best practices literature review

Literature Reviews and Annotated Bibliographies

• What is a Literature Review?

Best Practices: Components, Resources Sites

Best practices: quoting, paraphrasing, etc..

• Graduate Research and the Literature Review
• What is an Annotated Bibliography?
• How to Evaluate Sources?
• Citation & Avoiding Plagiarism

How to write a Literature Review?

Components:

• Introduction: State your research topic
• Body/Presentation of Sources Used: A research topic have different angles/viariables/themes. Organize your finding based of those categories.
• Discussion/Analysis of Literature: Summarize/synthesize major literature that deal with your research topic. Discuss common themes, gaps, etc...
• Conclusion: Re-state your topic and explain if it has changed after the review and what are the next steps for your research
• Do not over "quote." If you only quote from every single author you found, then you are not showing any original thinking or analysis. Use quotes judiciously. Use quotes to highlight a particular passages or thought that is exemplary of the research, theory or topic you are researching.
• Instead use paraphrasing to report, in your own words, what the author was reporting or theorizing.
• Summarize findings, important sections or a whole article--this is different from paraphrasing since you are not re-stating the author words but identifying the main points of what you are reading in a concise matter for your readers.
• When synthesizing your findings for the literature review (this is when make comparison, establish relationships between authors' works, point out weakness, strenghts and gaps among the literature review, you still need to give credit to these sources.

Definitions:

Quoting* : "(a) to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment. (b) to repeat a passage from especially in substantiation or illustration."

Paraphrasing* : Paraphrase is the “ restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form.”  

Summarize *: It’s the process of summarizing a text or paragraph to its the main points succinctly.

Synthesize *: “1. (a) the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole."

*Definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary Online, http://www.m-w.com <Accessed September 1 st , 2011>

   Useful sites with tips on how to write a Literature Review :

• Write a Literature Review (UC Santa Cruz)
• Online Tutorial (North Carolina State University Libraries)
• Write a Literature Review ( Virginia Commonwealth University)
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it (University of Toronto)
• Write a Review of Literature (UW-Madison's Writing Center)
• Write a Literature Review (Johns Hopkins University)
• Doing your Undergraduate Project: The Literature Review (ASU Access only): Sage Research Methods
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Graduate Research and the Literature Review >>
• Last updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.asu.edu/LiteratureReviews

The ASU Library acknowledges the twenty-three Native Nations that have inhabited this land for centuries. Arizona State University's four campuses are located in the Salt River Valley on ancestral territories of Indigenous peoples, including the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee Posh (Maricopa) Indian Communities, whose care and keeping of these lands allows us to be here today. ASU Library acknowledges the sovereignty of these nations and seeks to foster an environment of success and possibility for Native American students and patrons. We are advocates for the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems and research methodologies within contemporary library practice. ASU Library welcomes members of the Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh, and all Native nations to the Library.

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

Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices

• First Online: 21 November 2023

Cite this chapter

• Kelly Heider 3  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

443 Accesses

1 Altmetric

The literature review is an essential component of academic research writing, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research and informing the development of new studies. However, writing an effective literature review can be a challenging task for many authors, particularly those new to academic writing. This chapter aims to guide authors through the process of writing a literature review by highlighting common mistakes and best practices. The chapter begins with three short narratives that describe difficulties both novice and prolific authors encounter when writing the literature review. A chapter activity follows with steps that guide authors through the process of developing a research question to frame the literature review. Authors are then prompted to complete a self-assessment activity which includes a series of questions designed to build their skills as academic research writers. The body of the chapter recommends strategies and techniques to help authors locate and evaluate sources that will serve as the building blocks for a literature review that is thorough, current, and well-written. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the threats and benefits of artificial intelligence-based text production in relationship to academic research writing. Overall, this chapter provides practical guidance for authors looking to improve their literature review writing skills and enhance the quality of their research output.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Anson, C. M. (2022). AI-based text generation and the social construction of “fraudulent authorship”: A revisitation. Composition Studies, 50 (1), 37–46.

Google Scholar  

Aylward, K., Sbaffi, L., & Weist, A. (2020). Peer-led information literacy training: A qualitative study of students’ experiences of the NICE evidence search student champion scheme. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 37 (3), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12301

Article   Google Scholar  

Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342 (6154), 60–65. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Bouchrika, I. (2023, March 17). Top 10 qualities of good academic research . Research. https://research.com/research/top-10-qualities-of-good-academic-research

Bowler, M., & Street, K. (2008). Investigating the efficacy of embedment: Experiments in information literacy integration. Reference Services Review, 36 , 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810920397

De La Torre, M. (2018, August 29). Academic racism: The repression of marginalized voices in academia . The Activist History Review. https://activisthistory.com/2018/08/29/academic-racism-the-repression-of-marginalized-voices-in-academia/

Drewes, K., & Hoffman, N. (2010). Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction. Public Services Quarterly, 6 (2–3), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.498773

Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.a). Journal acceptance rates: Everything you need to know . Publication process. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-process/journal-acceptance-rates/#:~:text=your%20paper%20to%3F-,What%20Our%20Research%20Shows,over%201%25%20to%2093.2%25 .

Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.b). What is a good H-index? Publication recognition. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-recognition/what-good-h-index/

Emerald Publishing. (2023). How to…conduct empirical research . https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/research-methods/conduct-empirical-research

Enago Academy. (2022, May 3). How much research is enough for a good literature review? https://www.enago.com/academy/research-for-a-good-literature-review/

Fitzgibbons, M. (2021). Literature review synthesis matrix . Concordia University Library. [Adapted from original table by the WI+RE Team at UCLA Library.] https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/library/docs/research-guides/gradproskills/Lit-review-synthesis-matrix-Word.docx

Garrett, W. (n.d.) Marginalized populations . Minnesota Psychological Association. https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=division%20news&id=71:marginalized-populations

George Mason University Libraries. (2021, August 20). Find authors . Finding diverse voices in academic research. https://infoguides.gmu.edu/c.php?g=1080259&p=7871669

Gyles, C. (2014, February). Can we trust peer-reviewed science? The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 55 (2), 109–111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894865/#b2-cvj_02_109

Hern, A. (2022, December 4). AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics with essay-writing skills and usability . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/04/ai-bot-chatgpt-stuns-academics-with-essay-writing-skills-and-usability

Hoffman, N., Beatty, S., Feng, P., & Lee, J. (2017). Teaching research skills through embedded librarianship. Reference Services Review, 45 , 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2016-0045

Indeed Editorial Team. (2022, June 28). Create a theoretical framework for your research in 4 steps . Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/theoretical-framework

Jansen, D. (2021, June). How to choose your research methodology . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/choose-research-methodology/

Jansen, D., & Warren, K. (2020, June). What (exactly) is a literature review? GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-a-literature-review/

Jin, Y. Y., Noh, H., Shin, H., & Lee, S. M. (2015). A typology of burnout among Korean teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24 (2), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0181-6

Koufogiannakis, D., Buckingham, J., Alibhai, A., & Rayner, D. (2005). Impact of librarians in first-year medical and dental student problem-based learning (PBL) groups: A controlled study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 , 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2005.00559.x

Larsen, C. M., Terkelsen, A. S., Carlsen, A. F., & Kristensen, H. K. (2019). Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 19 , 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1681-0

Liberties EU. (2021, October 5). What is marginalization? Definition and coping strategies . https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/marginalization-and-being-marginalized/43767

Lucey, B., & Dowling, M. (2023). ChatGPT: Our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals—just as some ban it . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-our-study-shows-ai-can-produce-academic-papers-good-enough-for-journals-just-as-some-ban-it-197762

Maior, E., Dobrean, A., & Păsărelu, C. (2020). Teacher rationality, social-emotional competencies, and basic needs satisfaction: Direct and indirect effects on teacher burnout. Journal of Evidence—Based Psychotherapies, 20 (1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.24193/jebp.2020.1.8

Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Monash University. (2023). Structuring a literature review . Learn HQ. https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/excel-at-writing/how-to-write.../literature-review/structuring-a-literature-review

Nova, A. (2017, December 21). Learn how to write a literature review in simple steps . MyPerfectWords. https://myperfectwords.com/blog/research-paper-guide/how-to-write-a-literature-review

O’Byrne, I. (2018, February 9). Eight steps to write a literature review . https://wiobyrne.com/literature-review/

Online Campus Writing Center. (2023). Synthesis . The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. https://community.thechicagoschool.edu/writingresources/online/Pages/Synthesis.aspx

Phair, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/

Robinson, K. A., Akinyede, O., Dutta, T., Sawin, V. I., Li, T., Spencer, M. R., Turkelson, C. M., & Weston, C. (2013, February). Framework for determining research gaps during systematic review: Evaluation . Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U.S.). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126702/

Rommelspacher, A. (2020, November). How to structure your literature review: Three options to help structure your chapter . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-structure/

Royal Literary Fund. (2023). The structure of a literature review . https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process . SAGE Publications.

Scimago Lab. (2022a). About us . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php

Scimago Lab. (2022b). Journal rankings . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

Shumaker, D. (2009). Who let the librarians out? Embedded librarianship and the library manager. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48 (3), 239–257.

Statistics Solutions. (2023). Tips for the literature review: Synthesis and analysis . Complete dissertation. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/tips-for-the-literature-review-synthesis-and-analysis/

TechTarget. (2023). What is OpenAI? Open AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/OpenAI

Texas A&M University Writing Center. (2023). Self-assessment . https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Faculty-Advisors/Resources-for-Teaching/Feedback/Self-Assessment

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. (2022, May 13). Evaluate sources. Public administration research. https://libguides.uccs.edu/c.php?g=617840&p=4299162

University of Maryland Global Campus. (n.d.). Discipline-specific research methods . https://coursecontent.umgc.edu/umgc/shareable-content/toolkits/BEHS000/1402/ResearchMethods/Discipline-SpecificResearchMethods.html

University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21). Academic writing: Writing the literature review [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0

Walker, R., & Solvason, C. (2014). Methodology: Choosing your research approach . SAGE Publications.

Wardle, E., & Downs, D. (2019). Writing about writing (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Wiggers, K. (2023, January 31). OpenAI releases tool to detect AI-generated text, including from ChatGPT . TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/31/openai-releases-tool-to-detect-ai-generated-text-including-from-chatgpt/

Yilmaz, K., Altinkurt, Y., Guner, M., & Sen, B. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ emotional labor and burnout level. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 59 , 75–90.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Acting Assistant Vice Provost for University Libraries, Indiana University of PA, Indiana, PA, USA

Kelly Heider

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Heider .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Emerita, Indiana, PA, USA

Mary Renck Jalongo

Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA

Olivia N. Saracho

Issue: AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing

 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new technological development that can be used to support academic research writing, particularly reviews of research. Although it holds promise as a research tool, there are also concerns that AI-based scholarly writing could threaten not only the integrity but also the creativity of academic research writing. ChatGPT, an advanced chatbot developed by OpenAI (a nonprofit research company founded by Elon Musk and Sam Altman in 2015) has been at the center of much controversy as of late because of its ability to produce academic papers using artificial intelligence-based text production that have fooled academics and academic journal publishers (Hern, 2022 ; Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ; TechTarget, 2023 ). To demonstrate ChatGPT’s capabilities, consider its response to the question, “What is artificial intelligence-based text production?”.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Text Production is a process where machine learning algorithms are used to generate written content such as articles, product descriptions, social media posts, and more. It involves training machine learning models with vast amounts of data to learn how to generate human-like text automatically. The process can involve different techniques such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), deep learning, and neural networks to analyze and understand language patterns, grammar, context, and semantics. The resulting AI-generated text can be used for a wide range of applications, including content marketing, chatbots, language translation, and more. One of the main benefits of AI-based text production is that it can help businesses and organizations automate their content creation process, saving time and resources while producing high-quality content. However, it is important to note that AI-generated text may not always be perfect and may require human editing and review to ensure accuracy and coherence.

