 6 , 7

BMC Psychology volume 12 , Article number: 217 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

268 Accesses

Metrics details

The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the “Standards” as a frame of reference.

First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the “Standards” framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.

A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences.

The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. This can affect clinical practice because people’s health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.

Peer Review reports

Person-centered care (PCC)

Quality care for people with chronic diseases, functional limitations, or both has become one of the main objectives of medical and care services. The person-centered care (PCC) approach is an essential element not only in achieving this goal but also in providing high-quality health maintenance and medical care [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In addition to guaranteeing human rights, PCC provides numerous benefits to both the recipient and the provider [ 4 , 5 ]. Additionally, PCC includes a set of necessary competencies for healthcare professionals to address ongoing challenges in this area [ 6 ]. PCC includes the following elements [ 7 ]: an individualized, goal-oriented care plan based on individuals’ preferences; an ongoing review of the plan and the individual’s goals; support from an interprofessional team; active coordination among all medical and care providers and support services; ongoing information exchange, education and training for providers; and quality improvement through feedback from the individual and caregivers.

There is currently a growing body of literature on the application of PCC. A good example of this is McCormack’s widely known mid-range theory [ 8 ], an internationally recognized theoretical framework for PCC and how it is operationalized in practice. This framework forms a guide for care practitioners and researchers in hospital settings. This framework is elaborated in PCC and conceived of as “an approach to practice that is established through the formation and fostering of therapeutic relationships between all care providers, service users, and others significant to them, underpinned by values of respect for persons, [the] individual right to self-determination, mutual respect, and understanding” [ 9 ].

Thus, as established by PCC, it is important to emphasize that reference to the person who is the focus of care refers not only to the recipient but also to everyone involved in a care interaction [ 10 , 11 ]. PCC ensures that professionals are trained in relevant skills and methodology since, as discussed above, carers are among the agents who have the greatest impact on the quality of life of the person in need of care [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Furthermore, due to the high burden of caregiving, it is essential to account for caregivers’ well-being. In this regard, studies on professional caregivers are beginning to suggest that the provision of PCC can produce multiple benefits for both the care recipient and the caregiver [ 15 ].

Despite a considerable body of literature and the frequent inclusion of the term in health policy and research [ 16 ], PCC involves several complications. There is no standard consensus on the definition of this concept [ 17 ], which includes problematic areas such as efficacy assessment [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition, the difficulty of measuring the subjectivity involved in identifying the dimensions of the CPC and the infrequent use of standardized measures are acute issues [ 20 ]. These limitations and purposes motivated the creation of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT; [ 21 ]), which emerged from the need for a brief, economical, easily applied, versatile and comprehensive assessment instrument to provide valid and reliable measures of PCC for research purposes [ 21 ].

Person-centered care assessment tool (P-CAT)

There are several instruments that can measure PCC from different perspectives (i.e., the caregiver or the care recipient) and in different contexts (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes). However, from a practical point of view, the P-CAT is one of the shortest and simplest tools and contains all the essential elements of PCC described in the literature. It was developed in Australia to measure the approach of long-term residential settings to older people with dementia, although it is increasingly used in other healthcare settings, such as oncology units [ 22 ] and psychiatric hospitals [ 23 ].

Due to the brevity and simplicity of its application, the versatility of its use in different medical and care contexts, and its potential emic characteristics (i.e., constructs that can be cross-culturally applicable with reasonable and similar structure and interpretation; [ 24 ]), the P-CAT is one of the most widely used tests by professionals to measure PCC [ 25 , 26 ]. It has expanded to several countries with cultural and linguistic differences. Since its creation, it has been adapted in countries separated by wide cultural and linguistic differences, such as Norway [ 27 ], Sweden [ 28 ], China [ 29 ], South Korea [ 30 ], Spain [ 25 ], and Italy [ 31 ].

The P-CAT comprises 13 items rated on a 5-point ordinal scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), with high scores indicating a high degree of person-centeredness. The scale consists of three dimensions: person-centered care (7 items), organizational support (4 items) and environmental accessibility (2 items). In the original study ( n = 220; [ 21 ]), the internal consistency of the instrument yielded satisfactory values for the total scale ( α = 0.84) and good test-retest reliability ( r =.66) at one-week intervals. A reliability generalization study conducted in 2021 [ 32 ] that estimated the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyzed possible factors that could affect the it revealed that the mean α value for the 25 meta-analysis samples (some of which were part of the validations included in this study) was 0.81, and the only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. With respect to internal structure validity, three factors (56% of the total variance) were obtained, and content validity was assessed by experts, literature reviews and stakeholders [ 33 ].

Although not explicitly stated, the apparent commonality between validation studies of different versions of the P-CAT may be influenced by an influential decades-old validity framework that differentiates three categories: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity [ 34 , 35 ]. However, a reformulation of the validity of the P-CAT within a modern framework, which would provide a different definition of validity, has not been performed.

Scale validity

Traditionally, validation is a process focused on the psychometric properties of a measurement instrument [ 36 ]. In the early 20th century, with the frequent use of standardized measurement tests in education and psychology, two definitions emerged: the first defined validity as the degree to which a test measures what it intends to measure, while the second described the validity of an instrument in terms of the correlation it presents with a variable [ 35 ].

However, in the past century, validity theory has evolved, leading to the understanding that validity should be based on specific interpretations for an intended purpose. It should not be limited to empirically obtained psychometric properties but should also be supported by the theory underlying the construct measured. Thus, to speak of classical or modern validity theory suggests an evolution in the classical or modern understanding of the concept of validity. Therefore, a classical approach (called classical test theory, CTT) is specifically differentiated from a modern approach. In general, recent concepts associated with a modern view of validity are based on (a) a unitary conception of validity and (b) validity judgments based on inferences and interpretations of the scores of a measure [ 37 , 38 ]. This conceptual advance in the concept of validity led to the creation of a guiding framework to for obtaining evidence to support the use and interpretation of the scores obtained by a measure [ 39 ].

This purpose is addressed by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (“Standards”), a guide created by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) in 2014 with the aim of providing guidelines to assess the validity of the interpretations of scores of an instrument based on their intended use. Two conceptual aspects stand out in this modern view of validity: first, validity is a unitary concept centered on the construct; second, validity is defined as “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” [ 37 ]. Thus, the “Standards” propose several sources that serve as a reference for assessing different aspects of validity. The five sources of valid evidence are as follows [ 37 ]: test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing. According to AERA et al. [ 37 ], test content validity refers to the relationship of the administration process, subject matter, wording and format of test items to the construct they are intended to measure. It is measured predominantly with qualitative methods but without excluding quantitative approaches. The validity of the responses is based on analysis of the cognitive processes and interpretation of the items by respondents and is measured with qualitative methods. Internal structure validity is based on the interrelationship between the items and the construct and is measured by quantitative methods. Validity in terms of the relationship with other variables is based on comparison between the variable that the instrument intends to measure and other theoretically relevant external variables and is measured by quantitative methods. Finally, validity based on the results of the test analyses consequences, both intended and unintended, that may be due to a source of invalidity. It is measured mainly by qualitative methods.

Thus, although validity plays a fundamental role in providing a strong scientific basis for interpretations of test scores, validation studies in the health field have traditionally focused on content validity, criterion validity and construct validity and have overlooked the interpretation and use of scores [ 34 ].

“Standards” are considered a suitable validity theory-based procedural framework for reviewing the validity of questionnaires due to its ability to analyze sources of validity from both qualitative and quantitative approaches and its evidence-based method [ 35 ]. Nevertheless, due to a lack of knowledge or the lack of a systematic description protocol, very few instruments to date have been reviewed within the framework of the “Standards” [ 39 ].

Current study

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments by professionals and has seven validations [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 ], no analysis has been conducted of its validity within the framework of the “Standards”. That is, empirical evidence of the validity of the P-CAT has not been obtained in a way that helps to develop a judgment based on a synthesis of the available information.

A review of this type is critical given that some methodological issues seem to have not been resolved in the P-CAT. For example, although the multidimensionality of the P-CAT was identified in the study that introduced it, Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] recently stated that in adaptations of the P-CAT [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 ], the total score is used for interpretation and multidimensionality is disregarded. Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated. Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] also indicated that the internal structure validity of the P-CAT is usually underreported due to a lack of sufficiently rigorous approaches to establish with certainty how its scores are calculated.

The validity of the P-CAT, specifically its internal structure, appears to be unresolved. Nevertheless, substantive research and professional practice point to this measure as relevant to assessing PCC. This perception is contestable and judgment-based and may not be sufficient to assess the validity of the P-CAT from a cumulative and synthetic angle based on preceding validation studies. An adequate assessment of validity requires a model to conceptualize validity followed by a review of previous studies of the validity of the P-CAT using this model.

Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence provided by P-CAT validation studies while taking the “Standards” as a framework.

The present study comprises two distinct but interconnected procedures. First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method ( [ 41 ]; Additional file 1; Additional file 2) with the aim of collecting all validations of the P-CAT that have been developed. Second, a systematic description of the validity evidence for each of the P-CAT validations found in the systematic review was developed following the “Standards” framework [ 37 ]. The work of Hawkins et al. [ 39 ], the first study to review validity sources according to the guidelines proposed by the “Standards”, was also used as a reference. Both provided conceptual and pragmatic guidance for organizing and classifying validity evidence for the P-CAT.

The procedure conducted in the systematic review is described below, followed by the procedure for examining the validity studies.

Systematic review

Search strategy and information sources.

Initially, the Cochrane database was searched with the aim of identifying systematic reviews of the P-CAT. When no such reviews were found, subsequent preliminary searches were performed in the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. These databases play a fundamental role in recent scientific literature since they are the main sources of published articles that undergo high-quality content and editorial review processes [ 42 ]. The search formula was as follows. The original P-CAT article [ 21 ] was located, after which all articles that cited it through 2021 were identified and analyzed. This approach ensured the inclusion of all validations. No articles were excluded on the basis of language to avoid language bias [ 43 ]. Moreover, to reduce the effects of publication bias, a complementary search in Google Scholar was also performed to allow the inclusion of “gray” literature [ 44 ]. Finally, a manual search was performed through a review of the references of the included articles to identify other articles that met the search criteria but were not present in any of the aforementioned databases.

This process was conducted by one of the authors and corroborated by another using the Covidence tool [ 45 ]. A third author was consulted in case of doubt.

Eligibility criteria and selection process

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and the search was conducted according to these criteria. The identification code is CRD42022335866.

The articles had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in the systematic review: (a) a methodological approach to P-CAT validations, (b) an experimental or quasiexperimental studies, (c) studies with any type of sample, and (d) studies in any language. We discarded studies that met at least one of the following exclusion criteria: (a) systematic reviews or bibliometric reviews of the instrument or meta-analyses or (b) studies published after 2021.

Data collection process

After the articles were selected, the most relevant information was extracted from each article. Fundamental data were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for each of the sections: introduction, methodology, results and discussion. Information was also recorded about the limitations mentioned in each article as well as the practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Given the aim of the study, information was collected about the sources of validity of each study, including test content (judges’ evaluation, literature review and translation), response processes, internal structure (factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), and relationships with other variables (convergent, divergent, concurrent and predictive validity) and consequences of measurement.

Description of the validity study

To assess the validity of the studies, an Excel table was used. Information was recorded for the seven articles included in the systematic review. The data were extracted directly from the texts of the articles and included information about the authors, the year of publication, the country where each P-CAT validation was produced and each of the five standards proposed in the “Standards” [ 37 ].

The validity source related to internal structure was divided into three sections to record information about dimensionality (e.g., factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), reliability expression (i.e., internal consistency and test-retest) and the study of factorial invariance according to the groups into which it was divided (e.g., sex, age, profession) and the level of study (i.e., metric, intercepts). This approach allowed much more information to be obtained than relying solely on source validity based on internal structure. This division was performed by the same researcher who performed the previous processes.

Study selection and study characteristics

The systematic review process was developed according to the PRISMA methodology [ 41 ].

The WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched on February 12, 2022 and yielded a total of 485 articles. Of these, 111 were found in WoS, 114 in Scopus, 43 in PubMed and 217 in Google Scholar. In the first phase, the title and abstracts of all the articles were read. In this first screening, 457 articles were eliminated because they did not include studies with a methodological approach to P-CAT validation and one article was excluded because it was the original P-CAT article. This resulted in a total of 27 articles, 19 of which were duplicated in different databases and, in the case of Google Scholar, within the same database. This process yielded a total of eight articles that were evaluated for eligibility by a complete reading of the text. In this step, one of the articles was excluded due to a lack of access to the full text of the study [ 31 ] (although the original manuscript was found, it was impossible to access the complete content; in addition, the authors of the manuscript were contacted, but no reply was received). Finally, a manual search was performed by reviewing the references of the seven studies, but none were considered suitable for inclusion. Thus, the review was conducted with a total of seven articles.

Of the seven studies, six were original validations in other languages. These included Norwegian [ 27 ], Swedish [ 28 ], Chinese (which has two validations [ 29 , 40 ]), Spanish [ 25 ], and Korean [ 30 ]. The study by Selan et al. [ 46 ] included a modification of the Swedish version of the P-CAT and explored the psychometric properties of both versions (i.e., the original Swedish version and the modified version).

The item selection and screening process are illustrated in detail in Fig. 1 .

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews including database searches

Validity analysis

To provide a clear overview of the validity analyses, Table 1 descriptively shows the percentages of items that provide information about the five standards proposed by the “Standards” guide [ 37 ].

The table shows a high number of validity sources related to test content and internal structure in relation to dimensionality and internal consistency, followed by a moderate number of sources for test-retest and relationship with other variables. A rate of 0% is observed for validity sources related to response processes, invariance and test consequences. Below, different sections related to each of the standards are shown, and the information is presented in more detail.

Evidence based on test content

The first standard, which focused on test content, was met for all items (100%). Translation, which refers to the equivalence of content between the original language and the target language, was met in the six articles that conducted validation in another language and/or culture. These studies reported that the validations were translated by bilingual experts and/or experts in the area of care. In addition, three studies [ 25 , 29 , 40 ] reported that the translation process followed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those of Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Evaluation by judges, who referred to the relevance, clarity and importance of the content, was divided into two categories: expert evaluation (a panel of expert judges for each of the areas to consider in the evaluation instrument) and experiential evaluation (potential participants testing the test). The first type of evaluation occurred in three of the articles [ 28 , 29 , 46 ], while the other occurred in two [ 25 , 40 ]. Only one of the items [ 29 ] reported that the scale contained items that reflected the dimension described in the literature. The validity evidence related to the test content presented in each article can be found in Table 2 .

Evidence based on response processes

The second standard, related to the validity of the response process, was obtained according to the “Standards” from the analysis of individual responses: “questioning test takers about their performance strategies or response to particular items (…), maintaining records that monitor the development of a response to a writing task (…), documentation of other aspects of performance, like eye movement or response times…” [ 37 ] (p. 15). According to the analysis of the validity of the response processes, none of the articles complied with this evidence.

Evidence based on internal structure

The third standard, validity related to internal structure, was divided into three sections. First, the dimensionality of each study was examined in terms of factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings. Le et al. [ 40 ] conducted an exploratory-confirmatory design while Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] conducted a confirmatory-exploratory design to assess construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and investigated it further using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The remaining articles employed only a single form of factor analysis: three employed EFA, and two employed CFA. Regarding the next point, only three of the articles reported the factor extraction method used, including Kaiser’s eigenvalue, criterion, scree plot test, parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Instrument validations yielded a total of two factors in five of the seven articles, while one yielded a single dimension [ 25 ] and the other yielded three dimensions [ 29 ], as in the original instrument. The interfactor R was reported only in the study by Zhong and Lou [ 29 ], whereas in the study by Martínez et al. [ 25 ], it could be easily obtained since it consisted of only one dimension. Internal replication was also calculated in the Spanish validation by randomly splitting the sample into two to test the correlations between factors. The effectiveness of the method was not reported in any of the articles. This information is presented in Table 3 in addition to a summary of the factor loadings.

The second section examined reliability. All the studies presented measures of internal consistency conducted in their entirety with Cronbach’s α coefficient for both the total scale and the subscales. The ω coefficient of McDonald was not used in any case. Four of the seven articles performed a test-retest test. Martínez et al. [ 25 ] conducted a test-retest after a period of seven days, while Le et al. [ 40 ] and Rokstad et al. [ 27 ] performed it between one and two weeks later and Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] allowed approximately two weeks to pass after the initial test.

The third section analyzes the calculation of invariance, which was not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on relationships with other variables

In the fourth standard, based on validity according to the relationship with other variables, the articles that reported it used only convergent validity (i.e., it was hypothesized that the variables related to the construct measured by the test—in this case, person-centeredness—were positively or negatively related to another construct). Discriminant validity hypothesizes that the variables related to the PCC construct are not correlated in any way with any other variable studied. No article (0%) measured discriminant evidence, while four (57%) measured convergent evidence [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 46 ]. Convergent validity was obtained through comparisons with instruments such as the Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version (PCQ-S), the Staff-Based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia (IC), the Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale (CPEAB), the Organizational Climate (CLIOR) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). In the case of Selan et al. [ 46 ], convergent validity was assessed on two items considered by the authors as “crude measures of person-centered care (i.e., external constructs) giving an indication of the instruments’ ability to measure PCC” (p. 4). Concurrent validity, which measures the degree to which the results of one test are or are not similar to those of another test conducted at more or less the same time with the same participants, and predictive validity, which allows predictions to be established regarding behavior based on comparison between the values of the instrument and the criterion, were not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on the consequences of testing

The fifth and final standard was related to the consequences of the test. It analyzed the consequences, both intended and unintended, of applying the test to a given sample. None of the articles presented explicit or implicit evidence of this.

The last two sources of validity can be seen in Table 4 .

Table 5 shows the results of the set of validity tests for each study according to the described standards.

The main purpose of this article is to analyze the evidence of validity in different validation studies of the P-CAT. To gather all existing validations, a systematic review of all literature citing this instrument was conducted.

The publication of validation studies of the P-CAT has been constant over the years. Since the publication of the original instrument in 2010, seven validations have been published in other languages (taking into account the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], which could not be included in this study) as well as a modification of one of these versions. The very unequal distribution of validations between languages and countries is striking. A recent systematic review [ 51 ] revealed that in Europe, the countries where the PCC approach is most widely used are the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Norway. It has also been shown that the neighboring countries seem to exert an influence on each other due to proximity [ 52 ] such that they tend to organize healthcare in a similar way, as is the case for Scandinavian countries. This favors the expansion of PCC and explains the numerous validations we found in this geographical area.

Although this approach is conceived as an essential element of healthcare for most governments [ 53 ], PCC varies according to the different definitions and interpretations attributed to it, which can cause confusion in its application (e.g., between Norway and the United Kingdom [ 54 ]). Moreover, facilitators of or barriers to implementation depend on the context and level of development of each country, and financial support remains one of the main factors in this regard [ 53 ]. This fact explains why PCC is not globally widespread among all territories. In countries where access to healthcare for all remains out of reach for economic reasons, the application of this approach takes a back seat, as does the validation of its assessment tools. In contrast, in a large part of Europe or in countries such as China or South Korea that have experienced decades of rapid economic development, patients are willing to be involved in their medical treatment and enjoy more satisfying and efficient medical experiences and environments [ 55 ], which facilitates the expansion of validations of instruments such as the P-CAT.

Regarding validity testing, the guidelines proposed by the “Standards” [ 37 ] were followed. According to the analysis of the different validations of the P-CAT instrument, none of the studies used a structured validity theory-based procedural framework for conducting validation. The most frequently reported validity tests were on the content of the test and two of the sections into which the internal structure was divided (i.e., dimensionality and internal consistency).

In the present article, the most cited source of validity in the studies was the content of the test because most of the articles were validations of the P-CAT in other languages, and the authors reported that the translation procedure was conducted by experts in all cases. In addition, several of the studies employed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those by Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Several studies also assessed the relevance, clarity and importance of the content.

The third source of validity, internal structure, was the next most often reported, although it appeared unevenly among the three sections into which this evidence was divided. Dimensionality and internal consistency were reported in all studies, followed by test-retest consistency. In relation to the first section, factor analysis, a total of five EFAs and four CFAs were presented in the validations. Traditionally, EFA has been used in research to assess dimensionality and identify key psychological constructs, although this approach involves a number of inconveniences, such as difficulty testing measurement invariance and incorporating latent factors into subsequent analyses [ 56 ] or the major problem of factor loading matrix rotation [ 57 ]. Studies eventually began to employ CFA, a technique that overcame some of these obstacles [ 56 ] but had other drawbacks; for example, the strict requirement of zero cross-loadings often does not fit the data well, and misspecification of zero loadings tends to produce distorted factors [ 57 ]. Recently, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) has been proposed. This technique is widely recommended both conceptually and empirically to assess the internal structure of psychological tools [ 58 ] since it overcomes the limitations of EFA and CFA in estimating their parameters [ 56 , 57 ].

The next section, reliability, reports the total number of items according to Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient. Reliability is defined as a combination of systematic and random influences that determine the observed scores on a psychological test. Reporting the reliability measure ensures that item-based scores are consistent, that the tool’s responses are replicable and that they are not modified solely by random noise [ 59 , 60 ]. Currently, the most commonly employed reliability coefficient in studies with a multi-item measurement scale (MIMS) is Cronbach’s α [ 60 , 61 ].

Cronbach’s α [ 62 ] is based on numerous strict assumptions (e.g., the test must be unidimensional, factor loadings must be equal for all items and item errors should not covary) to estimate internal consistency. These assumptions are difficult to meet, and their violation may produce small reliability estimates [ 60 ]. One of the alternative measures to α that is increasingly recommended by the scientific literature is McDonald’s ω [ 63 ], a composite reliability measure. This coefficient is recommended for congeneric scales in which tau equivalence is not assumed. It has several advantages. For example, estimates of ω are usually robust when the estimated model contains more factors than the true model, even with small samples, or when skewness in univariate item distributions produces lower biases than those found when using α [ 59 ].

The test-retest method was the next most commonly reported internal structure section in these studies. This type of reliability considers the consistency of the scores of a test between two measurements separated by a period [ 64 ]. It is striking that test-retest consistency does not have a prevalence similar to that of internal consistency since, unlike internal consistency, test-retest consistency can be assessed for practically all types of patient-reported outcomes. It is even considered by some measurement experts to report reliability with greater relevance than internal consistency since it plays a fundamental role in the calculation of parameters for health measures [ 64 ]. However, the literature provides little guidance regarding the assessment of this type of reliability.

The internal structure section that was least frequently reported in the studies in this review was invariance. A lack of invariance refers to a difference between scores on a test that is not explained by group differences in the structure it is intended to measure [ 65 ]. The invariance of the measure should be emphasized as a prerequisite in comparisons between groups since “if scale invariance is not examined, item bias may not be fully recognized and this may lead to a distorted interpretation of the bias in a particular psychological measure” [ 65 ].

Evidence related to other variables was the next most reported source of validity in the studies included in this review. Specifically, the four studies that reported this evidence did so according to convergent validity and cited several instruments. None of the studies included evidence of discriminant validity, although this may be because there are currently several obstacles related to the measurement of this type of validity [ 66 ]. On the one hand, different definitions are used in the applied literature, which makes its evaluation difficult; on the other hand, the literature on discriminant validity focuses on techniques that require the use of multiple measurement methods, which often seem to have been introduced without sufficient evidence or are applied randomly.

Validity related to response processes was not reported by any of the studies. There are several methods to analyze this validity. These methods can be divided into two groups: “those that directly access the psychological processes or cognitive operations (think aloud, focus group, and interviews), compared to those which provide indirect indicators which in turn require additional inference (eye tracking and response times)” [ 38 ]. However, this validity evidence has traditionally been reported less frequently than others in most studies, perhaps because there are fewer clear and accepted practices on how to design or report these studies [ 67 ].

Finally, the consequences of testing were not reported in any of the studies. There is debate regarding this source of validity, with two main opposing streams of thought. On the one hand [ 68 , 69 ]) suggests that consequences that appear after the application of a test should not derive from any source of test invalidity and that “adverse consequences only undermine the validity of an assessment if they can be attributed to a problem of fit between the test and the construct” (p. 6). In contrast, Cronbach [ 69 , 70 ] notes that adverse social consequences that may result from the application of a test may call into question the validity of the test. However, the potential risks that may arise from the application of a test should be minimized in any case, especially in regard to health assessments. To this end, it is essential that this aspect be assessed by instrument developers and that the experiences of respondents be protected through the development of comprehensive and informed practices [ 39 ].

This work is not without limitations. First, not all published validation studies of the P-CAT, such as the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], were available. These studies could have provided relevant information. Second, many sources of validity could not be analyzed because the studies provided scant or no data, such as response processes [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], relationships with other variables [ 27 , 28 , 40 ], consequences of testing [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], or invariance [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of internal structure and interfactor R [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], internal replication [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] or the effect of the method [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of dimensionality. In the future, it is hoped that authors will become aware of the importance of validity, as shown in this article and many others, and provide data on unreported sources so that comprehensive validity studies can be performed.

The present work also has several strengths. The search was extensive, and many studies were obtained using three different databases, including WoS, one of the most widely used and authoritative databases in the world. This database includes a large number and variety of articles and is not fully automated due to its human team [ 71 , 72 , 73 ]. In addition, to prevent publication bias, gray literature search engines such as Google Scholar were used to avoid the exclusion of unpublished research [ 44 ]. Finally, linguistic bias was prevented by not limiting the search to articles published in only one or two languages, thus avoiding the overrepresentation of studies in one language and underrepresentation in others [ 43 ].

Conclusions

Validity is understood as the degree to which tests and theory support the interpretations of instrument scores for their intended use [ 37 ]. From this perspective, the various validations of the P-CAT are not presented in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. After integration and analysis of the results, it was observed that these validation reports offer a high number of sources of validity related to test content, internal structure in dimensionality and internal consistency, a moderate number of sources for internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables, and a very low number of sources for response processes, internal structure in terms of invariance, and test consequences.

Validity plays a fundamental role in ensuring a sound scientific basis for test interpretations because it provides evidence of the extent to which the data provided by the test are valid for the intended purpose. This can affect clinical practice as people’s health may depend on it. In this sense, the “Standards” are considered a suitable and valid theory-based procedural framework for studying this modern conception of questionnaire validity, which should be taken into account in future research in this area.

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments for assessing PCC, as shown in this study, PCC has rarely been studied. The developers of measurement tests applied to the health care setting, on which the health and quality of life of many people may depend, should use this validity framework to reflect the clear purpose of the measurement. This approach is important because the equity of decision making by healthcare professionals in daily clinical practice may depend on the source of validity. Through a more extensive study of validity that includes the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use, the applicability of the P-CAT, an instrument that was initially developed for long-term care homes for elderly people, could be expanded to other care settings. However, the findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on traditionally studied types of validity and overlook the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use.

Data availability

All data relevant to the study were included in the article or uploaded as additional files. Additional template data extraction forms are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Educational Research Association

American Psychological Association

Confirmatory factor analysis

Organizational Climate

Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory structural equation modeling

Staff-based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia

Maslach Burnout Inventory

Multi-item measurement scale

Maximum likelihood

National Council on Measurement in Education

Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

Person-centered care

Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

International Register of Systematic Review Protocols

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

weighted least square mean and variance adjusted

Web of Science

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy; 2001.

Google Scholar

International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. What is patient-centred healthcare? A review of definitions and principles. 2nd ed. London, UK: International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations; 2007.

World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services: interim report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.

Britten N, Ekman I, Naldemirci Ö, Javinger M, Hedman H, Wolf A. Learning from Gothenburg model of person centred healthcare. BMJ. 2020;370:m2738.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Van Diepen C, Fors A, Ekman I, Hensing G. Association between person-centred care and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction and work-related health: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e042658.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ekman N, Taft C, Moons P, Mäkitalo Å, Boström E, Fors A. A state-of-the-art review of direct observation tools for assessing competency in person-centred care. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103634.

American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-centered care: a definition and essential elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:15–8.

Article Google Scholar

McCormack B, McCance TV. Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:472–9.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2016.

Nolan MR, Davies S, Brown J, Keady J, Nolan J. Beyond person-centred care: a new vision for gerontological nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:45–53.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred nursing: theory, models and methods. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

Book Google Scholar

Abraha I, Rimland JM, Trotta FM, Dell’Aquila G, Cruz-Jentoft A, Petrovic M, et al. Systematic review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to treat behavioural disturbances in older patients with dementia. The SENATOR-OnTop series. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012759.

Anderson K, Blair A. Why we need to care about the care: a longitudinal study linking the quality of residential dementia care to residents’ quality of life. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;91:104226.

Bauer M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Haesler E, Beattie E, Hill KD, Poulos CJ. The impact of nurse and care staff education on the functional ability and quality of life of people living with dementia in aged care: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;67:27–45.

Smythe A, Jenkins C, Galant-Miecznikowska M, Dyer J, Downs M, Bentham P, et al. A qualitative study exploring nursing home nurses’ experiences of training in person centred dementia care on burnout. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102745.

McCormack B, Borg M, Cardiff S, Dewing J, Jacobs G, Janes N, et al. Person-centredness– the ‘state’ of the art. Int Pract Dev J. 2015;5:1–15.

Wilberforce M, Challis D, Davies L, Kelly MP, Roberts C, Loynes N. Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:63.

Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.

Sharma T, Bamford M, Dodman D. Person-centred care: an overview of reviews. Contemp Nurse. 2016;51:107–20.

Ahmed S, Djurkovic A, Manalili K, Sahota B, Santana MJ. A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts. Health Sci Rep. 2019;2:e140.

Edvardsson D, Fetherstonhaugh D, Nay R, Gibson S. Development and initial testing of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22:101–8.

Tamagawa R, Groff S, Anderson J, Champ S, Deiure A, Looyis J, et al. Effects of a provincial-wide implementation of screening for distress on healthcare professionals’ confidence and understanding of person-centered care in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:1259–66.

Degl’ Innocenti A, Wijk H, Kullgren A, Alexiou E. The influence of evidence-based design on staff perceptions of a supportive environment for person-centered care in forensic psychiatry. J Forensic Nurs. 2020;16:E23–30.

Hulin CL. A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: fidelity across languages. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1987;18:115–42.

Martínez T, Suárez-Álvarez J, Yanguas J, Muñiz J. Spanish validation of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Aging Ment Health. 2016;20:550–8.

Martínez T, Martínez-Loredo V, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Assessment of person-centered care in gerontology services: a new tool for healthcare professionals. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20:62–70.

Rokstad AM, Engedal K, Edvardsson D, Selbaek G. Psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18:99–105.

Sjögren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, Zingmark K, Edvardsson D. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:406–15.

Zhong XB, Lou VW. Person-centered care in Chinese residential care facilities: a preliminary measure. Aging Ment Health. 2013;17:952–8.

Tak YR, Woo HY, You SY, Kim JH. Validity and reliability of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool in long-term care facilities in Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2015;45:412–9.

Brugnolli A, Debiasi M, Zenere A, Zanolin ME, Baggia M. The person-centered Care Assessment Tool in nursing homes: psychometric evaluation of the Italian version. J Nurs Meas. 2020;28:555–63.

Bru-Luna LM, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Livia J. Reliability generalization study of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool. Front Psychol. 2021;12:712582.

Edvardsson D, Innes A. Measuring person-centered care: a critical comparative review of published tools. Gerontologist. 2010;50:834–46.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:64.

Sireci SG. On the validity of useless tests. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2016;23:226–35.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice: a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030753.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

Padilla JL, Benítez I. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26:136–44.

PubMed Google Scholar

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Hoban E, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035974.

Le C, Ma K, Tang P, Edvardsson D, Behm L, Zhang J, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e031580.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.

Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.

Arias MM. Aspectos metodológicos Del metaanálisis (1). Pediatr Aten Primaria. 2018;20:297–302.

Covidence. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Australia. 2014. https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

Selan D, Jakobsson U, Condelius A. The Swedish P-CAT: modification and exploration of psychometric properties of two different versions. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31:527–35.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.

Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–3.

Hambleton R, Merenda P, Spielberger C. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.

Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition. Psicothema. 2013;25:151–7.

Rosengren K, Brannefors P, Carlstrom E. Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35:265–80.

Alharbi T, Olsson LE, Ekman I, Carlström E. The impact of organizational culture on the outcome of hospital care: after the implementation of person-centred care. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:104–10.

Bensbih S, Souadka A, Diez AG, Bouksour O. Patient centered care: focus on low and middle income countries and proposition of new conceptual model. J Med Surg Res. 2020;7:755–63.

Stranz A, Sörensdotter R. Interpretations of person-centered dementia care: same rhetoric, different practices? A comparative study of nursing homes in England and Sweden. J Aging Stud. 2016;38:70–80.

Zhou LM, Xu RH, Xu YH, Chang JH, Wang D. Inpatients’ perception of patient-centered care in Guangdong province, China: a cross-sectional study. Inquiry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211059482 .

Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110.

Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16:397–438.

Cabedo-Peris J, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Ortiz-Morán M. Basic empathy scale: a systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis. Healthc (Basel). 2022;10:29–62.

Flora DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2020;3:484–501.

McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23:412–33.

Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14:1–24.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

McDonald R. Test theory: a unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999.

Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1713–20.

Ceylan D, Çizel B, Karakaş H. Testing destination image scale invariance for intergroup comparison. Tour Anal. 2020;25:239–51.

Rönkkö M, Cho E. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods. 2022;25:6–14.

Hubley A, Zumbo B. Response processes in the context of validity: setting the stage. In: Zumbo B, Hubley A, editors. Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. pp. 1–12.

Messick S. Validity of performance assessments. In: Philips G, editor. Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1996. pp. 1–18.

Moss PA. The role of consequences in validity theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1998;17:6–12.

Cronbach L. Five perspectives on validity argument. In: Wainer H, editor. Test validity. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum; 1988. pp. 3–17.

Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:363–76.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.

Web of Science Group. Editorial selection process. Clarivate. 2024. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/%20editorial-selection-process/ . Accessed 12 Sept 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the casual helpers for their aid in information processing and searching.