This response was produced by ChatGPT in about ten seconds. According to Anson ( 2022 ), “cutting and pasting all or part of this auto-generated text into a new text box can continue to prompt further content. The material is not plagiarized from existing sources but freshly composed. For this reason, it usually evades plagiarism-detection programs like Turnitin” (p. 40).

How Might AI-Based Text Production Threaten Academic Research Writing?

Obviously, computer-generated text that evades plagiarism-detection programs threatens the integrity of academic research writing. Some academic publishers have already banned or limited the use of AI-generated text in papers submitted to their journals (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). However, that is easier said than done. OpenAI recently developed a tool that attempts to distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text to prevent chatbots like ChatGPT from being abused, but it is only 26% effective (Wiggers, 2023 ).

Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ) tested the credibility of ChatGPT by having expert reviewers examine papers produced by the chatbot. First, they asked ChatGPT to generate four parts of a research study: (1) research idea, (2) literature review, (3) dataset, and (4) suggestions for testing and examination. They chose a broad subject and instructed the chatbot to create a paper that could be published in “a good finance journal” (para. 6). Second, they pasted 200 relevant abstracts into the ChatGPT search box and asked the chatbot to consider the abstracts when generating the four-part research study. Finally, they asked academic researchers to read both versions of the AI-generated text and make suggestions for improvement. A panel of thirty-two reviewers read all versions of the four-part research study and rated them. In all cases, the papers were considered acceptable by the reviewers, although the chatbot-created papers that also included input from academic researchers were rated higher. However, “a chatbot was deemed capable of generating quality academic research ideas. This raises fundamental questions around the meaning of creativity and ownership of creative ideas—questions to which nobody yet has solid answers” (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 , para. 10).

How Might AI-Based Text Production Benefit Academic Research Writing?

Despite several publishers deciding to ban the inclusion of AI-based text production in submissions, some researchers have already listed ChatGPT as a co-author on their papers (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). There are many who believe there is no difference between the way ChatGPT produces text and the way authors synthesize studies in their literature reviews. In fact, the chatbot’s review is much more exhaustive because it can analyze “billions of existing, human-produced texts and, through a process akin to the creation of neural networks, generate new text based on highly complex predictive machine analysis” (Anson, 2022 , p. 39).

There are other advantages to using AI-based text production. It has the potential to aid groups of researchers who lack funding to hire human research assistants such as emerging economy researchers, graduate students, and early career researchers. According to Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ), AI-based text production “could help democratize the research process” (para. 18). Anson ( 2022 ) also sees the potential in AI-based text production to “spark some new human-generated ideas” (p. 42), extract keywords, and create abstracts. The development of AI-based text production might also force instructors to change the way they teach academic writing. Instead of trying to detect or prevent the use of chatbots like ChatGPT, “a more sensible approach could involve embracing the technology, showing students what it can and can’t do, and asking them to experiment with it” (Anson, 2022 , p. 44). In other words, students could be asked to write about writing which leads to a deeper understanding of the writing process and the ability to transfer that understanding to any writing project (Wardle & Downs, 2019 ).

The Responsible Use of AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing

The responsible use of AI-based text production in academic research writing involves understanding the technology's capabilities and limitations, as well as considering its potential impact on the research process. Researchers must carefully evaluate the intended purpose and context of using AI-generated text and make certain they are not compromising the authenticity and integrity of their research work. To ensure responsible use, it is essential to balance the benefits of increased efficiency and new insights with the need for originality and critical thinking in academic research writing. Researchers must also be transparent in disclosing the use of AI-generated text when submitting their work for publication. By adopting a responsible and thoughtful approach to the use of AI-based text production, researchers can maximize the benefits of the technology while maintaining the quality and authenticity of their research.

Applications of Technology

How to Write a Paper in a Weekend : https://youtu.be/UY7sVKJPTMA

Note : University of Minnesota Chemistry Professor, Peter Carr is not advocating for procrastination. This video outlines a strategy for generating a first draft after you have all your reading and notes assembled.

Research Gap 101: What Is a Research Gap & How to Find One : https://youtu.be/Kabj0u8YQ4Y

Using Google Scholar for Academic Research : https://youtu.be/t8_CW6FV8Ac .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Heider, K. (2023). Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices. In: Renck Jalongo, M., Saracho, O.N. (eds) Scholarly Writing. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3

Published : 21 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39515-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39516-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Best Practice for Literature Searching

• Literature Search Best Practice
• What is literature searching?

What are literature reviews?

• Hierarchies of evidence
• 1. Managing references
• 2. Defining your research question
• 3. Where to search
• 4. Search strategy
• 5. Screening results
• 6. Paper acquisition
• 7. Critical appraisal
• Further resources
• Training opportunities and videos
• Join FSTA student advisory board This link opens in a new window
• Chinese This link opens in a new window
• Italian This link opens in a new window
• Persian This link opens in a new window
• Portuguese This link opens in a new window
• Spanish This link opens in a new window

A literature review is a critical assessment of the literature relating to a particular topic or subject. It aims to be systematic, comprehensive and reproducible. The goal is to identify, evaluate and synthesise the existing body of evidence that has been produced by other researchers with as little bias as possible.