This work is one of the results of research project HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”. Main researcher: Filiberto Toledano-Toledano Ph.D. The present research was funded by federal funds for health research and was approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. The source of federal funds did not control the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or decisions regarding publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Educación, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Lluna Maria Bru-Luna

Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de València, Blasco Ibáñez Avenue, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Manuel Martí-Vilar

Departamento de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Tomás Marsano Avenue 242, Lima 34, Perú

César Merino-Soto

Instituto Central de Gestión de la Investigación, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Carlos Gonzalez Avenue 285, 15088, San Miguel, Perú

José Livia-Segovia

Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez Instituto Nacional de Salud, Dr. Márquez 162, 06720, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico

Juan Garduño-Espinosa & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria en Salud, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, México-Xochimilco 289, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Dirección de Investigación y Diseminación del Conocimiento, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias e Innovación para la Formación de Comunidad Científica, INDEHUS, Periférico Sur 4860, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study, collected the data, performed the formal anal- ysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. collected the data, performed the formal analysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.L.S. collected the data, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study; provided resources, software, and supervision; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiberto Toledano-Toledano .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bru-Luna, L.M., Martí-Vilar, M., Merino-Soto, C. et al. Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Psychol 12 , 217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Download citation

Received : 17 May 2023

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Person-centered care assessment tool

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

General enquiries: [email protected]

Open access
Published: 08 November 2023

Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence

Chloe Clifford Astbury 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Kirsten M. Lee 1 , 2 ,
Ryan Mcleod 1 ,
Raphael Aguiar 2 ,
Asma Atique 1 ,
Marilen Balolong 4 ,
Janielle Clarke 1 ,
Anastassia Demeshko 1 ,
Ronald Labonté 5 ,
Arne Ruckert 5 ,
Priyanka Sibal 6 ,
Kathleen Chelsea Togño 4 ,
A. M. Viens 1 , 3 ,
Mary Wiktorowicz 1 , 2 ,
Marc K. Yambayamba 7 ,
Amy Yau 8 &
Tarra L. Penney 1 , 2 , 3

Globalization and Health volume 19 , Article number: 82 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2931 Accesses

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

Emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin present a critical threat to global population health. As accelerating globalisation makes epidemics and pandemics more difficult to contain, there is a need for effective preventive interventions that reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover events. Public policies can play a key role in preventing spillover events. The aim of this review is to identify and describe evaluations of public policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover. Our approach is informed by a One Health perspective, acknowledging the inter-connectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

In this systematic scoping review, we searched Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Global Health in May 2021 using search terms combining animal health and the animal-human interface, public policy, prevention and zoonoses. We screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and reported our process in line with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We also searched relevant organisations’ websites for evaluations published in the grey literature. All evaluations of public policies aiming to prevent zoonotic spillover events were eligible for inclusion. We summarised key data from each study, mapping policies along the spillover pathway.

Our review found 95 publications evaluating 111 policies. We identified 27 unique policy options including habitat protection; trade regulations; border control and quarantine procedures; farm and market biosecurity measures; public information campaigns; and vaccination programmes, as well as multi-component programmes. These were implemented by many sectors, highlighting the cross-sectoral nature of zoonotic spillover prevention. Reports emphasised the importance of surveillance data in both guiding prevention efforts and enabling policy evaluation, as well as the importance of industry and private sector actors in implementing many of these policies. Thoughtful engagement with stakeholders ranging from subsistence hunters and farmers to industrial animal agriculture operations is key for policy success in this area.

This review outlines the state of the evaluative evidence around policies to prevent zoonotic spillover in order to guide policy decision-making and focus research efforts. Since we found that most of the existing policy evaluations target ‘downstream’ determinants, additional research could focus on evaluating policies targeting ‘upstream’ determinants of zoonotic spillover, such as land use change, and policies impacting infection intensity and pathogen shedding in animal populations, such as those targeting animal welfare.

The increasing incidence of zoonotic emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) has been attributed to behavioural practices and ecological and socioeconomic change, and is predicted to continue in the coming years [ 1 ]. Higher levels of anthropogenic activity, including agricultural intensification, urbanisation and other forms of land use change, have led to increased interactions between wildlife, humans and livestock, increasing the risk of cross-species transmission [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Meanwhile, accelerating rates of globalisation and urbanisation, leading to increased global movement of people and goods and more dense human settlements, have made outbreaks of disease in human populations more difficult to contain [ 5 ]. In response, a call has been issued by leading organisations and experts, including the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Livestock Research Institute and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, to complement reactive policy responses with policies that prevent zoonotic EIDs [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. This approach, sometimes called deep prevention, would need to target upstream drivers to reduce the risk of outbreaks occuring [ 11 ].

Zoonotic spillover, defined as the transmission of a pathogen from an animal to a human, depends on the alignment of ecological, epidemiological and behavioural factors [ 12 ]. Zoonotic pathogens must be transmitted across a spillover pathway (Fig. 1 ) in order to induce infections in humans [ 12 , 13 ]. This involves meeting a series of conditions including appropriate density and distribution of reservoir hosts, pathogen prevalence, infection intensity and human exposure [ 12 ]. Across this pathway, a number of drivers of zoonotic spillover have been identified, including changes in wildlife and livestock populations [ 14 ]; deforestation, urbanisation and other forms of land use change [ 15 , 16 ]; bushmeat consumption [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]; and a variety of human practices including hunting, farming, animal husbandry, mining, keeping of exotic pets and trade [ 8 , 9 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. These large-scale changes have repeatedly given rise to spillover events [ 2 , 15 , 23 ], sometimes involving pathogens with epidemic or pandemic potential [ 24 ].

Spillover pathway adapted from Plowright et al. [ 12 , 13 ]

The responsibility for addressing zoonotic disease frequently spans multiple sectors of governance due to its relevance for both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, which recognises the health of humans, animals and the environment as being closely linked and inter-dependent [ 25 ], can be useful in understanding the spillover pathway and drivers of spillover events, as well as informing policy and governance approaches to address this cross-sectoral problem. At the international level, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the United Nations Environment Programme have endorsed a One Health approach to policymaking to respond to zoonotic infectious diseases, emphasising collaboration between agencies [ 26 ].

Operationalising a One Health approach to policy

While One Health is a promising approach to preventing zoonotic EIDs, operationalising this concept remains a challenge. Evaluative evidence exists around the effectiveness of interventions to prevent spillover events [ 13 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], however these have often been implemented as short- to medium-term programmes or academic investigations [ 8 ]. In some cases, zoonoses have re-emerged after successful programmes have ended [ 29 ]. As a result, experts have argued for the incorporation of successful interventions into policy frameworks, providing interventions with the sustainability required for long-term disease control [ 8 , 10 ].

Operationalising a One Health approach to policy involves understanding the policy options, identifying the stakeholders involved and developing insights into how to successfully implement and evaluate these policies. Although the longevity and scope of government actions may make policy an effective vehicle for prevention of emerging diseases, implementing policy is a complex process involving numerous actors with competing views and interests [ 30 ]. This context presents challenges for policy development and implementation. Where relevant policies are designed and implemented in isolation, opportunities for co-benefits may be missed and interventions may produce unintended consequences [ 31 ]. Finally, while evaluative evidence is key to informing future policy decisions, the complex systems in which policies are often implemented make evaluation challenging [ 32 ].

Aims and scope

To provide insights around how to use policy to successfully prevent zoonotic spillover events, it is necessary to synthesise the available evaluative evidence. A One Health perspective allows this evidence synthesis to incorporate a wide range of policy instruments and actors and to identify approaches to successfully implementing and evaluating policies in this complex, multi-sectoral context.

Approaches to managing epidemic and pandemic infectious pathogens when they have entered human populations have been systematically catalogued in the medical literature [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. These measures include hand washing, face masks, school closures, contact tracing, vaccination and case isolation. Further upstream, systematic reviews of interventions targeting the spillover pathway have predominantly focused on programmes rather than policies, and have been restricted by various characteristics such as geographic region [ 28 ] or pathogen type [ 29 ], or focused on programmes with an explicit endorsement of a One Health approach [ 27 ]. In consequence, a comprehensive understanding of what policies to prevent zoonotic spillover have been evaluated, what actors are involved, and how to successfully implement and evaluate them, is lacking. To address these research gaps, our objective was to synthesise the existing evaluative evidence around policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover.

Our approach to identifying and analysing this literature was informed by a One Health perspective, acknowledging the inter-connectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

We conducted a systematic scoping review of evaluations of policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover events, based on a previously published protocol [ 40 ]. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews [ 41 ]. The scoping review was conducted in line with guidelines published by Arksey and O’Malley and refined by Levac and colleagues [ 42 , 43 , 44 ], which emphasise an iterative approach suited to an exploratory research question.

The One Health perspective guided the development of the review methodology. This included the search strategy and inclusion criteria, which allow for the inclusion of policies focused on human, animal or environmental health (or any combination of these areas) and with leadership from one or more of these sectors, and the research questions, which seek to outline the policies and the range of sectors involved in implementation. While our focus on the spillover pathway meant we only included policies that had been evaluated in terms of their impacts on animal and human population distributions, health and interactions, we explicitly searched for environment-focused policies (e.g., protection of wetlands and other wildlife habitats) that might have been evaluated from this perspective. We also aimed to interrogate the One Health approach to governance, by assessing to what extent cross-sectoral collaboration – a key tenet of One Health practice [ 25 ] – emerged as a reason for policy success.

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Informed by our research objective, our research questions were:

What policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover (i.e., policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover included in the spillover pathway [ 12 ]: population distribution, health and interactions) have been evaluated?

What are the types of policies?

Which policy actors (single department, multi-sectoral, whole of government) are involved?

What are the reasons for policy success and failure, and the unintended consequences of implementing these policies?

How has evaluation of these policies been approached in the literature?

What are the methods or study designs used?

What are the outcomes?

What are the opportunities and challenges for evaluation?

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

We systematically searched four electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health) in May 2021. The search strategy was organized by the main concepts in our research question: the spillover pathway; public policy; prevention; and zoonotic pathogens. The search strategy was developed iteratively, informed by existing systematic reviews focused on related concepts [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ] and known indicator papers meeting inclusion criteria. We also searched the websites of 18 organisations involved in the prevention of zoonotic spillover to identify relevant grey literature. The choice of organisations was informed by an actor mapping exercise in which we identified key international organisations working on the prevention of emerging zoonoses using network sampling [ 50 ]. We searched the websites of a subset of these organisations, focusing on inter-governmental organisations and organisations whose main focus was zoonotic disease. See Supplementary File 1 for details of academic database and grey literature search strategies.

Stage 3: study selection

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Primary empirical study with an English-language abstract from any country or region (reviews were excluded);

Study reporting empirical findings from an evaluation of any sort; and.

Study focused on a policy implemented by government that targets the determinants of zoonotic spillover.

Academic records identified through the searches were collated and double screened using the online platform Covidence [ 51 ]. Two researchers (CCA and KML) initially screened titles and abstracts. Title and abstract screening of an initial set of 100 papers was undertaken by both researchers independently. Results were compared to ensure consistency in decisions around study eligibility, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. This process was repeated until an acceptable level of agreement (> 90%) was reached. The remaining papers were then screened by one of the two reviewers. Full-text screening was undertaken by two independent researchers and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies with full-texts in any language were eligible for inclusion if they include an English-language abstract. Full-text studies published in French, Spanish or Chinese were single-screened by a member of the research team fluent in that language (CCA or AY). Studies published in other languages were translated as necessary.

Grey literature was screened by one researcher (CCA) to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. Publications were initially screened by looking at titles, tables of contents and executive summaries. Where these indicated that the publication might be eligible, documents were read in full to determine if inclusion criteria were met.

In line with published guidelines, the approach to study selection was refined iteratively when reviewing articles for inclusion [ 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Stage 4: charting the data

Data charting was conducted using a form designed to identify the information required to answer the research question and sub-research questions (see Supplementary File 2). Data charting focused on characteristics of the study, the policy, and the evaluation. For each policy, this included identifying which determinant of zoonotic spillover situated along the spillover pathway was being targeted. For the purpose of this study, we used a model of the spillover pathway adapted from Plowright et al.’s work [ 12 , 13 ], in which we differentiated between wildlife and domesticated animals (Fig. 1 ). This differentiation is important in the policy context, as the wildlife-domesticated animal interface is an important site for intervention, as well as the human-animal interface.

The data charting form was piloted with ten records to ensure that it was consistent with the research question, and revised iteratively [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Data charting was conducted by one researcher (CCA, RM, JC, AD or PS) and checked by a second researcher (CCA or KML). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

Our protocol stated that we would use the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [ 52 ] to assess study quality [ 40 ]. However, on reviewing the included studies we selected two tools that were more appropriate to their characteristics: (1) ROBINS-I [ 53 ] for quantitative outcome evaluations and (2) a tool developed by the authors of a previous review [ 54 ] – based on Dixon-Woods et al.’s approach to assessing study credibility and contribution [ 55 ] – for all other study types. Two researchers (CCA and KML) assessed study quality independently for an initial set of 10 studies, before comparing assessments and reaching agreement where discrepancies occurred. This process was repeated until an adequate level of agreement was reached (> 90%). The remaining studies were assessed by a single researcher (CCA or KML). Records were not excluded based on quality assessment. Instead, assessments were primarily used to help synthesize the literature on how policies were evaluated. Quality assessment was not performed on grey literature due to the wide variability in the format and comprehensiveness of included publications.

We analysed the charted data, presenting a numerical summary of the included studies in table form, allowing us to describe the range of policy interventions that have been evaluated, aspects of policy implementation and approaches to evaluation. Based on the charted data, we inductively grouped evaluated policies with similar characteristics into policy types and assigned a policy instrument to each policy type: communication/marketing, guidelines, fiscal, regulation, legislation, environmental/social planning or service provision. We mapped policy types onto the spillover pathway shown in Fig. 1 to outline the policies that have been used to target each of these determinants. Thematic analysis was conducted using the approach described by Braun and Clarke where the focus is guided by the researcher’s analytic interests [ 56 ], with five overarching themes chosen as an a priori coding framework: (1) reasons for policy success; (2) reasons for policy failure; (3) unintended consequences of policy implementation; (4) opportunities for policy evaluation; and (5) challenges for policy evaluation. We selected these themes based on our research questions and previous familiarisation with the included articles during the process of article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Sub-themes were subsequently identified through close reading and coding of the included articles. Thematic analysis was conducted by one researcher (RM) using the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose [ 57 ] and reviewed by the lead author (CCA).

Study characteristics

After removing duplicates, our searches identified a total of 5064 academic records. After screening titles and abstracts, we considered 330 records for full-text review. We also identified 11 relevant publications through our grey literature search. Grey literature reports were published by five organisations: four organisations focused on health and disease, including an intergovernmental organisation (the World Organisation for Animal Health) and three non-governmental organisations (the One Health Commission, the Global Alliance for Rabies Control and EcoHealth Alliance); and one non-governmental organisation focused on wildlife trade (TRAFFIC). In total, we included 95 publications in this review (PRISMA diagram in Fig. 2 ) [ 58 ].

We excluded studies which assessed the unintended consequences of policies to prevent zoonotic spillover without evaluating their effectiveness. This included studies that looked exclusively at the mental health impacts of mandatory livestock culls on farm workers [ 59 ]; studies which focused on potentially relevant factors, such as the wildlife trade, but with no consideration of outcomes situated on the spillover pathway [ 60 ]; and studies which assessed the detection power of surveillance systems without assessing the impact of associated policy interventions [ 61 , 62 , 63 ].

Policy characteristics

The characteristics of the policies evaluated in the included studies are presented in Supplementary File 3 and summarised in Table 1 . Some studies evaluated more than one policy, particularly modelling studies which compared the impacts of several policy options and process evaluations focused on a range of activities undertaken by a single government. Therefore, the number of evaluated policies (n = 111) is greater than the number of included studies (n = 95).

Most policies were evaluated for their impact on human exposure (21%), pathogen prevalence in domesticated animals (18%), barriers within domesticated animals (15%), and pathogen survival and spread in domesticated animals (9%). There were also a number of multi-component policies studies across multiple stages of the spillover pathway (18%). Fewer studies focused on wildlife health and populations, and none of the included studies evaluated policies for their impact on infection intensity and pathogen release in either domesticated animals or wildlife.

Where the government department responsible for implementing a policy was identified in the paper, most policies were implemented by a single department (35%), although there were a number of multi-sectoral efforts (24%). The range of government sectors responsible for implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover included human health, animal health, food safety, agriculture, conservation, national parks, forestry, fisheries, environmental protection, border control and foreign affairs. Policies were predominantly intended to be implemented by private sector actors, including individuals and organisations working in trade, retail, hunting and animal agriculture. However, some policies were also implemented by public sector actors working in public health, veterinary public health and environmental conservation.

Most policies were situated in high-income (49%) and upper middle-income (28%) countries, with studies from East Asia and the Pacific (43%) and Europe and Central Asia (19%) dominating. Publications focused on policies targeting various zoonotic diseases, with the most common being avian influenza (50%), rabies (19%), brucellosis (11%) and Hendra virus (4%).

Most policies were evaluated using process (38%) or outcome (31%) evaluation. The most frequently used policy instrument was legislation (59%), particularly for managing pathogen spread in domesticated animals through measures such as mandatory vaccination, culls or disinfection protocols. Meanwhile, communication and marketing or service provision was more typically used to reduce risk in wildlife and human populations, for example by providing guidance around recommended hygiene protocol, by distributing oral vaccination in wildlife habitat or by offering vaccination to human populations.

PRISMA 2020 diagram [ 58 ]

What policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover have been evaluated?

Policy types targeted different determinants across the pathway to zoonotic spillover and used various approaches with different evidence of success (Table 2 ). We identified policy options including culling – both general and targeted – of wild and domesticated animals; habitat protection (limiting activities such as agriculture and animal husbandry in wildlife habitats); supplemental feeding to control wildlife movements; vaccination of both wildlife, domesticated animals and human populations with occupational exposure to animals; policies to improve biosecurity in sites where animals are kept, slaughtered and sold, including mandates and information campaigns; live animal market closures; and bans on hunting and selling wildlife. Where outcomes or impacts were evaluated, most policies saw some level of success (i.e., outcome measures were found to vary in a direction that indicated policy success), though relative effectiveness was not assessed due to variation in study design and outcome measure. Policies with consistent evidence of effectiveness – where outcome measures varied in a direction that indicated policy success in all studies included in the review – included culling and sterilisation of wildlife populations, habitat protection, vaccination in wildlife and domesticated animal populations and mandated disinfection protocols. Policies with equivocal evidence of success (i.e., outcome measures varied in different directions or studies had different findings, some indicating success and some indicating failure) included supplemental feeding of wildlife, pre-emptive livestock culls, live animal market closures and bans on wildlife hunting, trade and consumption. For many policies, there were no impact or outcome evaluations identified in this review.

What are the reasons for policy success?

The evidence from the identified impact and outcome evaluations suggests that most of the policies succeeded to some extent. A range of factors contributed to policy success. First, studies emphasized the importance of effective collaboration and coordination between various agencies, disciplines, and levels of government in the execution of policy directives [ 114 , 115 ], in line with a One Health approach to policy and governance. Policy success was attributed, in part, to strong working relationships that encouraged effective communication between various government agencies, and facilitated timely and appropriate policy responses [ 115 ]. Synergy between agencies responsible for surveillance and the execution of control strategies was also reported to be beneficial. For example, prompt communication and effective collaboration between laboratories testing samples and agencies implementing culls in the field was seen as important in the control of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Nigeria [ 116 ]. Similarly, authors also identified the importance of private-public relations and private sector contributions to implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover [ 112 ]. This included stronger government engagement with private veterinarians as a factor for success in reducing the spillover of Hendra virus in Queensland [ 109 ], and with farmers, poultry companies and national farming and poultry processing associations in Ghana as part of a successful campaign to reduce risk from highly pathogenic avian influenza [ 112 ]. Studies suggest that the inclusion of private sector stakeholders in the policy process has the potential to improve compliance through transparent dialogue around disease ecology, risk and risk mitigation [ 90 , 91 , 103 , 117 ]; and highlight the utility of participatory approaches in prompting behaviour changes [ 91 ].

Second, authors emphasised the significance of economic incentives, suggesting that policy impact is dependent on private actors’ appraisal of costs and benefits. Studies illustrated how incentives, including compensation, subsidies, rebates, and fines, have had varying degrees of success [ 91 , 97 , 112 , 115 ]. Compensation levels [ 104 , 114 ] and enforcement practices [ 92 ] were identified as salient factors for compliance and adherence. For example, fear of sanctions for bushmeat hunting while a ban was in place in some parts of West Africa were identified as a stronger incentive to avoid bushmeat hunting than the fear of contracting Ebola virus [ 97 ]. Culls were seen as particularly challenging in this regard: while the long-term benefits for farmers may outweigh the financial loss [ 104 ], authorities need to be conscientious of the substantial economic impacts when considering policies that mandate culling or safe disposal [ 95 ]. The direct losses related to compliance (time, labour and expenses) and indirect losses due to price fluctuations and decreases in trade volume, as well as losses to associated industries, are substantial [ 88 , 96 , 113 , 118 ].

Third, trust in government and public support for implemented policy were specified as critical factors influencing the effectiveness of disease control strategies, and research suggests that strategic engagement to facilitate compliance is a necessary step in the policy process [ 97 ]. Participatory approaches that attempt to identify and understand factors influencing compliance have been consistently used to overcome resistance to policy, as insights from engagement and consultation can lead to solutions that facilitate behaviour change at the population level [ 91 , 103 ]. For example, a World Health Organization initiative to reduce avian influenza transmission in poultry markets in Indonesia worked alongside market vendors to achieve its aims, carrying out repeated consultations with the vendors and implementing market infrastructure (such as energy and running water in the market) in collaboration with local authorities to support vendor behaviour change [ 91 ].

Fourth, studies also demonstrated the importance of public communication. The quality of information, as well as the volume, complexity and delivery of public health messages, were key factors [ 75 , 114 ]. Authors contend that communication strategies must understand the target audience and how they interpret and engage with messages [ 97 ], for example by building on relationships where there is exiting trust, such as between veterinarians advising animal vaccination and animal owners [ 117 ]. Homogenously delivered communication strategies were ineffectual: they limited opportunities for open discourse; discounted contradictory lived experiences and expressions of uncertainty; and ultimately contributed to scepticism surrounding implemented policies [ 97 , 117 ].

Finally, studies underscored the importance of surveillance infrastructure to inform intervention strategies. Surveillance programs with the ability to collect and operationalize relevant data were essential to the development of appropriate interventions that are responsive to each unique context [ 115 , 119 ]. Implementing effective surveillance programmes requires the appropriate evaluation tools [ 120 ] and trained personnel [ 81 ].

What are the reasons for policy failure?

Studies showed that perceptions of acceptability and appropriateness were crucial to the effectiveness of implemented policies [ 101 , 104 ]. Several factors were identified that negatively affected acceptability and appropriateness, including: additional expenses for private sector actors without sufficient support [ 75 , 100 , 104 , 112 , 114 ], particularly were culls were demanded but reimbursement for farmers was slow and inadequate, as in a brucellosis eradication campaign in Macedonia [ 81 ]; lack of affordable alternatives [ 97 ]; impracticality of implemented strategies [ 75 , 101 ]; lack of cultural understanding in designing policy interventions [ 97 , 100 ], for example the distribution of footwear to pig farmers in a Polynesian context where footwear was not traditionally worn [ 100 ]; lack of understanding of viral ecology [ 100 ]; as well as public scepticism and distrust [ 97 , 114 ].

Additionally, policy ineffectiveness was associated with poor planning and execution of intervention strategies, including lack of clear direction [ 114 ]; incomplete or inconsistent implementation of control measures (17); limited scope of intervention [ 114 ]; and poor enforcement [ 92 ]. A lack of adequate resources to implement strategies also contributed to policy failure [ 81 ]. Adequate financial resources were necessary to hire and train staff to run surveillance and control operations [ 81 ]. Financial resources were also necessary to fund compensation mechanisms that facilitate compliance. Willingness to adopt policy-prescribed disposal practices was found to be associated with compensation levels (incentives) as a proportion of production price, dependency on income from activities driving zoonotic risk, and contact with prevention staff [ 92 ].

What are the unintended consequences of implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover?

A small number of the included studies collected data on the unintended consequences of policies to prevent zoonotic spillover (n = 18). In some instances, unintended consequences were due to disease ecology or human behaviour as a result of policy failure. For example, a study assessing the impacts of the closure of a live poultry market found that, following the closure, vendors travelled to neighbouring markets to sell their animals [ 94 ]. As a result, while cases of avian influenza decreased in the area surrounding the closed market, cases increased in these neighbouring markets, leading to the wider geographic spread of the disease. In another study, elk were provided with supplementary feeding grounds to discourage them from coming into contact with the livestock who shared their range [ 65 ]. While this intervention had the intended consequence of reducing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and livestock, the spread of brucellosis between the elk using the supplementary feeding grounds – who were gathering in larger, tighter groups for longer periods, resulting in higher within-herd transmission – and other elk populations in the area increased. This resulted in an increasing prevalence of brucellosis among the elk, potentially increasing the risk of spillover to livestock. These examples illustrate the complexity of the social and ecological systems in which these policies are implemented, further suggesting the need for a One Health approach to policies to prevent zoonotic spillover.

A key unintended consequence can be attributed to the loss of profits and livelihoods sometimes associated with policies to prevent zoonotic spillover, as described above. The losses incurred by complying with regulations made farmers, hunters and other private sector actors reluctant to report potential infections, contributing to increased unauthorized or illegal activity, and unrestrained spread of disease [ 90 , 92 , 94 , 98 , 112 , 114 ]. Studies investigated the creative ways policy enforcement was circumvented, including hiding hunting equipment on the outskirts of towns or developing informal trade markets and networks [ 97 , 98 ]. Unintended consequences identified in the included evaluations emphasize an opportunity for policymakers to improve sector compliance through public education, levying the influence of consumer attitudes on industry standards [ 104 , 113 ].

A range of study designs were used to evaluate policies. Outcome evaluations (n = 33) used time series or repeat cross-sectional data to conduct evaluations of natural experiments, though most studies did not include a control group for comparison. Outcome evaluations also used case-control and modelling approaches to assess policy impact on an outcome of interest. Process evaluations (n = 30) used cross-sectional and qualitative approaches, as well as study designs combining multiple sources of data, to understand aspects of policy implementation such as the extent to which the policy was being implemented as designed, and the responses and attitudes of stakeholders involved in policy implementation. Economic evaluations (n = 11) included cost-benefit analyses, risk-benefit analyses and modelling studies. Formative evaluations (n = 17) used modelling approaches to estimate what the impacts of a proposed policy option would be in a specific context.

Outcome variables interpreted as indicators of policy success were also numerous and represented determinants along the spillover pathway. As expected, many studies assessed impact on disease transmission, including disease prevalence and incidence, disease eradication, case numbers, and basic reproduction number in human and animal populations, as well as evidence of disease in environmental samples, such as in live animal markets or at carcass disposal sites. Studies also assessed impacts on intermediate factors indicative of successful implementation of specific policies, such as the availability of wild species in markets where a trade ban had been implemented, or knowledge and practices of stakeholders in response to an educational or information campaign.

While most studies found a reduced risk of zoonotic spillover following policy implementation, comparing the magnitude of these impacts was challenging due to the variety of study designs and outcome measures used in the included studies. However, we identified several studies which used modelling to directly compare the impacts of policy options. These studies evaluated various policy scenarios: different combinations within multi-component policy interventions [ 121 ]; culling versus vaccinating wildlife [ 122 ] and livestock [ 84 , 85 ] populations; targeting strategies to humans exclusively versus targeting humans and livestock [ 108 ]; and altering the parameters for culling and vaccination strategies, for example by modelling different ranges for culling and vaccination near infected farms [ 85 ]. These studies often highlighted trade-offs between the effectiveness of policy measures and their cost. For example, estimates of the number of infected flocks were lower when incorporating a ring cull (cull of animals on farms surrounding an outbreak) into a multi-component control strategy for highly pathogenic avian influenza [ 121 ]. However, livestock vaccination was estimated to be a highly effective strategy, with one study findings livestock vaccination to be as or more effective than a pre-emptive cull for outbreak control purposes (depending on the extent of vaccination coverage), while minimising the number of animals culled [ 85 ]. One study jointly modelled costs and benefits of strategies, and found that livestock vaccination had a higher cost-benefit ratio than a wildlife cull [ 122 ]. A final study highlighted the potential of holistic approaches, with drug administration in humans and livestock having a lower cost per disability-adjusted life year averted than intervention in humans alone [ 108 ].

Study authors noted a number of challenges encountered while evaluating policies to prevent zoonotic spillover. One study noted the difficulty of determining the impact of policies aiming to reduce spillover events between wildlife, livestock and humans, as the number of spillover events is often relatively small [ 65 ]. This highlights the importance of considering upstream determinants and risk factors as outcome measures in attempting to evaluate these policies, particularly where spillover events may happen infrequently or not at all during the period of observation. Studying changes in risk factors for spillover can provide insight on the effectiveness of different policies in tackling spillover risk.

Lack of suitable data was a frequently cited barrier to policy evaluation. As policies to prevent zoonotic spillover are often reactive, being implemented in response to an outbreak in animal populations, accessing data from before a policy was implemented was challenging. Studies highlighted the value of routinely collected data, which was often the only data available and was frequently used for policy evaluation [ 65 , 66 , 94 , 115 , 119 , 123 ]. However, in many contexts routine data on animal health is not collected [ 80 ]. Routine testing data from livestock can sometimes be used for evaluation where it exists, but it does not always provide sufficient detail for examining the potential for a policy to prevent zoonotic spillover. For example, some tests do not differentiate between current and past infection, making it difficult to identify where and when spillover occurred [ 65 ], and animal health data may not be granular enough for policy evaluation, particularly in terms of evaluating local policies [ 94 ]. Studies also highlighted instances where the private sector may own data sets reporting disease prevalence and transmission, but may be reluctant to share the data for evaluation purposes [ 121 ]. In such instances, open communication and good relationships with the private sector may be facilitators to evaluation.

Beyond the lack of baseline data, studies highlighted the difficulty in collecting information about policy compliance. As failing to comply often puts farmers and hunters at risk of fines or imprisonment, they were reluctant to disclose information about non-compliance or participation in illegal trade and sale of animals [ 86 , 92 , 97 , 112 ]. This made it difficult to determine policy effectiveness.

Quality assessment

Of the 44 quantitative evaluations, 37 were evaluated as being at moderate or higher risk of bias (see Supplementary File 4), given the possibility of bias in the assessment of intervention impact due to the presence of confounding effects. A small number of studies were determined to be at serious (n = 6) or critical (n = 1) risk of bias, for two main reasons: only having data from after the intervention was implemented; or using a case-control study model without measuring and adjusting for important potential confounders, such as the prevalence of a targeted disease prior to policy implementation. These limitations may reflect the nature of zoonotic spillover events and policy responses, which can happen quickly and leave little time for baseline data collection. Many of the included studies relied on surveillance data, but where such data sets are not available, post-test and case-control study designs may be the only options.

The quality of studies assessed with the tool developed based on Dixon-Woods’ approach [ 55 ] was high overall (n = 41, see Supplementary file 5). Most studies were rated as high in terms of clearly and comprehensively presenting their results (n = 37), analysis (n = 34), research design (n = 33), aims (n = 32) and research process (n = 28). Most studies also had a high relevance to the research question (n = 31), indicating that the research was embedded in policy, being commissioned, co-designed or conducted in partnership with government stakeholders.

We identified a range of policies targeting different parts of the spillover pathway implemented by various policy and governance sectors, including some multi-sectoral initiatives. Policies tended to rely heavily on private sector actors (including actors ranging from small-scale farmers and hunters to larger commercial operations) for implementation, suggesting that open communication and collaboration with these actors was essential for successful policy implementation. Policy success was undermined by lack of collaboration between government agencies; lack of communication between surveillance and control operations; poor understanding of the context in which policies were implemented; and inadequate financial compensation for private sector actors who lost profits and incurred additional costs by complying with policies. Where policies were ineffective, this tended to be due to unintended consequences relating to complex dynamics within the social and ecological systems where policies were implemented. Lack of appropriate data was a key obstacle to policy evaluation, and studies emphasised the importance of robust surveillance infrastructure in evaluating policies that tended to be implemented reactively, in response to an outbreak of zoonotic disease in animal or human populations.

Implications for policy and practice

The key role that the private sector and industry actors play in implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover is an important consideration for policymakers. Our findings suggest that many of these policies must be complied with by farmers – from subsistence and smallholder farmers to large corporations – as well as by other actors, such as hunters. Lack of awareness as well as financial costs of compliance among these groups present key barriers to policy success in this area. This set of stakeholders is complex as some may make very marginal profits, if any, and may struggle to afford the additional costs of implementing preventive policies. However, powerful actors and profitable industries are also involved, including large-scale farms and primary resource extraction enterprises [ 22 ]. Acknowledging the differences across these stakeholder groups, and in particular assessing their capacity to bear some of the costs related to prevention, emerges as crucial in successful policy implementation.

Finally, our findings highlight the importance of disease surveillance in efforts to reduce the risk of spillover events. As well as acting as an early warning system, surveillance provides a source of data to evaluate the impact of preventive policies. We found the availability of surveillance data to be a key enabling factor in evaluating policies. In addition, close collaboration between agencies responsible for disease surveillance and control efforts was key to policy success. National surveillance efforts, as well as cross-country collaboration to support global efforts, such as the United States Agency for International Development’s PREDICT program supporting surveillance in areas at high risk for zoonotic disease outbreaks [ 124 ], must be sustained and expanded. In complex areas such as the prevention of zoonotic spillover, approaches to surveillance which encompass risk factors and transmission pathways [ 125 ], as well as One Health surveillance systems which harmonise and integrate data collection and analysis from across human, animal and environmental sectors [ 126 ], are promising approaches to developing surveillance systems that support risk. This context also involves a need to strengthen surveillance capacity in remote and rural locations, as communities living in these contexts may have exposure to numerous pathogens of wildlife origin. This will require strengthening clinical and diagnostic capacity in these settings, as well as engaging with stakeholders such as community human and animal health workers and wildlife or national park rangers [ 127 ].