Standalone reviews

Literature reviews take different forms. Some literature reviews are standalone projects. If you search the literature in food science and nutrition, you’ll find examples of:

• Mapping and scoping reviews , which review existing literature in order to identify opportunities for further research. 
• Reviews distilling the latest information to present the state-of-the-art understanding on a question or the latest updates on a methodology.
• Systematic reviews , which are a unique form of literature review:  they are research studies of research studies, and their searches need to find all the research that's been done on their question whether it's been published or not.  Conducted following a precise protocol, some systematic reviews include meta-analysis which extracts the data from all the quality research found and compiles it into a comprehensive data set in order to assess the current state of evidence on a question. Big projects, they generally take between 12 to 24 months to conduct.
• Rapid reviews  are quicker versions of systematic reviews, with some of the steps simplified or omitted.

Review types include many variations and nuances, as well as overlap. For instance, a rapid review might conclude that more and better research is required on a question, and hence intersect with the purpose of a scoping review.  This is just a small sampling of the variations of standalone review types out there—a recent study identified forty-eight distinct types of reviews within health disciplines alone!* 

*Sutton, A. et al. (2019) ‘Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements’, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36(3), pp. 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276.

Integrated reviews

Most literature reviews are not self-contained projects . A literature review is a key component of any advanced research project. 

Primary research articles begin with a literature review in their introduction which surveys the existing research, and indicates the significance of the article’s research, and places it in context. Researchers then may pull elements of the literature into the discussion section of the article, by showing how their research compares to existing research, possibly expanding on it, or contradicting its conclusions, thus highlighting the significance of what their research has found.

PhD dissertations have extensive literature reviews, sometimes comprising a chapter or even two of the written project.  In other theses or dissertations a researcher might integrate their literature review into each section rather than writing it up into a distinct chapter.  However it is incorporated, the literature search and review is a crucial component of the project.    

• << Previous: What is literature searching?
• Next: What is critical appraisal? >>
• Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023 2:17 PM
• URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/literature_search_best_practice

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . 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 [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

The PhD Experience

• Call for Contributions

Preparing for your Literature Review: Best Practices

By Drew Thomas |

For many Ph.D. students, part of their first-year progress review includes submitting a literature review. While it seems nice that you get to spend nearly a year reading interesting books and articles about your research topic, it can easily become an overwhelming task. Rather than focusing on how to write a literature review, in this post I hope to show you some of the best practices for managing your reading and preparing for your first draft.

Finding Literature

The first step is finding items to read. This is very easy at first, as you’ll be aware of major works in the field and start with those. However, you will undoubtedly hit a block when you start to move from more general to more specific research. For those first books, check out your supervisor’s personal library. He or she undoubtedly has many books of interest to your topic. Borrowing their books shows them you’re actively seeking research and it can’t be recalled from the library!

Google Scholar is one of the best search tools on the internet. It limits searches to academic websites and is good at finding similar material. Also, search JSTOR and any other databases your library subscribes to. If you ever visit other libraries on a research trip, always search the databases in their catalogue. Different libraries have different subscriptions. On my last day of a research trip in Berlin, I searched the library’s journal database and found three early 20th century articles directly related to my research. My home institution did not have access to the journal. I was able to download the articles before I returned home.

As much as I love technology, my two favourite methods of finding secondary literature are physically searching the footnotes of other scholars and browsing the stacks. Footnotes are a lifesaver. Why do extra work when scholars before you have already done it? Let them point you in the right direction. By reviewing their source material, you are better able to judge their conclusions. Similarly, walking the stacks is another great method of finding material. I know this is hard to believe, but librarians have actually developed an entire classmark system and method of placing books on the shelves next to other books that are similar! Inconceivable! Whenever I collect a library book, I usually return with a few more because I spent some time browsing the shelf.

Organizing the Literature

Now that you found the literature, you need to keep it organized. Listen very carefully: Use A Reference Manager! This sounds like a no-brainer, but it amazes me how many Ph.D. students don’t actually use one. That’s like wanting to listen to a playlist and changing the CD (remember those?!) after every song. It’s doable, but my God, it’s frustrating to everyone else at the party. Most people that I know don’t use a reference manager simply because they don’t quite understand them or are too intimidated to set it up.

Listen very carefully: Use A Reference Manager!

There are plenty of options to choose from, including Zotero , Mendeley , Endnote , or Qiqqa . If you find it confusing, just google a how-to video. Or send me a tweet and I’ll personally help you, just so I can sleep better at night. In my own practice, I use Zotero.

A reference manager allows you to organize your literature into folders (I have one for each thesis chapter), as well as tagging items, which helps when searching for similar research. You can also attach PDF copies of journal articles to the bibliographic record. So I also use it as my article library. I no longer need to save them in folders. Lastly, it saves so much time with footnotes when writing your thesis and by automatically generating a bibliography when you near completion.

Retaining the Info.

Everyone has their own notetaking method when they read. Use whatever works best for you. But, you should make sure you have a system that allows you to easily find your notes. If you take handwritten notes, quickly scan them in the library and import them into Evernote. Evernote will read your handwriting , making your handwritten notes fully searchable.

Use the “notes” function in your reference manager. In most reference managers, you can attach notes to individual items. Even if I take notes in Microsoft Word, Evernote, or Notability , I paste a copy into a note in my reference manager, so that it is fully searchable. This is so beneficial when you can’t remember where you found a certain fact or idea from; a simple search will identify the article.