Comparison with existing literature

This review sought to map the range of policies implemented to reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover, and the various approaches taken to evaluation, and identify factors behind the success and failure of policy implementation and evaluation. Due to this broad scope, comparing relative effectiveness of policy interventions was challenging. Existing systematic reviews with a more specific focus could apply meta-analysis to determine which interventions were most effective. For example, a review of market-level biosecurity measures aiming to reduce the transmission of avian influenza found that reducing market size, separating poultry species, cleaning and disinfecting premises, closing markets and banning overnight storage were highly effective interventions [ 45 ]. However, our findings suggest that studies focused on the control of avian influenza dominate the literature in this space (55 out of 111 evaluated policies), and many of these are focused on market-level measures. Systematic reviews focused on other approaches to reduce spillover risk, such as on-farm biosecurity [ 47 ]; biosecurity for backyard poultry rearing [ 46 ]; and community-based interventions [ 28 ] comment on the paucity of high-quality evidence around the impacts of such approaches. By taking a broad perspective, we hope our findings will provide policy options for consideration in a number of contexts, and guide researchers in focusing their efforts on areas where evidence is lacking.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to systematically identify and document evaluations of policies aiming to prevent the spillover of zoonotic pathogens into human populations. However, because of the complex drivers of spillover events, some potentially relevant policy evaluations may be excluded where their outcome measures are too far removed from zoonotic spillover. While relevant, such evaluations will be difficult to systematically identify as they make no reference to zoonotic disease.

In addition, this review focused on policy evaluations that have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature and the grey literature published by international agencies and organisations working on these topics. Policies that have been implemented but not evaluated, or evaluated but not published in these literatures, will therefore be excluded from this review. As a result, potentially effective and important policies in the prevention of zoonotic spillover events may not have been identified. However, we hope that the findings from this review will highlight these gaps in the evaluative evidence. We also hope that this review, by extracting practical dimensions, such as study design, outcome measures and the challenges encountered in the evaluation process, will support policymakers and researchers in carrying out further policy evaluations in this space.

Unanswered questions and future research

Our findings highlight several important gaps in the evidence. First, while observational evidence emphasises the importance of upstream determinants such as environmental and ecosystem health in the increasing rate of zoonotic spillover [ 1 , 15 ], we only identified a single evaluation of a policy attempting to target one of these upstream determinants: an evaluation carried out in China to assess the impact of the Ramstar wetland protection program on avian influenza in migratory waterfowl [ 66 ]. This study found that proximity to protected wetlands reduced outbreak risk. Authors hypothesised that this effect was due to the separation of wild waterfowl and poultry populations and the diversion of wild waterfowl away from human-dominated landscapes and toward protected natural habitats. Our findings support existing calls for more quantitative and mechanistic studies of the impact of interventions supporting environmental and ecosystem health on zoonotic spillover risk [ 128 ], as well as calls for greater integration of the environment into One Health research, policy and practice [ 31 ]. Further evaluations of environment and habitat protection policies would strengthen our understanding of this area. In addition, the impact of policies to reduce deforestation or expand forest coverage, such as China’s Grain-to-Green program [ 129 ], on the spillover pathway could be evaluated. Such evaluations might consider potential unintended consequences, as these policies could promote healthier wildlife populations with better disease resistance, but may also facilitate wildlife population growth and higher rates of wildlife-human encounters [ 130 ].

There is also a lack of evaluation of policies targeting infection intensity and pathogen release in either wildlife or domesticated animals. These could include approaches such as improving animal health and welfare to make these populations more resistant to disease [ 13 ]. While arguments have been made for strengthening legal structures supporting animal welfare in order to reduce the risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission [ 131 ], there is a need to evaluate policies that take this approach.

Our review found publications evaluating a wide range of policy interventions spanning the spillover pathway, including habitat protection; trade regulations; border control and quarantine procedures; farm and market biosecurity measures; public information campaigns; and vaccination programmes for wildlife and domesticated animals, as well as human populations with occupational exposure to animals. A wide range of governance sectors implemented these policies, highlighting the prevention of zoonotic spillover as a cross-sectoral issue, though most policies were implemented by a single sector. Our findings highlight the importance of industry and private actors in implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover, and the need for thoughtful and effective engagement with this wide range of actors, from subsistence hunters and farmers through to industrial animal agriculture operations to address their concerns through a range of incentives. We also identified the centrality of surveillance data in evaluating policies that are often implemented reactively, and effective collaboration between surveillance and control operations as a central factor in successful policy implementation.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Analysis code for descriptive characteristics of included policies is available on GitHub.

Abbreviations

Emerging infectious disease

Morse SS, Mazet JA, Woolhouse M, Parrish CR, Carroll D, Karesh WB, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Lipkin WI, Daszak P. Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis. The Lancet. 2012;380:1956–65.

Article Google Scholar

Pulliam JRC, Epstein JH, Dushoff J, Rahman SA, Bunning M, Jamaluddin AA, Hyatt AD, Field HE, Dobson AP, Daszak P. Agricultural intensification, priming for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal bat-borne zoonosis. J Royal Soc Interface. 2012;9:89–101.

IPCC. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. Climate Change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In press ed. Cambridge University Press; 2022.

Brenner N, Ghosh S. Between the colossal and the catastrophic: planetary urbanization and the political ecologies of emergent Infectious Disease. Environ Plan A. 2022;54:867–910.

Gallo-Cajiao E, Lieberman S, Dolšak N, et al. Global governance for pandemic prevention and the wildlife trade. Lancet Planet Health. 2023;7:e336–45.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Marco MD, Baker ML, Daszak P, et al. Opinion: sustainable development must account for pandemic risk. PNAS. 2020;117:3888–92.

Heymann DL, Dixon M. Infections at the Animal/Human interface: shifting the paradigm from emergency response to Prevention at source. In: Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M, Daszak P, Richt JA, editors. One health: the human-animal-environment interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases: Food Safety and Security, and International and National plans for implementation of one health activities. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. pp. 207–15.

Google Scholar

United Nations Environment Programme, International Livestock Research Institute. (2020) Preventing the next pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. 82.

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2020) Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317 .

One Health theory of change. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/one-health-theory-of-change . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Vinuales J, Moon S, Moli GL, Burci G-L. A global pandemic treaty should aim for deep prevention. The Lancet. 2021;397:1791–2.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, Lloyd-Smith JO. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:502–10.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Sokolow SH, Nova N, Pepin KM, et al. Ecological interventions to prevent and manage zoonotic pathogen spillover. Philosophical Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. 2019;374:20180342.

Johnson CK, Hitchens PL, Pandit PS, Rushmore J, Evans TS, Young CCW, Doyle MM. Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. 2020;287:20192736.

Allen T, Murray KA, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Morse SS, Rondinini C, Di Marco M, Breit N, Olival KJ, Daszak P. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic Diseases. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1124.

Gandy M. THE ZOONOTIC CITY: Urban Political Ecology and the pandemic imaginary. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2022;46:202–19.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Hardi R, Babocsay G, Tappe D, Sulyok M, Bodó I, Rózsa L. Armillifer-infected snakes sold at Congolese Bushmeat Markets Represent an emerging zoonotic threat. EcoHealth. 2017;14:743–9.

Steve A-M, Ahidjo A, Placide M-K, et al. High prevalences and a wide genetic diversity of Simian Retroviruses in non-human Primate Bushmeat in Rural areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo. EcoHealth. 2017;14:100–14.

Weiss S, Nowak K, Fahr J, Wibbelt G, Mombouli J-V, Parra H-J, Wolfe ND, Schneider BS, Leendertz FH. Henipavirus-related sequences in Fruit Bat Bushmeat, Republic of Congo. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:1536–7.

Aguirre AA, Catherina R, Frye H, Shelley L. Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: preventing future pandemics. World Med Health Policy. 2020;12:256–65.

Nadimpalli ML, Pickering AJ. A call for global monitoring of WASH in wet markets. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4:e439–40.

Viliani F, Edelstein M, Buckley E, Llamas A, Dar O. Mining and emerging infectious Diseases: results of the Infectious Disease Risk Assessment and Management (IDRAM) initiative pilot. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2017;4:251–9.

Wegner GI, Murray KA, Springmann M, Muller A, Sokolow SH, Saylors K, Morens DM. Averting wildlife-borne Infectious Disease epidemics requires a focus on socio-ecological drivers and a redesign of the global food system. eClinicalMedicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101386 .

Daszak P. Anatomy of a pandemic. The Lancet. 2012;380:1883–4.

Joint Tripartite (FAO, OIE, WHO) and UNEP Statement. Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s definition of one health. ” OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health; 2021.

(2022) One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2289en .

Baum SE, Machalaba C, Daszak P, Salerno RH, Karesh WB. Evaluating one health: are we demonstrating effectiveness? One Health. 2017;3:5–10.

Halton K, Sarna M, Barnett A, Leonardo L, Graves N. A systematic review of community-based interventions for emerging zoonotic infectious Diseases in Southeast Asia. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2013;11:1–235.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Meyer A, Holt HR, Selby R, Guitian J. Past and Ongoing Tsetse and Animal Trypanosomiasis Control Operations in five African countries: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0005247.

Howlett M, Cashore B. Conceptualizing Public Policy. In: Engeli I, Allison CR, editors. Comparative Policy studies: conceptual and methodological challenges. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014. pp. 17–33.

Chapter Google Scholar

Barrett MA, Bouley TA. Need for enhanced environmental representation in the implementation of one health. EcoHealth. 2015;12:212–9.

Barbrook-Johnson P, Proctor A, Giorgi S, Phillipson J. How do policy evaluators understand complexity? Evaluation. 2020;26:315–32.

Saunders-Hastings P, Crispo JAG, Sikora L, Krewski D. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic Influenza transmission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemics. 2017;20:1–20.

Bin Nafisah S, Alamery AH, Al Nafesa A, Aleid B, Brazanji NA. School closure during novel Influenza: a systematic review. J Infect Public Health. 2018;11:657–61.

Viner RM, Russell SJ, Croker H, Packer J, Ward J, Stansfield C, Mytton O, Bonell C, Booy R. School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. 2020;4:397–404.

Juneau C-E, Pueyo T, Bell M, Gee G, Collazzo P, Potvin L. (2020) Evidence-Based, cost-effective interventions to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. medRxiv 2020.04.20.20054726.

MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of Infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ. 2015;350:h694.

Smith SMS, Sonego S, Wallen GR, Waterer G, Cheng AC, Thompson P. Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of Influenza in adults: a systematic review. Respirology. 2015;20:896–903.

Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L et al. (2011) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD006207.

Astbury CC, Lee KM, Aguiar R, et al. Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: protocol for a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e058437.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.

Zhou X, Wang Y, Liu H, Guo F, Doi SA, Smith C, Clements ACA, Edwards J, Huang B, Soares Magalhães RJ. Effectiveness of Market-Level Biosecurity at reducing exposure of Poultry and humans to Avian Influenza: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2018;218:1861–75.

Conan A, Goutard FL, Sorn S, Vong S. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: a systematic review. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8:240.

Youssef DM, Wieland B, Knight GM, Lines J, Naylor NR. The effectiveness of biosecurity interventions in reducing the transmission of bacteria from livestock to humans at the farm level: a systematic literature review. Zoonoses Public Health. 2021;68:549–62.

Shi N, Huang J, Zhang X, Bao C, Yue N, Wang Q, Cui T, Zheng M, Huo X, Jin H. Interventions in live poultry markets for the Control of Avian Influenza: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2020;221:553–60.

Cupertino MC, Resende MB, Mayer NA, Carvalho LM, Siqueira-Batista R. Emerging and re-emerging human infectious Diseases: a systematic review of the role of wild animals with a focus on public health impact. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2020;13:99.

Clifford Astbury C, Demeshko A, McLeod R, Wiktorowicz M, Gallo Caijao E, Cullerton K, Lee KM, Viens AM, Penney TL. (2023) Governance of the wildlife trade and prevention of emerging zoonoses: a mixed methods network analysis of global organisations. [In preparation].

Covidence - Better. systematic review management. https://www.covidence.org/home . Accessed 17 Jul 2020.

Effective Public Health Practice Project. (2009) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. 4.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

Clifford Astbury C, McGill E, Egan M, Penney TL. Systems thinking and complexity science methods and the policy process in non-communicable Disease prevention: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e049878.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

(2021) Dedoose Version 8.3.47, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Park H, Chun MS, Joo Y. Traumatic stress of frontline workers in culling livestock animals in South Korea. Animals. 2020;10:1–11.

Programme UNE. Effectiveness of policy interventions relating to the illegal and unsustainable. Wildlife Trade - Policy Brief; 2019.

Cito F, Narcisi V, Danzetta ML, Iannetti S, Sabatino DD, Bruno R, Carvelli A, Atzeni M, Sauro F, Calistri P. Analysis of Surveillance systems in Place in European Mediterranean Countries for West Nile Virus (WNV) and Rift Valley Fever (RVF). Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013;60:40–4.

Schwind JS, Goldstein T, Thomas K, Mazet JA, Smith WA, PREDICT Consortium. Capacity building efforts and perceptions for wildlife surveillance to detect zoonotic pathogens: comparing stakeholder perspectives. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:684.

Reisen WK, Kramer VL, Barker CM. CALIFORNIA STATE MOSQUITO-BORNE VIRUS SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE PLAN: A RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION USING CONDITIONAL SIMULATIONS *. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;68:508–18.

Smith GC, Cheeseman CL. A mathematical model for the control of Diseases in wildlife populations: culling, vaccination and fertility control. Ecol Model. 2002;150:45–53.

Brennan A, Cross PC, Portacci K, Scurlock BM, Edwards WH. Shifting brucellosis risk in livestock coincides with spreading seroprevalence in elk. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0178780.

Wu T, Perrings C, Shang C, Collins JP, Daszak P, Kinzig A, Minteer BA. Protection of wetlands as a strategy for reducing the spread of avian Influenza from migratory waterfowl. Ambio. 2020;49:939–49.

Basinski AJ, Nuismer SL, Remien CH. A little goes a long way: weak vaccine transmission facilitates oral vaccination campaigns against zoonotic pathogens. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13:e0007251.

Selhorst T. (1999) An evaluation of the efficiency of rabies control strategies in fox (Vulpes 6ulpes) populations using a computer simulation program. Ecol Model 12.

Shwiff SA, Sterner RT, Hale R, Jay MT, Sun B, Slate D. Benefit cost scenarios of potential oral rabies vaccination for Skunks in California. J Wildl Dis. 2009;45:227–33.

García-Díaz P, Ross JV, Woolnough AP, Cassey P. Managing the risk of wildlife Disease introduction: pathway‐level biosecurity for preventing the introduction of alien ranaviruses. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:234–41.

Hassim A, Dekker EH, Byaruhanga C, Reardon T, van Heerden H. A retrospective study of anthrax on the Ghaap Plateau, Northern Cape province of South Africa, with special reference to the 2007–2008 outbreaks. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2017;84:a1414.

Knight-Jones TJD, Gibbens J, Wooldridge M, Staerk KDC. Assessment of Farm-Level Biosecurity Measures after an outbreak of Avian Influenza in the United Kingdom. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2011;58:69–75.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Karabozhilova I, Wieland B, Alonso S, Salonen L, Häsler B. Backyard chicken keeping in the Greater London Urban Area: welfare status, biosecurity and Disease control issues. Br Poult Sci. 2012;53:421–30.

Manyweathers J, Field H, Jordan D, Longnecker N, Agho K, Smith C, Taylor M. Risk mitigation of emerging zoonoses: Hendra Virus and Non-vaccinating Horse Owners. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:1898–911.

Kung N, McLaughlin A, Taylor M, Moloney B, Wright T, Field H. Hendra virus and horse owners - risk perception and management. PLoS ONE. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080897 .

Rasouli J, Holakoui K, Forouzanfar MH, Salari S, Bahoner, Rashidian A. Cost effectiveness of livestock vaccination for brucellosis in West-Azerbayjan province. Urmia Med J. 2009;20:Pe13–En77.

El Masry I, Rijks J, Peyre M, Taylor N, Lubroth J, Jobre Y. Modelling Influenza A H5N1 vaccination strategy scenarios in the household poultry sector in Egypt. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2014;46:57–63.

Mroz C, Gwida M, El-Ashker M, Ziegler U, Homeier-Bachmann T, Eiden M, Groschup MH. Rift valley Fever virus Infections in Egyptian cattle and their prevention. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:2049–58.

Pinsent A, Pepin KM, Zhu H, Guan Y, White MT, Riley S. (2017) The persistence of multiple strains of avian influenza in live bird markets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170715.

Abbas B, Yousif MA, Nur HM. Animal health constraints to livestock exports from the Horn of Africa: -EN- -FR- restrictions sanitaires imposées aux exportations de bétail à partir de la corne de l’Afrique -ES- limitaciones zoosanitarias a las exportaciones de ganado desde El Cuerno De África. Rev Sci Tech OIE. 2014;33:711–21.

Naletoski I, Kirandziski T, Mitrov D, Krstevski K, Dzadzovski I, Acevski S. Gaps in brucellosis eradication campaign in Sheep and goats in Republic of Macedonia: lessons learned. Croat Med J. 2010;51:351–6.

Weaver JT, Malladi S, Bonney PJ, Patyk KA, Bergeron JG, Middleton JL, Alexander CY, Goldsmith TJ, Halvorson DA. A Simulation-based evaluation of Premovement active surveillance Protocol options for the Managed Movement of Turkeys to Slaughter during an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian Influenza in the United States. Avian Dis. 2016;60:132–45.

Andronico A, Courcoul A, Bronner A, Scoizec A, Lebouquin-Leneveu S, Guinat C, Paul MC, Durand B, Cauchemez S. Highly pathogenic avian Influenza H5N8 in south-west France 2016–2017: a modeling study of control strategies. Epidemics. 2019;28:100340.

Backer JA, van Roermund HJW, Fischer EAJ, van Asseldonk MAPM, Bergevoet RHM. Controlling highly pathogenic avian Influenza outbreaks: an epidemiological and economic model analysis. Prev Vet Med. 2015;121:142–50.