Lastly, never, ever read a PDF article twice. Why? Because Zotfile . I usually read journal articles on my iPad. You can easily annotate articles with iAnnotate or Adobe Acrobat . Zotfile is a Zotero plugin that will automatically extract your highlighted passages (with a note indicating the page number!) and place them in a note. Thus, whenever I want to reread the article, I simply need to read the note to review what I found was important. Furthermore, it makes everything searchable.

Your literature review doesn’t have to be a difficult task. The key is organizing and using procedures that reduce your workload. The steps outlined in this post, reduce the amount of time and mental energy you need to use on finding, organizing, and retaining information so that you can expend it in better ways. Come spring when you need to write up the actual review, your task will be much easier, as you can simply focus on the writing. Happy reading!

Drew Thomas is a Ph.D. student at the University of St Andrews. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Theology and Philosophy from Saint Louis University and a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University. His Ph.D. is a study of the rise of the Wittenberg print industry during Martin Luther’s Reformation. He is currently the Communications Coordinator for the Universal Short Title Catalogue and the Digital Developer for the Caroline Minuscule Mapping Project . You can follow him on Twitter at @DrewBThomas .

Image (CC) Abhi Sharma

Share this post:

October 17, 2016

Uncategorized

bibliography , books , citations , literature review , organization , reference manager , review , sources

November 8, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Topical post, for me personally. Yes, the organization and online tools are very important, but the most important tool is the ability of the teacher/professor assistant/ is to direct the student to motivate him, but do not dismiss and let things take their course. Then Literary Review turns into a difficult task, and the writing of the thesis – in general burdens as was written recently in Huffingtonpost . But at least, you’re a little inspired me with his article … Thank you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Search this blog

Recent posts.

• Seeking Counselling During the PhD
• Teaching Tutorials: How To Mark Efficiently
• Prioritizing Self-care
• The Dream of Better Nights. Or: Troubled Sleep in Modern Times.
• Teaching Tutorials – How To Make Discussion Flow

Recent Comments

• sacbu on Summer Quiz: What kind of annoying PhD candidate are you?
• Susan Hayward on 18 Online Resources and Apps for PhD Students with Dyslexia
• Javier on My PhD and My ADHD
• timgalsworthy on What to expect when you’re expected to be an expert
• National Rodeo on 18 Online Resources and Apps for PhD Students with Dyslexia
• Comment policy
• Content on Pubs & Publications is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 Scotland

© 2024 Pubs and Publications — Powered by WordPress

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

Start your free trial

Arrange a trial for your organisation and discover why FSTA is the leading database for reliable research on the sciences of food and health.

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

How to do effective literature searches

IFIS Home Best Practice

Professor Alejandro Marangoni, University of Guelph, describes literature reviews as 'the most critical element in carrying out novel research' . He told us 'It is really incredible how the quality of your work will increase if you really find out what other people have done in the area before. I just went through one of these experiences when analyzing data. I found an obscure paper that transformed my ability to analyze and interpret my experimental results. The work is now in the stratosphere of quality and innovation. This was only possible by finding both the key and fringe older literature on the topic. What Google gives you is sometimes not complete.'

Our guide and e-learning module are designed to help you understand and undertake effective searching for literature reviews

An effective literature review is always built on the foundation of a high quality literature search, one that is comprehensive and systematic. And for any new project, a literature search is a crucial early step in the research process.

Finding some literature on a question is usually easy; finding the right literature, and all of the most relevant literature for a solid literature review, is harder.

Through explanatory notes and practical, step-by-step guidance, we aim to help you understand how to effectively plan and carry out your literature searches. The guide is available to read on LibGuides in English, Chinese, Farsi, Italian, Korean, Spanish and Portuguese language (more translations to come!).

For librarians and faculty teaching information literacy skills, we also offer a free SCORM package for an online e-learning module which can be added to your own learning management system (LMS).

For those working in the corporate sector, we also provide a guide specifically designed for industry researchers. This is available to read on Libguides , or as a PDF to download and keep.

Feedback from the community Your Guide is simply superb.  Many thanks for a great resource which I will be promoting with advanced stage degree students in food science agriculture and veterinary medicine here in UCD.  It is the best guide I have come across in some time so many thanks for this "Toolkit".  This will be invaluable for UCD - Students, those new to research, and those who need a refresher in literature searching .   Carmel Norris, College Liaison Librarian, School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin   I found helpful information in the literature search guide which helped me to find many food science articles relevant to me honours project. Asgiri Jayasekara, Student, University of Adelaide

You can also download the guide as a PDF:

Read it on LibGuides

The full best practice guide is available to read online including downloadable templates.

We would love you to share it with your community. Librarians can copy it to their own subject LibGuides. 

TAKE ME TO LIBGUIDES

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

Inclusion for disabled wildlife viewers: A literature review

Journal title, journal issn, volume title.

The Dayer Lab of Human Dimensions at Virginia Tech has been working closely with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wildlife Viewing and Nature Tourism Working Group since 2020 to better understand wildlife viewers across the U.S., with the overarching goal of helping wildlife agencies better connect with their constituents in order to increase engagement with their agencies and support for conservation. In 2021, as part of this work, we conducted a national survey of wildlife viewers which had more than 4,000 respondents ( http://hdl.handle.net/10919/111539 ) and found that 39% reported experiencing accessibility challenges while participating in wildlife viewing. If one in three wildlife viewers experience accessibility challenges, how can agencies ensure they are engaging and supporting wildlife viewers with disabilities? Disability is part of the human experience, but not much is known about disabled wildlife viewers. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990) states that Title II entities must ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in all programs they offer. And yet, disabled wildlife viewers reported experiencing a wide range of barriers. This literature review was developed by an occupational therapist and two social scientists, all of whom identify as wildlife viewers with past or current experience with accessibility challenges when wildlife viewing due to disability or injury. This literature review provides a quick overview of published information about people with disabilities, wildlife viewing, and barriers to and facilitators of wildlife viewing for people with disabilities. It also collates best practices, based on the literature, to support the inclusion of disabled wildlife viewers.

Description

Persistent link, collections.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

Michaels E, Alvarez C, Bradley K, et al.; Mathematica. Best Practices for COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing: Environmental Scan Report: ASPE Report [Internet]. Washington (DC): Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); 2023 Apr.

Best Practices for COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing: Environmental Scan Report: ASPE Report [Internet].

Appendix a additional information on research methodology for the literature review.

Exhibit A.1 lists the search terms and search strings we used to identify scholarly and gray literature.

Exhibit A.1 Literature search terms and search strings

View in own window

Asterisks denote search terms that are root words and that we searched in the sources with a variety of word endings. For example, the search engine searched the term “test * ” as “test”, “tests”, “testing”, and “tester”.

Exhibit A.1 . provides information on how many sources we identified through our searches and through items provided by ASPE, how many sources screened in, how many sources Mathematica content experts identified as highly relevant, how many sources we reviewed, and source categories. We first screened in sources based on a review of the source title if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) source title discusses COVID-19 testing or COVID-19 vaccination best practices, recommendations, or guidance; (2) source title discusses routine vaccination best practices, recommendations, or guidance; or (3), source title discusses COVID-19 vaccination, COVID-19 testing, or routine vaccination programs or initiatives. We also applied the following exclusion criteria: (1) source was published before 2020; (2) source does not focus on the United States. We further prioritized sources by reviewing the title and abstract for explicit discussion of programs, initiatives, campaigns, models, and strategies.

Exhibit A.2 Sources identified, screened, deemed highly relevant, and reviewed

Note: The reference list includes more than the 127 reviewed papers because we conducted supplementary searching to inform complete descriptions of barriers to COVID-19 testing and vaccination, structural racism, federal guidelines and recommendations on testing and vaccination, and other topics.

a We reviewed all sources deemed highly relevant.

b Sources with the "Other" designation include items provided by ASPE, such as gray literature and links to federal programs that we included after de-duplicating sources.

Exhibit A.3 Sources reviewed and included in analysis

Sources included in the “Synthesis papers” group are sources that we identified through our peer-reviewed literature and gray literature searches that synthesized information on multiple programs, initiatives, campaigns, models or strategies at a high level or described general best practices related to COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 testing, or routine vaccinations, but did not describe one program in depth. They also included papers on barriers to testing and vaccination.

• Cite this Page Michaels E, Alvarez C, Bradley K, et al.; Mathematica. Best Practices for COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing: Environmental Scan Report: ASPE Report [Internet]. Washington (DC): Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); 2023 Apr. Appendix A, Additional information on research methodology for the literature review.
• PDF version of this title (2.3M)

Other titles in this collection

• HHS ASPE Reports

Recent Activity

• Additional information on research methodology for the literature review - Best ... Additional information on research methodology for the literature review - Best Practices for COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing: Environmental Scan Report

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Final Report for the Institute of Museum and Library Services

Literacy development in the early childhood and elementary school years is critical for learning and the acquisition of other skills essential for educational achievement. Although schools typically assume the primary responsibility in developing children’s literacy and reading skills, a holistic approach to overall literacy development requires the involvement of other important actors, including parents, caregivers, community members, and libraries. Public libraries play a key role in the literacy landscape, especially by providing access to books and a variety of free literacy programs for families. The public library as a space and place that motivates kids to enjoy reading can lead to a lifelong love of learning. In summer 2023, IMLS commissioned a review of research literature that examines the effects of motivation to read and within reading programs in communities and, particularly, public libraries.

Key findings from this literature review identify research studies that focused on the effectiveness of reading strategies that emphasized motivations when promoting reading. This study summarizes several evidence-based practices tied to increasing motivation used during programs, instructional practices, and family engagement activities which are focused on child literacy and community participation.

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

• Online First
• Best practices for the dissemination and implementation of neuromuscular training injury prevention warm-ups in youth team sport: a systematic review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0529-0398 Destiny Lutz 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6429-4333 Carla van den Berg 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3056-8169 Anu M Räisänen 1 , 2 ,
• Isla J Shill 1 , 3 ,
• Jemma Kim 4 , 5 ,
• Kenzie Vaandering 1 ,
• Alix Hayden 6 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0427-2877 Kati Pasanen 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5951-5899 Kathryn J Schneider 1 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-6691 Carolyn A Emery 1 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-9821 Oluwatoyosi B A Owoeye 1 , 4
• 1 Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 2 Department of Physical Therapy Education - Oregon , Western University of Health Sciences College of Health Sciences - Northwest , Lebanon , Oregon , USA
• 3 Hotchkiss Brain Institute , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 4 Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training , Doisy College of Health Sciences, Saint Louis University , Saint Louis , Missouri , USA
• 5 Interdisciplinary Program in Biomechanics and Movement Science , University of Delaware College of Health Sciences , Newark , Delaware , USA
• 6 Libraries and Cultural Resources , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 7 Tampere Research Center for Sports Medicine , Ukk Instituutti , Tampere , Finland
• 8 McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 9 Alberta Chilrden's Hopsital Research Institute , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 10 Sport Medicine Centre , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 11 O'Brien Institute for Public Health , University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 12 Department of Community Health Sciences , Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• 13 Department of Paediatrics , Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary , Calgary , Alberta , Canada
• Correspondence to Ms Destiny Lutz, Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; destiny.lutz{at}ucalgary.ca

Objective To evaluate best practices for neuromuscular training (NMT) injury prevention warm-up programme dissemination and implementation (D&I) in youth team sports, including characteristics, contextual predictors and D&I strategy effectiveness.