Backer JA, Hagenaars TJ, van Roermund HJW, de Jong MCM. Modelling the effectiveness and risks of vaccination strategies to control classical swine Fever epidemics. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6:849–61.

Fournie G, Guitian FJ, Mangtani P, Ghani AC. Impact of the implementation of rest days in live bird markets on the dynamics of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian Influenza. J R Soc Interface. 2011;8:1079–89.

Kung NY, Guan Y, Perkins NR, Bissett L, Ellis T, Sims L, Morris RS, Shortridge KF, Peiris JSM. The impact of a monthly Rest Day on Avian Influenza Virus isolation rates in Retail Live Poultry markets in Hong Kong. Avian Dis. 2003;47:1037–41.

Horigan V, Gale P, Adkin A, Brown I, Clark J, Kelly L. A qualitative risk assessment of cleansing and disinfection requirements after an avian Influenza outbreak in commercial poultry. Br Poult Sci. 2019;60:691–9.

Yuan J, Lau EHY, Li K, et al. Effect of live Poultry Market Closure on Avian Influenza A(H7N9) virus activity in Guangzhou, China, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:1784–93.

Fournie G, Guitian J, Desvaux S, Cuong VC, Dung DH, Pfeiffer DU, Mangtani P, Ghani AC. Interventions for avian Influenza A (H5N1) risk management in live bird market networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:9177–82.

Samaan G, Hendrawati F, Taylor T, Pitona T, Marmansari D, Rahman R, Lokuge K, Kelly PM. Application of a healthy food markets guide to two Indonesian markets to reduce transmission of avian Flu. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90:295–300.

Huang Z, Wang J, Zuo A. Chinese farmers’ willingness to accept compensation to practice safe disposal of HPAI infected chicken. Prev Vet Med. 2017;139:67–75.

Graiver DA, Topliff CL, Kelling CL, Bartelt-Hunt SL. Survival of the avian Influenza virus (H6N2) after land disposal. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:4063–7.

Li Y, Wang Y, Shen C, Huang J, Kang J, Huang B, Guo F, Edwards J. Closure of live bird markets leads to the spread of H7N9 Influenza in China. PLoS ONE. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208884 .

Ma J, Yang N, Gu H, Bai L, Sun J, Gu S, Gu J. Effect of closure of live poultry markets in China on prevention and control of human Infection with H7N9 avian Influenza: a case study of four cities in Jiangsu Province. J Public Health Policy. 2019;40:436–47.

Chen Y, Cheng J, Xu Z, Hu W, Lu J. Live poultry market closure and avian Influenza A (H7N9) Infection in cities of China, 2013–2017: an ecological study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05091-7 .

Bonwitt J, Dawson M, Kandeh M, Ansumana R, Sahr F, Brown H, Kelly AH. Unintended consequences of the `bushmeat ban’ in West Africa during the 2013–2016 Ebola virus Disease epidemic. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:166–73.

Brooks-Moizer F, Roberton SI, Edmunds K, Bell D. Avian Influenza H5N1 and the wild Bird Trade in Hanoi, Vietnam. Ecol Soc. 2009;14:28.

Cardador L, Tella JL, Anadon JD, Abellan P, Carrete M. The European trade ban on wild birds reduced invasion risks. Conserv Lett. 2019;12:e12631.

Guerrier G, Foster H, Metge O, Chouvin C, Tui M. Cultural contexts of swine-related Infections in Polynesia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19:595–9.

Massey PD, Polkinghorne BG, Durrheim DN, Lower T, Speare R. Blood, guts and knife cuts: reducing the risk of swine brucellosis in feral pig hunters in north-west New South Wales, Australia. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11:1793.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Lauterbach SE, Nelson SW, Martin AM, Spurck MM, Mathys DA, Mollenkopf DF, Nolting JM, Wittum TE, Bowman AS. (2020) Adoption of recommended hand hygiene practices to limit zoonotic Disease transmission at agricultural fairs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105116 .

Stewart RJ, Rossow J, Conover JT, et al. Do animal exhibitors support and follow recommendations to prevent transmission of variant Influenza at agricultural fairs? A survey of animal exhibitor households after a variant Influenza virus outbreak in Michigan. Zoonoses Public Health. 2018;65:195–201.

Lin X, Zhang D, Wang X, Huang Y, Du Z, Zou Y, Lu J, Hao Y. Attitudes of consumers and live-poultry workers to central slaughtering in controlling H7N9: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:517.

Huot C, De Serres G, Duval B, Maranda-Aubut R, Ouakki M, Skowronski DM. The cost of preventing rabies at any cost: post-exposure prophylaxis for occult bat contact. Vaccine. 2008;26:4446–50.

De Serres G, Skowronski DM, Mimault P, Ouakki M, Maranda-Aubut R, Duval B. Bats in the bedroom, bats in the Belfry: reanalysis of the rationale for rabies postexposure Prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1493–9.

Vivancos R, Showell D, Keeble B, Goh S, Kroese M, Lipp A, Battersby J. Vaccination of Poultry workers: delivery and uptake of Seasonal Influenza immunization. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:126–30.

Okello AL, Thomas LF. Human taeniasis: current insights into prevention and management strategies in endemic countries. RISK MANAG HEALTHC POLICY. 2017;10:107–16.

Mendez D, Buttner P, Speare R. Hendra virus in Queensland, Australia, during the winter of 2011: veterinarians on the path to better management strategies. Prev Vet Med. 2014;117:40–51.

Häsler B, Howe KS, Hauser R, Stärk KDC. A qualitative approach to measure the effectiveness of active avian Influenza virus surveillance with respect to its cost: a case study from Switzerland. Prev Vet Med. 2012;105:209–22.

Brinkley C, Kingsley JS, Mench J. A Method for Guarding Animal Welfare and Public Health: tracking the rise of Backyard Poultry ordinances. J Community Health. 2018;43:639–46.

Turkson PK, Okike I. Assessment of practices, capacities and incentives of poultry chain actors in implementation of highly pathogenic avian Influenza mitigation measures in Ghana. Vet Med Sci. 2016;2:23–35.

Akunzule AN, Koney EBM, Tiongco M. Economic impact assessment of highly pathogenic avian Influenza on the poultry industry in Ghana. Worlds Poult Sci J. 2009;65:517–27.

Hunter C, Birden HH, Toribio J-A, Booy R, Abdurrahman M, Ambarawati AIGAA, Adiputra N. (2014) Community preparedness for highly pathogenic avian Influenza on Bali and Lombok, Indonesia. Rural Remote Health 14.

Tustin J, Laberge K, Michel P, et al. A National Epidemic of Campylobacteriosis in Iceland, lessons learned. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:440–7.

Oladokun AT, Meseko CA, Ighodalo E, John B. Ekong PS Effect of intervention on the control of highly pathogenic avian Influenza in Nigeria. 8.

Manyweathers J, Field H, Longnecker N, Agho K, Smith C, Taylor M. Why won’t they just vaccinate? Horse owner risk perception and uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:103.

Zhu G, Kang M, Wei X, Tang T, Liu T, Xiao J, Song T, Ma W. Different intervention strategies toward live poultry markets against avian Influenza A (H7N9) virus: model-based assessment. Environ Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110465 .

Chowell G, Simonsen L, Towers S, Miller MA, Viboud C. Transmission potential of Influenza A/H7N9, February to May 2013, China. BMC Med. 2013;11:214.

Bodenham RF, Mtui-Malamsha N, Gatei W, et al. Multisectoral cost analysis of a human and livestock anthrax outbreak in Songwe Region, Tanzania (December 2018–January 2019), using a novel Outbreak Costing Tool. One Health. 2021;13:100259.

Lewis N, Dorjee S, Dube C, VanLeeuwen J, Sanchez J. Assessment of Effectiveness of Control Strategies against Simulated Outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ontario, Canada. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:938–50.

Anderson A, Shwiff S, Gebhardt K, Ramírez AJ, Shwiff S, Kohler D, Lecuona L. Economic evaluation of Vampire Bat ( Desmodus rotundus) rabies Prevention in Mexico. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014;61:140–6.

Walker PGT, Cauchemez S, Metras R, Dung DH, Pfeiffer D, Ghani AC. A bayesian Approach to quantifying the effects of Mass Poultry Vaccination upon the spatial and temporal dynamics of H5N1 in Northern Vietnam. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010;6:e1000683.

PREDICT Project. In: PREDICT Project. https://p2.predict.global. Accessed 9 Sep 2022.

Loh EH, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Olival KJ, Bogich TL, Johnson CK, Mazet JAK, Karesh W, Daszak P. Targeting transmission pathways for emerging zoonotic Disease Surveillance and Control. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2015;15:432–7.

Bordier M, Uea-Anuwong T, Binot A, Hendrikx P, Goutard FL. Characteristics of one health surveillance systems: a systematic literature review. Prev Vet Med. 2020;181:104560.

Worsley-Tonks KEL, Bender JB, Deem SL, et al. Strengthening global health security by improving Disease surveillance in remote rural areas of low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health. 2022;10:e579–84.

Reaser JK, Witt A, Tabor GM, Hudson PJ, Plowright RK. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic Disease outbreaks: when ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor Ecol. 2021;29:e13357.

Chen HL, Lewison RL, An L, Tsai YH, Stow D, Shi L, Yang S. Assessing the effects of payments for ecosystem services programs on forest structure and species biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. 2020;29:2123–40.

Chen Y, Marino J, Tao Q, Sullivan CD, Shi K, Macdonald DW. Predicting hotspots of human-elephant conflict to inform mitigation strategies in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. PLoS ONE. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162035 .

Whitfort A. COVID-19 and Wildlife Farming in China: legislating to Protect Wild Animal Health and Welfare in the wake of a global pandemic. J Environ Law. 2021;33:57–84.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

CCA, JC and TLP acknowledge internal research support from York University. MW and CCA acknowledge internal research support from the Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research. KML acknowledges funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through a Health System Impact Fellowship. AY is funded by the BBSRC through the Mandala project (grant number BB/V004832/1). AMV acknowledges support from York University through a York Research Chair in Population Health Ethics & Law. This review was undertaken as part of a project funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Grant Reference Number VR5-172686. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee, Ryan Mcleod, Asma Atique, Janielle Clarke, Anastassia Demeshko, A. M. Viens, Mary Wiktorowicz & Tarra L. Penney

Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee, Raphael Aguiar, Mary Wiktorowicz & Tarra L. Penney

Global Strategy Lab, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, A. M. Viens & Tarra L. Penney

Applied Microbiology for Health and Environment Research Group, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines

Marilen Balolong & Kathleen Chelsea Togño

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ronald Labonté & Arne Ruckert

School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Priyanka Sibal

School of Public Health, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo

Marc K. Yambayamba

Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: CCA, KLM and TLP. Acquisition of data: CCA, KLM and AY. Analysis and interpretation of data: CCA, KML, RM, JC, AD and PS. Drafting of the manuscript: CCA and RM. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: KML, RA, AA, MB, JC, AD, RL, AR, PS, KCT, AMV, MW, MKY, AY and TLP. Obtaining funding: TLP and MW.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarra L. Penney .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. RL is a co-editor-in-chief of Globalization and Health.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clifford Astbury, C., Lee, K.M., Mcleod, R. et al. Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence. Global Health 19 , 82 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00986-x

Download citation

Received : 05 May 2023

Accepted : 01 November 2023

Published : 08 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00986-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

Zoonotic spillover
Public policy
Emerging zoonoses
Deep prevention

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

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

Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in explaining the difference between self-rated and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Open access
Published: 24 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Lidia Engel ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7959-3149 1 ,
Valeriia Sokolova 1 ,
Ekaterina Bogatyreva 2 &
Anna Leuenberger 2

Proxy assessment can be elicited via the proxy-patient perspective (i.e., asking proxies to assess the patient’s quality of life (QoL) as they think the patient would respond) or proxy-proxy perspective (i.e., asking proxies to provide their own perspective on the patient’s QoL). This review aimed to identify the role of the proxy perspective in explaining the differences between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia.

A systematic literate review was conducted by sourcing articles from a previously published review, supplemented by an update of the review in four bibliographic databases. Peer-reviewed studies that reported both self-reported and proxy-reported mean QoL estimates using the same standardized QoL instrument, published in English, and focused on the QoL of people with dementia were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the mean differences between self- and proxy-report across different proxy perspectives.

The review included 96 articles from which 635 observations were extracted. Most observations extracted used the proxy-proxy perspective (79%) compared with the proxy-patient perspective (10%); with 11% of the studies not stating the perspective. The QOL-AD was the most commonly used measure, followed by the EQ-5D and DEMQOL. The standardized mean difference (SMD) between the self- and proxy-report was lower for the proxy-patient perspective (SMD: 0.250; 95% CI 0.116; 0.384) compared to the proxy-proxy perspective (SMD: 0.532; 95% CI 0.456; 0.609).

Different proxy perspectives affect the ratings of QoL, whereby adopting a proxy-proxy QoL perspective has a higher inter-rater gap in comparison with the proxy-patient perspective.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Quality of life (QoL) has become an important outcome for research and practice but obtaining reliable and valid estimates remains a challenge in people living with dementia [ 1 ]. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria [ 2 ], dementia, termed as Major Neurocognitive Disorder (MND), involves a significant decline in at least one cognitive domain (executive function, complex attention, language, learning, memory, perceptual-motor, or social cognition), where the decline represents a change from a patient's prior level of cognitive ability, is persistent and progressive over time, is not associated exclusively with an episode of delirium, and reduces a person’s ability to perform everyday activities. Since dementia is one of the most pressing challenges for healthcare systems nowadays [ 3 ], it is critical to study its impact on QoL. The World Health Organization defines the concept of QoL as “individuals' perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns” [ 4 ]. It is a broad ranging concept incorporating in a complex way the persons' physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs, and their relationships to salient features of the environment.

Although there is evidence that people with mild to moderate dementia can reliably rate their own QoL [ 5 ], as the disease progresses, there is typically a decline in memory, attention, judgment, insight, and communication that may compromise self-reporting of QoL [ 6 ]. Additionally, behavioral symptoms, such as agitation, and affective symptoms, such as depression, may present another challenge in obtaining self-reported QoL ratings due to emotional shifts and unwillingness to complete the assessment [ 7 ]. Although QoL is subjective and should ideally be assessed from an individual’s own perspective [ 8 ], the decline in cognitive function emphasizes the need for proxy-reporting by family members, health professionals, or care staff who are asked to report on behalf of the person with dementia. However, proxy-reports are not substitutable for self-reports from people with dementia, as they offer supplementary insights, reflecting the perceptions and viewpoints of people surrounding the person with dementia [ 9 ].

Previous research has consistently highlighted a disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia, with proxies generally providing lower ratings (indicating poorer QoL) compared with person’s own ratings [ 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Impairment in cognition associated with greater dementia severity has been found to be associated with larger difference between self-rating and proxy-rating obtained from family caregivers, as it becomes increasingly difficult for severely cognitively impaired individuals to respond to questions that require contemplation, introspection, and sustained attention [ 13 , 14 ]. Moreover, non-cognitive factors, such as awareness of disease and depressive symptoms play an important role when comparing QoL ratings between individuals with dementia and their proxies [ 15 ]. Qualitative evidence has also shown that people with dementia tend to compare themselves with their peers, whereas carers make comparisons with how the person used to be in the past [ 9 ]. The disagreement between self-reported QoL and carer proxy-rated QoL could be modulated by some personal, cognitive or relational factors, for example, the type of relationship or the frequency of contact maintained, person’s cognitive status, carer’s own feeling about dementia, carer’s mood, and perceived burden of caregiving [ 14 , 16 ]. Disagreement may also arise from the person with dementia’s problems to communicate symptoms, and proxies’ inability to recognize certain symptoms, like pain [ 17 ], or be impacted by the amount of time spent with the person with dementia [ 18 ]. This may also prevent proxies to rate accurately certain domains of QoL, with previous evidence showing higher level of agreement for observable domains, such as mobility, compared with less observable domains like emotional wellbeing [ 8 ]. Finally, agreement also depends on the type of proxy (i.e., informal/family carers or professional staff) and the nature of their relationship, for instance, proxy QoL scores provided by formal carers tend to be higher (reflecting better QoL) compared to the scores supplied by family members [ 19 , 20 ]. Staff members might associate residents’ QoL with the quality of care delivered or the stage of their cognitive impairment, whereas relatives often focus on comparison with the person’s QoL when they were younger, lived in their own home and did not have dementia [ 20 ].

What has been not been fully examined to date is the role of different proxy perspectives employed in QoL questionnaires in explaining disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated scores in people with dementia. Pickard et al. (2005) have proposed a conceptual framework for proxy assessments that distinguish between the proxy-patient perspective (i.e., asking proxies to assess the patient’s QoL as they think the patient would respond) or proxy-proxy perspective (i.e., asking proxies to provide their own perspective on the patient’s QoL) [ 21 ]. In this context, the intra-proxy gap describes the differences between proxy-patient and proxy-proxy perspective, whereas the inter-rater gap is the difference between self-report and proxy-report [ 21 ].

Existing generic and dementia-specific QoL instruments specify the perspective explicitly in their instructions or imply the perspective indirectly in their wording. For example, the instructions of the Dementia Quality of Life Measure (DEMQOL) asks proxies to give the answer they think their relative would give (i.e., proxy-patient perspective) [ 22 ], whereas the family version of the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QOL-AD) instructs the proxies to rate their relative’s current situation as they (the proxy) see it (i.e., proxy-proxy perspective) [ 7 ]. Some instruments, like the EQ-5D measures, have two proxy versions for each respective perspective [ 23 , 24 ]. The Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT) proxy version, on the other hand, asks proxies to complete the questions from both perspectives, from their own opinion and how they think the person would answer [ 25 ].

QoL scores generated using different perspectives are expected to differ, with qualitative evidence showing that carers rate the person with dementia’s QoL lower (worse) when instructed to comment from their own perspective than from the perspective of the person with dementia [ 26 ]. However, to our knowledge, no previous review has fully synthesized existing evidence in this area. Therefore, we aimed to undertake a systematic literature review to examine the role of different proxy-assessment perspectives in explaining differences between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia. The review was conducted under the hypothesis that the difference in QoL estimates will be larger when adopting the proxy-proxy perspective compared with proxy-patient perspective.

The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022333542) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (see Appendix 1 ) [ 27 ].

Search strategy

This review used two approaches to obtain literature. First, primary articles from an existing review by Roydhouse et al. were retrieved [ 28 ]. The review included studies published from inception to February 2018 that compared self- and proxy-reports. Studies that focused explicitly on Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia were retrieved for the current review. Two reviewers conducted a full-text review to assess whether the eligibility criteria listed below for the respective study were met. An update of the Roydhouse et al. review was undertaken to capture more recent studies. The search strategy by Roydhouse et al. was amended and covered studies published after January 1, 2018, and was limited to studies within the context of dementia. The original search was undertaken over a three-week period (17/11/2021–9/12/2021) and then updated on July 3, 2023. Peer-reviewed literature was sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases via EBSCOHost as well as EMBASE. Four main search term categories were used: (1) proxy terms (i.e., care*-report*), (2) QoL/ outcome terms (i.e., ‘quality of life’), (3) disease terms (i.e., ‘dementia’), and (4) pediatric terms (i.e., ‘pediatric*’) (for exclusion). Keywords were limited to appear in titles and abstracts only, and MeSH terms were included for all databases. A list of search strategy can be found in Appendix 2 . The first three search term categories were searched with AND, and the NOT function was used to exclude pediatric terms. A limiter was applied in all database searches to only include studies with human participants and articles published in English.

Selection criteria

Studies from all geographical locations were included in the review if they (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal (conference abstracts, dissertations, a gray literature were excluded); (2) were primary studies (reviews were excluded); (3) clearly defined the disease of participants, which were limited to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia; (4) reported separate QoL scores for people with dementia (studies that included mixed populations had to report a separate QoL score for people with dementia to be considered); (5) were using a standardized and existing QoL instrument for assessment; and (6) provided a mean self-reported and proxy-reported QoL score for the same dyads sample (studies that reported means for non-matched samples were excluded) using the same QoL instrument.

Four reviewers (LE, VS, KB, AL) were grouped into two groups who independently screened the 179 full texts from the Roydhouse et. al (2022) study that included Alzheimer’s disease or dementia patients. If a discrepancy within the inclusion selection occurred, articles were discussed among all the reviewers until a consensus was reached. Studies identified from the database search were imported into EndNote [ 29 ]. Duplicates were removed through EndNote and then uploaded to Rayyan [ 30 ]. Each abstract was reviewed by two independent reviewers (any two from four reviewers). Disagreements regarding study inclusions were discussed between all reviewers until a consensus was reached. Full-text screening of each eligible article was completed by two independent reviewers (any two from four reviewers). Again, a discussion between all reviewers was used in case of disagreements.

Data extraction

A data extraction template was created in Microsoft Excel. The following information were extracted if available: country, study design, study sample, study setting, dementia type, disease severity, Mini-Mental Health State Exam (MMSE) score details, proxy type, perspective, living arrangements, QoL assessment measure/instrument, self-reported scores (mean, SD), proxy-reported scores (mean, SD), and agreement statistics. If a study reported the mean (SD) for the total score as well as for specific QoL domains of the measure, we extracted both. If studies reported multiple scores across different time points or subgroups, we extracted all scores. For interventional studies, scores from both the intervention group and the control group were recorded. In determining the proxy perspective, we relied on authors’ description in the article. If the perspective was not explicitly stated, we adopted the perspective of the instrument developers; where more perspectives were possible (e.g., in the case of the EQ-5D measures) and the perspective was not explicitly stated, it was categorized as ‘undefined.’ For agreement, we extracted the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), a reliability index that reflects both degree of correlation and agreement between measurements of continuous variables. While there are different forms of ICC based on the model (1-way random effects, 2-wy random effects, or 2-way fixed effects), the type (single rater/measurement or the mean k raters/measurements), and definition of relationship [ 31 ], this level of information was not extracted due to insufficient information provided in the original studies. Values for ICC range between 0 and 1, with values interpreted as poor (less than 0.5), moderate (0.5–0.75), good (0.75–0.9), and excellent (greater than 0.9) reliability between raters [ 31 ].

Data synthesis and analysis

Characteristics of studies were summarized descriptively. Self-reported and proxy-reported means and SD were extracted from the full texts and the mean difference was calculated (or extracted if available) for each pair. Studies that reported median values instead of mean values were converted using the approach outlined by Wan et al. (2014) [ 32 ]. Missing SDs (5 studies, 20 observations) were obtained from standard errors or confidence intervals reported following the Cochrane guidelines [ 33 ]. Missing SDs (6 studies, 29 observations) in studies that only presented the mean value without any additional summary statistics were imputed using the prognostic method [ 34 ]. Thereby, we predicted the missing SDs by calculating the average SDs of observed studies with full information by the respective measure and source (self-report versus proxy-report).

A meta-analysis was performed in Stata (17.1 Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX) to synthesize mean differences between self- and proxy-reported scores across different proxy perspectives. First, the pooled raw mean differences were calculated for each QoL measure separately, given differences in scales between measures. Secondly, we calculated the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for all studies stratified by proxy type (family carer, formal carers, mixed), dementia severity (mild, moderate, severe), and living arrangement (residential/institutional care, mixed). SMD accounts for the use of different measurement scales, where effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d. Random-effects models were used to allow for unexplained between-study variability based on the restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) estimator. The percentage of variability attributed to heterogeneity between the studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic; an I 2 of 0%-40% represents possibly unimportant heterogeneity, 30–60% moderate heterogeneity, 50–90% substantial heterogeneity, and 75%-100% considerable heterogeneity [ 35 ]. Chi-squared statistics (χ 2 ) provided evidence of heterogeneity, where a p -value of 0.1 was used as significance level. For studies that reported agreement statistics, based on ICC, we also ran a forest plot stratified by the study perspective. We also calculated Q statistic (Cochran’s test of homogeneity), which assesses whether observed differences in results are compatible with chance alone.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

The quality of studies was assessed using the using a checklist for assessing the quality of quantitative studies developed by Kmet et al. (2004) [ 36 ]. The checklist consists of 14 items and items are scored as ‘2’ (yes, item sufficiently addressed), ‘1’ (item partially addressed), ‘0’ (no, not addressed), or ‘not applicable.’ A summary score was calculated for each study by summing the total score obtained across relevant items and dividing by the total possible score. Scores were adjusted by excluding items that were not applicable from the total score. Quality assessment was undertaken by one reviewer, with 25% of the papers assessed independently by a second reviewer.

The PRISMA diagram in Fig. 1 shows that after the abstract and full-text screening, 38 studies from the database search and 58 studies from the Roydhouse et al. (2022) review were included in this review—a total of 96 studies. A list of all studies included and their characteristics can be found in Appendix 3.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram

General study characteristics

The 96 articles included in the review were published between 1999 and 2023 from across the globe; most studies (36%) were conducted in Europe. People with dementia in these studies were living in the community (67%), residential/institutional care (15%), as well as mixed dwelling settings (18%). Most proxy-reports were provided by family carers (85%) and only 8 studies (8%) included formal carers. The mean MMSE score for dementia and Alzheimer’s participants was 18.77 (SD = 4.34; N = 85 studies), which corresponds to moderate cognitive impairment [ 37 ]. Further characteristics of studies included are provided in Table 1 . The quality of studies included (see Appendix 4) was generally very good, scoring on average 91% (SD: 9.1) with scores ranging from 50 to 100%.

Quality of life measure and proxy perspective used

A total of 635 observations were recorded from the 96 studies. The majority of studies and observations extracted assumed the proxy-proxy perspective (77 studies, 501 observations), followed by the proxy-patient perspective (18 studies, 62 observations), with 18 studies (72 observations) not clearly defining the perspective. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of number of studies and observations across the respective QoL measures and proxy perspectives. Two studies (14 observations) adopted both perspectives within the same study design: one using the QOL-AD measure [ 5 ] and the second study exploring the EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS [ 38 ]. Overall, the QOL-AD was the most often used QoL measure, followed by the EQ-5D and DEMQOL. Mean scores for specific QoL domains were accessible for the DEMQOL and QOL-AD. However, only the QOL-AD provided domain-specific mean scores from both proxy perspectives.

Mean scores and mean differences by proxy perspective and QoL measure

The raw mean scores for self-reported and proxy-reported QoL scores are provided in the Supplementary file 2. The pooled raw mean difference by proxy perspective and measure is shown in Table 3 . Regardless of the perspective adopted and the QoL instrument used, self-reported scores were higher (indicating better QoL) compared with proxy-reported scores, except for the DEMQOL, where proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves. Most instruments were explored from one perspective, except for the EQ-5D-3L, EQ VAS, and QOL-AD, for which mean differences were available for both perspectives. For these three measures, mean differences were smaller when adopting the proxy-patient perspective compared with proxy-proxy perspective, although mean scores for the QOL-AD were slightly lower from the proxy-proxy perspective. I 2 statistics indicate considerable heterogeneity (I 2 > 75%) between studies. Mean differences by specific QoL domains are provided in Appendix 5, but only for the QOL-AD measure that was explored from both perspectives. Generally, mean differences appeared to be smaller for the proxy-proxy perspective than the proxy-patient perspective across all domains, except for ‘physical health’ and ‘doing chores around the house.’ However, results need to be interpreted carefully as proxy-patient perspective scores were derived from only one study.

Standardized mean differences by proxy perspective, stratified by proxy type, dementia severity, and living arrangement

Table 4 provides the SMD by proxy perspective, which adjusts for the different QoL measurement scales. Findings suggest that adopting the proxy-patient perspective results in lower SMDs (SMD: 0.250; 95% CI 0.116; 0.384) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (SMD: 0.532; 95% CI 0.456; 0.609). The largest SMD was recorded for studies that did not define the study perspective (SMD: 0.594; 95% CI 0.469; 0.718). A comparison by different proxy types (formal carers, family carers, and mixed proxies) revealed some mixed results. When adopting the proxy-proxy perspective, the largest SMD was found for family carers (SMD: 0.556; 95% CI 0.465; 0.646) compared with formal carers (SMD: 0.446; 95% CI 0.305; 0.586) or mixed proxies (SMD: 0.335; 95% CI 0.211; 0.459). However, the opposite relationship was found when the proxy-patient perspective was used, where the smallest SMD was found for family carers compared with formal carers and mixed proxies. The SMD increased with greater level of dementia severity, suggesting a greater disagreement. However, compared with the proxy-proxy perspective, where self-reported scores were greater (i.e., better QoL) than proxy-reported scores across all dementia severity levels, the opposite was found when adopting the proxy-patient perspective, where proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves, except for the severe subgroup. No clear trend was observed for different living settings, although the SMD appeared to be smaller for people with dementia living in residential care compared with those living in the community.

Direct proxy perspectives comparison studies

Two studies assessed both proxy perspectives within the same study design. Bosboom et al. (2012) found that compared with self-reported scores (mean: 34.7; SD: 5.3) using the QOL-AD, proxy scores using the proxy-patient perspective were closer to the self-reported scores (mean: 32.1; SD: 6.1) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (mean: 29.5; SD: 5.4) [ 5 ]. Similar findings were reported by Leontjevas et al. (2016) using the EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ VAS, showing that the inter-proxy gap between self-report (EQ-5D-3L: 0.609; EQ VAS: 65.37) and proxy-report was smaller when adopting the proxy-patient perspective (EQ-5D-3L: 0.555; EQ VAS: 65.15) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (EQ-5D-3L: 0.492; EQ VAS: 64.42) [ 38 ].

Inter-rater agreement (ICC) statistics

Six studies reported agreement statistics based on ICC, from which we extracted 17 observations that were included in the meta-analysis. Figure 2 shows the study-specific and overall estimates of ICC by the respective study perspective. The heterogeneity between studies was high ( I 2 = 88.20%), with a Q test score of 135.49 ( p < 0.001). While the overall ICC for the 17 observations was 0.3 (95% CI 0.22; 0.38), indicating low agreement, the level of agreement was slightly better when adopting a proxy-patient perspective (ICC: 0.36, 95% CI 0.23; 0.49) than a proxy-proxy perspective (ICC: 0.26, 95% CI 0.17; 0.35).

Forest plot depicting study-specific and overall ICC estimates by study perspective

While previous studies highlighted a disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia, this review, for the first time, assessed the role of different proxy perspectives in explaining the inter-rater gap. Our findings align with the baseline hypothesis and indicate that QoL scores reported from the proxy-patient perspective are closer to self-reported QoL scores than the proxy-proxy perspective, suggesting that the proxy perspective does impact the inter-rater gap and should not be ignored. This finding was observed across different analyses conducted in this review (i.e., pooled raw mean difference, SMD, ICC analysis), which also confirms the results of two previous primary studies that adopted both proxy perspectives within the same study design [ 5 , 38 ]. Our findings emphasize the need for transparency in reporting the proxy perspective used in future studies, as it can impact results and interpretation. This was also noted by the recent ISPOR Proxy Task Force that developed a checklist of considerations when using proxy-reporting [ 39 ]. While consistency in proxy-reports is desirable, it is crucial to acknowledge that each proxy perspective holds significance in future research, depending on study objectives. It is evident that both proxy perspectives offer distinct insights—one encapsulating the perspectives of people with dementia, and the other reflecting the viewpoints of proxies. Therefore, in situations where self-report is unattainable due to advanced disease severity and the person’s perspective on their own QoL assessment is sought, it is recommended to use the proxy-patient perspective. Conversely, if the objective of future research is to encompass the viewpoints of proxies, opting for the proxy-proxy perspective is advisable. However, it is important to note that proxies may deviate from instructed perspectives, requiring future qualitative research to examine the adherence to proxy perspectives. Additionally, others have argued that proxy-reports should not substitute self-reports, and only serve as supplementary sources alongside patient self-reports whenever possible [ 9 ].

This review considered various QoL instruments, but most instruments adopted one specific proxy perspective, limiting detailed analyses. QoL instruments differ in their scope (generic versus disease-specific) as well as coverage of QoL domains. The QOL-AD, an Alzheimer's Disease-specific measure, was commonly used. Surprisingly, for this measure, the mean differences between self-reported and proxy-reported scores were smaller using the proxy-proxy perspective, contrary to the patterns observed with all other instruments. This may be due to the lack of studies reporting QOL-AD proxy scores from the proxy-patient perspective, as the study by Bosboom et al. (2012) found the opposite [ 5 ]. Previous research has also suggested that the inter-rater gap is dependent on the QoL domains and that the risk of bias is greater for more ‘subjective’ (less observable) domains such as emotions, feelings, and moods in comparison with observable, objective areas such as physical domains [ 8 , 40 ]. However, this review lacks sufficient observations for definitive results on QoL dimensions and their impact on self-proxy differences, emphasizing the need for future research in this area.

With regard to proxy type, there is an observable trend suggesting a wider inter-rater gap when family proxies are employed using the proxy-proxy perspective, in contrast to formal proxies. This variance might be attributed to the use of distinct anchoring points; family proxies tend to assess the individual's QoL in relation to their past self before having dementia, while formal caregivers may draw comparisons with other individuals with dementia under their care [ 41 ]. However, the opposite was found when the proxy-patient perspective was used, where family proxies scores seemed to align more closely with self-reported scores, resulting in lower SMD scores. This suggests that family proxies might possess a better ability to empathize with the perspective of the person with dementia compared to formal proxies. Nonetheless, it is important to interpret these findings cautiously, given the relatively small number of observations for formal caregiver reports. Additionally, other factors such as emotional connection, caregiver burden, and caregiver QoL may also impact proxy-reports by family proxies [ 14 , 16 ] that have not been explored in this review.

Our review found that the SMD between proxy and self-report increased with greater level of dementia severity, contrasting a previous study, which showed that cognitive impairment was not the primary factor that accounted for the differences in the QoL assessments between family proxies and the person with dementia [ 15 ]. However, it is noteworthy that different interpretations and classifications were used across studies to define mild, moderate, and severe dementia, which needs to be considered. Most studies used MMSE to define dementia severity levels. Given the MMSE’s role as a standard measure of cognitive function, the study findings are considered generalizable and clinically relevant for people with dementia across different dementia severity levels. When examining the role of the proxy perspective by level of severity, we found that compared with the proxy-proxy perspective, where self-reported scores were greater than proxy-reported scores across all dementia severity levels, the proxy-patient perspective yielded the opposite results, and proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves, except for the severe subgroup. It is possible that in the early stages of dementia, the person with dementia has a greater awareness of increasing deficits, coupled with denial and lack of acceptance, leading to a more critical view of their own QoL than how proxies think they would rate their QoL. However, future studies are warranted, given the small number of observations adopting the proxy-patient perspective in our review.