Design Systematic review.

Data sources Seven databases were searched.

Eligibility The literature search followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria: participation in a team sport, ≥70% youth participants (<19 years), D&I outcomes with/without NMT-related D&I strategies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs & Black checklist.

Results Of 8334 identified papers, 68 were included. Sport participants included boys, girls and coaches. Top sports were soccer, basketball and rugby. Study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (29.4%), cross-sectional (23.5%) and quasi-experimental studies (13.2%). The median Downs & Black score was 14/33. Injury prevention effectiveness (vs efficacy) was rarely (8.3%) prioritised across the RCTs evaluating NMT programmes. Two RCTs (2.9%) used Type 2/3 hybrid approaches to investigate D&I strategies. 19 studies (31.6%) used D&I frameworks/models. Top barriers were time restrictions, lack of buy-in/support and limited benefit awareness. Top facilitators were comprehensive workshops and resource accessibility. Common D&I strategies included Workshops with supplementary Resources (WR; n=24) and Workshops with Resources plus in-season Personnel support (WRP; n=14). WR (70%) and WRP (64%) were similar in potential D&I effect. WR and WRP had similar injury reduction (36–72%) with higher adherence showing greater effectiveness.

Conclusions Workshops including supplementary resources supported the success of NMT programme implementation, however, few studies examined effectiveness. High-quality D&I studies are needed to optimise the translation of NMT programmes into routine practice in youth sport.

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. Not Applicable.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-106906

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THE TOPIC

Neuromuscular training (NMT) injury prevention warm-up programmes are effective at preventing injury rates in youth sports. However, for proper dissemination and implementation (D&I) by multiple stakeholders, barriers such as low adoption, adherence and lack of time must be addressed.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

There are limited high-quality research studies to facilitate the widespread adoption of, and improved adherence to, NMT programmes. Few studies used D&I theories, frameworks or models. Programme flexibility is a common barrier to implementation; adaptation of NMT programmes to fit local contexts is imperative. Comprehensive workshops and supplementary resources currently support the success of NMT programme implementation.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Promotion of NMT programmes as the standard of practice is essential to increase practical D&I of these programmes, and thus reduce the burden of youth sport injuries. This work provides some directions for stakeholders, including researchers, implementation support practitioners and youth sport policymakers, on current best practices for the delivery of NMT programmes in local youth sport settings. This work also provides the evidence base for more translational research efforts in youth sport injury prevention, a much-needed next step to optimise NMT programmes into youth sport practice.

Introduction

Youth (<19 years) sport participation provides numerous benefits, positively impacting physical and mental health. 1 Youth sport participation rates are high, with up to 90% of youth participating in sport globally. 2–5 However, with increased sport participation comes increased injury risk. One-in-three youth sustain a sport-related injury each year, leading to a significant public health burden with high healthcare costs. 3 6–8 Sport-related injuries may also result in long-term health consequences (eg, poor mental health, reduced physical activity, post-traumatic osteoarthritis). 7–9 Implementing injury prevention strategies is critical to mitigate the injury risk associated with youth sport participation.

Neuromuscular training (NMT) injury prevention warm-up programmes in youth team sport are effective in reducing injury rates by up to 60% and decreasing costs associated with injury based on randomised controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews. 10–21 NMT programmes include exercises that can be categorised across aerobic, balance, strength and agility components 22 23 and typically take 10–15 min. 24 25 Originally implemented with the intention of reducing non-contact lower extremity injury risk, 26–28 the effectiveness of NMT programmes has since been evaluated across numerous sports, age groups and levels of play and are associated with lower extremity and overall injury rates compared with standard of practice warm-ups. 12 20 21 25 In youth team sports, a protective effect has been demonstrated in soccer, handball, basketball, netball, rugby and floorball. 11 16 29–31 The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on Youth Athletic Development recommends multifaceted NMT warm-up programmes in youth sport. 32

Despite being a primary injury prevention strategy across youth sports, NMT programme adoption remains low. 33–38 For evidence-informed interventions to be successful and have a practical impact, pragmatic approaches derived from dissemination and implementation (D&I) science are necessary across multiple socioecological levels including organisation, coach and player. 36 Dissemination is defined as ‘the active process of spreading evidence-based interventions to a target population through determined channels and using planned strategies’. Implementation is ‘the active process of using strategies across multiple levels of change to translate evidence-based interventions into practice and prompt corresponding behaviour change in a target population’. 36

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current best practices for the D&I of NMT programmes in a youth team sport. The specific objectives of this systematic review were to: (1) describe the characteristics of identified D&I-related studies (studies with at least one D&I outcome directly or indirectly assessed as primary, secondary or tertiary outcome); (2) evaluate factors associated with the D&I of NMT warm-up programme across socioecological levels, including barriers and facilitators; (3) examine the effect of D&I strategies in delivering NMT warm-ups across multiple socioecological levels; and (4) examine the influence of D&I strategies on injury rates. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021271734), and the review is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines ( supplemental appendix S1 ).

Supplemental material

Search strategy and data sources.

A comprehensive search was developed with a librarian (KAH) in MEDLINE, incorporating four main concepts: child/youth, injury prevention, implementation/compliance/adherence and sports. The author team reviewed the final search strategy which was then piloted against the known key studies to ensure that the search was capturing relevant studies. Finally, the MEDLINE search was translated to the other databases. Searches were conducted 25 August 2021 (updated 16–18 August 2022; 5 September 2023). Search strategies are available in Supplemental Appendix S2 . Studies were identified by searching seven databases: MEDLINE(R) and EPUB Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews (all Ovid); CINAHL Plus with Full Text, SPORTDiscus with Full Text (EBSCO) and ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Global.