The heterogeneity observed in the studies included was high, supporting the use of random-effects meta-analysis. This is not surprising given the diverse nature of studies included (i.e., RCTs, cross-sectional studies), differences in the population (i.e., people living in residential care versus community-dwelling people), mixed levels of dementia severity, and differences between instruments. While similar heterogeneity was observed in another review on a similar topic [ 42 ], our presentation of findings stratified by proxy type, dementia severity, and living arrangement attempted to account for such differences across studies.

Limitations and recommendations for future studies

Our review has some limitations. Firstly, proxy perspectives were categorized based on the authors' descriptions, but many papers did not explicitly state the perspective, which led to the use of assumptions based on instrument developers. Some studies may have modified the perspective's wording without reporting it. Due to lack of resources, we did not contact the authors of the original studies directly to seek clarification around the proxy perspective adopted. Regarding studies using the EQ-5D, which has two proxy perspectives, some studies did not specify which proxy version was used, suggesting the potential use of self-reported versions for proxies. In such cases, the proxy perspective was categorized as undefined. Despite accounting for factors like QoL measure, proxy type, setting, and dementia severity, we could not assess the impact of proxy characteristics (e.g., carer burden) or dementia type due to limited information provided in the studies. We also faced limitations in exploring the proxy perspective by QoL domains due to limited information. Further, not all studies outlined the data collection process in full detail. For example, it is possible that the proxy also assisted the person with dementia with their self-report, which could have resulted in biased estimates and the need for future studies applying blinding. Although we assessed the risk of bias of included studies, the checklist was not directly reflecting the purpose of our study that looked into inter-rater agreement. No checklist for this purpose currently exists. Finally, quality appraisal by a second reviewer was only conducted for the first 25% of the studies due to resource constraints and a low rate of disagreement between the two assessors. However, an agreement index between reviewers regarding the concordance in selecting full texts for inclusion and conducting risk of bias assessments was not calculated.

This review demonstrates that the choice of proxy perspective impacts the inter-rater gap. QoL scores from the proxy-patient perspective align more closely with self-reported scores than the proxy-proxy perspective. These findings contribute to the broader literature investigating factors influencing differences in QoL scores between proxies and individuals with dementia. While self-reported QoL is the gold standard, proxy-reports should be viewed as complements rather than substitutes. Both proxy perspectives offer unique insights, yet QoL assessments in people with dementia are complex. The difference in self- and proxy-reports can be influenced by various factors, necessitating further research before presenting definitive results that inform care provision and policy.

Data availability

All data associated with the systematic literature review are available in the supplementary file.

Moyle, W., & Murfield, J. E. (2013). Health-related quality of life in older people with severe dementia: Challenges for measurement and management. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes, 13 (1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.84

Article Google Scholar

Sachdev, P. S., Blacker, D., Blazer, D. G., Ganguli, M., Jeste, D. V., Paulsen, J. S., & Petersen, R. C. (2014). Classifying neurocognitive disorders: The DSM-5 approach. Nature reviews Neurology, 10 (11), 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.181

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Health, The Lancet Regional., & – Europe. (2022). Challenges for addressing dementia. The Lancet Regional Health . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100504

The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41 (10), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K

Bosboom, P. R., Alfonso, H., Eaton, J., & Almeida, O. P. (2012). Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: Different factors associated with complementary ratings by patients and family carers. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (5), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610211002493

Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J., Rikkert, M. G., Adang, E. M., & Krabbe, P. F. (2009). The challenges of accurate measurement of health-related quality of life in frail elderly people and dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57 (12), 2356–2357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02586.x

Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., & Teri, L. (2002). Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64 (3), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200205000-00016

Hutchinson, C., Worley, A., Khadka, J., Milte, R., Cleland, J., & Ratcliffe, J. (2022). Do we agree or disagree? A systematic review of the application of preference-based instruments in self and proxy reporting of quality of life in older people. Social Science & Medicine, 305 , 115046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115046

Smith, S. C., Hendriks, A. A. J., Cano, S. J., & Black, N. (2020). Proxy reporting of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: A psychometric solution. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18 (1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01396-y

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Andrieu, S., Coley, N., Rolland, Y., Cantet, C., Arnaud, C., Guyonnet, S., Nourhashemi, F., Grand, A., Vellas, B., & group, P. (2016). Assessing Alzheimer’s disease patients’ quality of life: Discrepancies between patient and caregiver perspectives. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 12 (4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.09.003

Jönsson, L., Andreasen, N., Kilander, L., Soininen, H., Waldemar, G., Nygaard, H., Winblad, B., Jonhagen, M. E., Hallikainen, M., & Wimo, A. (2006). Patient- and proxy-reported utility in Alzheimer disease using the EuroQoL. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 20 (1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wad.0000201851.52707.c9

Zucchella, C., Bartolo, M., Bernini, S., Picascia, M., & Sinforiani, E. (2015). Quality of life in Alzheimer disease: A comparison of patients’ and caregivers’ points of view. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 29 (1), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000050

Article CAS Google Scholar

Buckley, T., Fauth, E. B., Morrison, A., Tschanz, J., Rabins, P. V., Piercy, K. W., Norton, M., & Lyketsos, C. G. (2012). Predictors of quality of life ratings for persons with dementia simultaneously reported by patients and their caregivers: The Cache County (Utah) study. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (7), 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610212000063

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Schiffczyk, C., Romero, B., Jonas, C., Lahmeyer, C., Muller, F., & Riepe, M. W. (2010). Generic quality of life assessment in dementia patients: A prospective cohort study. BMC Neurology, 10 , 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-10-48

Sousa, M. F., Santos, R. L., Arcoverde, C., Simoes, P., Belfort, T., Adler, I., Leal, C., & Dourado, M. C. (2013). Quality of life in dementia: The role of non-cognitive factors in the ratings of people with dementia and family caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics, 25 (7), 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213000410

Arons, A. M., Krabbe, P. F., Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J., van der Wilt, G. J., & Rikkert, M. G. (2013). Quality of life in dementia: A study on proxy bias. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 , 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-110

Gomez-Gallego, M., Gomez-Garcia, J., & Ato-Lozano, E. (2015). Addressing the bias problem in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with dementia: Determinants of the accuracy and precision of the proxy ratings. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 19 (3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-014-0564-7

Moon, H., Townsend, A. L., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Whitlatch, C. J. (2016). Predictors of discrepancy between care recipients with mild-to-moderate dementia and their caregivers on perceptions of the care recipients’ quality of life. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 31 (6), 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317516653819

Crespo, M., Bernaldo de Quiros, M., Gomez, M. M., & Hornillos, C. (2012). Quality of life of nursing home residents with dementia: A comparison of perspectives of residents, family, and staff. The Gerontologist, 52 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr080

Griffiths, A. W., Smith, S. J., Martin, A., Meads, D., Kelley, R., & Surr, C. A. (2020). Exploring self-report and proxy-report quality-of-life measures for people living with dementia in care homes. Quality of Life Research, 29 (2), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02333-3

Pickard, A. S., & Knight, S. J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43 (5), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160419.27642.a8

Smith, S. C., Lamping, D. L., Banerjee, S., Harwood, R. H., Foley, B., Smith, P., Cook, J. C., Murray, J., Prince, M., Levin, E., Mann, A., & Knapp, M. (2007). Development of a new measure of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: DEMQOL. Psychological Medicine, 37 (5), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706009469

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37 (1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20 (10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

Rand, S., Caiels, J., Collins, G., & Forder, J. (2017). Developing a proxy version of the adult social care outcome toolkit (ASCOT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15 (1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0682-0

Engel, L., Bucholc, J., Mihalopoulos, C., Mulhern, B., Ratcliffe, J., Yates, M., & Hanna, L. (2020). A qualitative exploration of the content and face validity of preference-based measures within the context of dementia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18 (1), 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01425-w

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372 , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Roydhouse, J. K., Cohen, M. L., Eshoj, H. R., Corsini, N., Yucel, E., Rutherford, C., Wac, K., Berrocal, A., Lanzi, A., Nowinski, C., Roberts, N., Kassianos, A. P., Sebille, V., King, M. T., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Force, I. P. T., & the, I. B. o. D. (2022). The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: A report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force. Quality of Life Research, 31 (2), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02937-8

The EndNote Team. (2013). EndNote (Version EndNote X9) [64 bit]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15 (2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

Wan, X., Wang, W., Liu, J., & Tong, T. (2014). Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14 , 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135

Higgins JPT and Green S (editors). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Retrieved 20 Jan 2023, from https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_7_3_2_obtaining_standard_deviations_from_standard_errors_and.htm

Ma, J., Liu, W., Hunter, A., & Zhang, W. (2008). Performing meta-analysis with incomplete statistical information in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8 , 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-56

Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. (2023). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In J. Higgins & J. Thomas (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4.

Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields: Health and technology assessment unit. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

Lewis, T. J., & Trempe, C. L. (2017). Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s: Standard-of-care . USA: Elsevier Science & Technology.

Google Scholar

Leontjevas, R., Teerenstra, S., Smalbrugge, M., Koopmans, R. T., & Gerritsen, D. L. (2016). Quality of life assessments in nursing homes revealed a tendency of proxies to moderate patients’ self-reports. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 80 , 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.009

Lapin, B., Cohen, M. L., Corsini, N., Lanzi, A., Smith, S. C., Bennett, A. V., Mayo, N., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Mitchell, S. A., Rutherford, C., & Roydhouse, J. (2023). Development of consensus-based considerations for use of adult proxy reporting: An ISOQOL task force initiative. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 7 (1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00588-6

Li, M., Harris, I., & Lu, Z. K. (2015). Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7

Robertson, S., Cooper, C., Hoe, J., Lord, K., Rapaport, P., Marston, L., Cousins, S., Lyketsos, C. G., & Livingston, G. (2020). Comparing proxy rated quality of life of people living with dementia in care homes. Psychological Medicine, 50 (1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718003987

Khanna, D., Khadka, J., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Lay, K., Russo, R., Ratcliffe, J., & Quality of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia Project, T. (2022). Are We Agreed? Self- versus proxy-reporting of paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) Using generic preference-based measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PharmacoEconomics, 40 (11), 1043–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01177-z

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This study was conducted without financial support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

Lidia Engel & Valeriia Sokolova

School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Anna Leuenberger

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LE contributed to the study conception and design. The original database search was performed by AL and later updated by VS. All authors were involved in the screening process, data extraction, and data analyses. Quality assessment was conducted by VS and LE. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LE and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lidia Engel .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Lidia Engel is a member of the EuroQol Group.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent to publish, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 67 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 234 kb), rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Engel, L., Sokolova, V., Bogatyreva, E. et al. Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in explaining the difference between self-rated and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Qual Life Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03660-w

Download citation

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03660-w

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

Quality of Life
Outcome measurement
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

REVIEW article

The role of big data in financial technology (fintech) towards financial inclusion provisionally accepted.

1 University of Johannesburg, South Africa

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of financial technology (FinTech), big data stands as a cornerstone, driving significant transformations. This study delves into the pivotal role of big data in FinTech and its implications for financial inclusion. Employing a comprehensive literature review methodology, we analyze diverse sources including academic journals, industry reports, and online articles. Our findings illuminate how big data catalyzes the development of novel financial products and services, enhances risk management, and boosts operational efficiency, thereby fostering financial inclusion. Particularly, big data's capability to offer insightful customer behaviour analytics is highlighted as a key driver for creating inclusive financial services. However, challenges such as data privacy and security, and the need for ethical algorithmic practices are also identified. This research contributes valuable insights for policymakers, regulators, and industry practitioners, suggesting a need for balanced regulatory frameworks to harness big data's potential ethically and responsibly. The outcomes of this study underscore the transformative power of big data in FinTech, indicating a pathway towards a more inclusive financial ecosystem.

Keywords: big data, FinTech, Benefits, Financial Inclusion Font: Gill Sans MT, 12 pt

Received: 11 Mar 2023; Accepted: 22 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Mhlanga. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. David Mhlanga, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

People also looked at

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List
CBE Life Sci Educ
v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cbe-21-rm33-g001.jpg

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing
Literature Review Guidelines
The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing by
Literature Review: Outline, Strategies, and Examples
15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
15 Reasons Why Literature Is Important

VIDEO

The Importance of Literature Review in Your Dissertation
3_session2 Importance of literature review, types of literature review, Reference management tool
Sources And Importance Of Literature Review(ENGLISH FOR RESEARCH PAPER WRITING)
The Importance of the Literature Review
The Importance of Literature Review for Research Paper
Lecture 1: Importance of Literature Review

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Role of the Literature Review
The literature review is not a comprehensive history of your topic, but a way to provide context to your reader about research that has preceded your study. Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to ...
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
Example: Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework: 10.1177/08948453211037398 ; Systematic review: "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139).
What is a literature review?
A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important ...
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it ...
Importance of a Good Literature Review
A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem.
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Conducting a Literature Review: Why Do A Literature Review?
Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed. You identify: core research in the field. experts in the subject area. methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
Literature Reviews
Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. ... Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review ...
Literature Reviews?
Most literature reviews are embedded in articles, books, and dissertations. In most research articles, there are set as a specific section, usually titled, "literature review", so they are hard to miss.But, sometimes, they are part of the narrative of the introduction of a book or article. This section is easily recognized since the author is engaging with other academics and experts by ...
PDF What is a Literature Review?
The importance of the literature review cannot be overstated. It is the tool to advancing practice. Furthermore, it can help to inspire and generate new ideas by highlighting inconsistencies in current knowledge (Aveyard, 2010). Literature 01-Coughlan-Ch-01.indd 3 05/02/2013 10:02:51 AM.
What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?
A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. ... Are you interested in learning more about the role of ...
The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review. An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-as-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event.
5. The Literature Review
A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that ...
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
Literature Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Research: The Roles and
The systematic review is a method, which is the main aim to synthesize and summarize the results of studies on the same research area. Systematic reviews have some differences from literature reviews in some aspects. The most distinct difference is systematic reviews involve a detailed and well-defined plan with a search strategy (Uman, 2011 ).
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
INTRODUCTION. Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer's block and procrastination in postgraduate life.Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR.Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An ...
This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. ... Literature reviews play an important role as a foundation for all types of research. They can serve as a basis for ...
Literature Review
In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your ...
LibGuides: Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review
The purpose of a literature review is to: Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic; Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers; ... VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the ...
Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare
The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the "Standards" as a frame of reference.
Diseases
Although lymphoma is the most frequent malignancy in common variable immunodeficiency (CVID), solid tumors, especially affected by oncogenic viruses, are not considered. Furthermore, in vitro genetic studies and cell cultures are not adequate for immune system and HBV interaction. We adopted a previously introduced clinical model of host-virus interaction (i.e., infectious process in ...
Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of
Emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin present a critical threat to global population health. As accelerating globalisation makes epidemics and pandemics more difficult to contain, there is a need for effective preventive interventions that reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover events. Public policies can play a key role in preventing spillover events.
Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in
Therefore, we aimed to undertake a systematic literature review to examine the role of different proxy-assessment perspectives in explaining differences between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia. The review was conducted under the hypothesis that the difference in QoL estimates will be larger when adopting the proxy ...
Frontiers
In this review, we focus on recent advances in understanding the role of direct contact between cancer cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in driving tumor development and metastasis. We also summarize recent findings on the role of direct contact between cancer cells and CAFs and chemotherapy resistance.
Full article: "Being a Global Citizen": Australian Secondary Teacher
Literature review. The research team considered it necessary to identify how TLs define the concept of information literacy and its relation to everyday decision-making contexts as a foundation for further study concerning how information literacy is taught. ... Investigating the differences in these titles and roles is outside of the scope of ...
The Role of Big Data in Financial Technology (Fintech) Towards
In the rapidly evolving landscape of financial technology (FinTech), big data stands as a cornerstone, driving significant transformations. This study delves into the pivotal role of big data in FinTech and its implications for financial inclusion. Employing a comprehensive literature review methodology, we analyze diverse sources including academic journals, industry reports, and online articles.
Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks
Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies. ... The roles of STEM faculty ...
Hungary's Iran Outreach Undercuts Israel, American Role in Middle Eeast
Hungary's cozying up to Iran cannot be taken lightly by those who care about the survival and security of Israel, and about America's role in the Middle East.

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Literature review as a dinner party

Short video: Empirical research

Walden Resources

Centers and Offices

Student Resources

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

What are Literature Reviews?

Goals of Literature Reviews

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

Purpose of a Literature Review

Limitations of a Literature Review

Libraries | Research Guides

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Secondary menu

Search form

It Also Helps You:

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

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

What is a Literature Review?

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

What is a Literature Review?

Find this useful?

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Define Key Concepts and Theories

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Support Your Argument

Literature Review Editing Services

Share this article:

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

How to Cite the CDC in APA

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

What Is a Content Editor?

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Importance of a Good Literature Review

Structure and Writing Style

Writing Tip

Another Writing Tip

Yet Another Writing Tip

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

APA7 Style resources

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Review the literature

Research Process :: Step by Step

Ask yourself questions like these:

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

Videos & Tutorials

Elements in a Literature Review

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

Person-centered care (PCC)

Person-centered care assessment tool (P-CAT)

Scale validity

Current study

Systematic review