Study selection and eligibility

All database search results were uploaded and duplicates were removed in Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Records were independently reviewed by authors in pairs (DL/IJS, CV/JK, KV/DL), starting with a screening of 50 randomly selected citations to assess inter-rater agreement with a threshold set at 90%. Each pair of reviewers performed title/abstract screening and full-text screening independently, providing reasons for exclusion at full-text stage ( figure 1 ). Any disagreements for exclusion, where a consensus could not be reached within pairs, were resolved by a senior author (OBAO). A secondary evaluation of included manuscripts was performed by senior authors (OBAO and CAE) to ensure appropriate inclusion. Study inclusion criteria were: (1) Participation in a team sport (male and female); (2) a minimum of 70% of participants as a youth (<19 years) or coaches of these youth teams; (3) reported dissemination and/or implementation outcomes (eg, self-efficacy, adherence, intention); (4) reported D&I strategies related to NMT warm-up programmes (ie, NMT delivery strategies, where applicable eg, in RCTs). Exclusion criteria were: (1) Studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes, non-team-based or physical education programmes; (2) non-peer-reviewed; (3) not English. The screening process was reported using the PRISMA flow diagram. 39

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Study identification Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.

Risk of bias

To assess the risk of bias, three sets of paired reviewers independently used the Downs & Black (D&B) quality assessment tool. 40 The tool consists of a 27-item checklist (total score/33). A third senior reviewer (OBAO or CAE or AMR) resolved any disagreements. The rating of evidence and strength of recommendations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. 41–43

Frameworks/models

The proportion of studies that used D&I research theories/frameworks/models, including behaviour change frameworks/models, was examined to identify commonly used frameworks/models.

Efficacy-effectiveness orientation in RCTs

We assessed the components of 12 RCTs using the Rating Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool, as adapted by Maddox et al 44 RITES scores RCTs in systematic reviews based on a continuum of efficacy-effectiveness across four domains: Participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s) and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) ( online supplemental table S1 ). 45 We modified the Likert grading system to classify studies depending on whether their emphasis was more on efficacy or effectiveness or balanced for both. Given that different aspects of each trial may fall in different places along the efficacy-effectiveness continuum, each RITES domain is scored independently and a composite score is not applicable. To minimise subjectivity, the RITES evaluation for included RCTs was completed by two reviewers (AMR and OBAO). Any disagreements were resolved through discussion to reach a consensus.

Study typologies and assessment of study relevance to D&I

The level of relevance of individual studies (RCTs and quasi-experiments) to D&I was determined based on the implementation-effectiveness hybrid taxonomy: Type 1 (primarily focused on clinical/intervention outcomes), Type 2 (balance focused on both clinical/intervention outcomes and D&I outcomes) and Type 3 (primarily or ‘fully’ (our adaptation) focused on D&I outcomes) studies. 36 46 For ease of interpretation of results, studies were rated considering three broad traditional research design categories (ie, hierarchy of evidence): RCTs, quasi-experimental and observational studies, including cohort, cross-sectional, pre-experimental, qualitative, mixed-methods and ecological studies. Observational studies were categorised as ‘fully focused’ observational-implementation (if only D&I outcomes were evaluated) or ‘partially focused’ observational-implementation (if a combination of clinical and D&I outcomes were evaluated’ D&I studies. 47 RCTs and quasi-experimental studies with Type 2 or Type 3 hybrid approaches were indicated as ‘highly relevant’ towards informing D&I best practices. Furthermore, observational-implementation studies that are fully focused on D&I were also indicated as ‘highly relevant’.

Data extraction

The extracted data included: study design, author, journal, year, population (eg, 13–17 years old female soccer players), participant demographics, D&I intervention strategies (eg, workshops, supplementary resources), D&I framework/model, control group strategies, D&I outcomes (eg, adoption, adherence, intention, fidelity, self-efficacy) and injury outcomes. Study design classification was completed based on data extracted and the process taken by authors, 48 which may have differed from the original classification. Furthermore, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies were consolidated into ‘cohort’ to improve ease of readability. D&I outcomes indicated as compliance were included in the appropriate adherence category as defined in Owoeye et al and described as ‘adherence-related’ outcomes, to maintain unified language across results; the full list is provided in online supplemental table S2 . 36 49–51 Based on the dose-response thresholds reported for NMT programmes within current literature, measures of adherence were used to indicate potential D&I effect ( online supplemental table S5 ). 24 36 52–54 Studies with cumulative utilisation (sessions completed/total possible) of ≥70%, utilisation frequency of ≥1.5 sessions/week or a significant association between D&I exposures and outcomes were defined as moderate-to-highly relevant and identified as having a potential D&I effect (ie, yes). Studies presenting cumulative utilisation <70%, utilisation frequency <1.5 sessions/week or no association between D&I exposures and outcomes were defined as low-to-no relevance (ie, no). Studies reporting both frequency utilisation and cumulative utilisation must both reach the established dose-response thresholds to be considered as having a potential D&I effect. D&I barriers and facilitators, factors influencing injury prevention implementation success and the identification of any frameworks used were also extracted and categorised into themes. Measures of potential effect for these results were summarised using OR, proportions and mean differences in D&I outcomes (eg, adoption, adherence). Injury-specific results were reported as incidence rate ratios, risk ratios, ORs or prevalence. D&I strategies were classified into various categories, including workshops, supplementary resources, personnel support, supervision and combinations of these strategies.

Equity, diversity and inclusion statement

Our author team is comprised of student and senior researchers across various disciplines with representation from low-to-middle-income countries. A variety of demographic, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds were included in our study populations.

PRISMA flow, characteristics of included studies and risk of bias assessment

A total of 68 relevant studies were included from our initial and updated search yield of 9021 studies ( figure 1 ). Across included studies, 13 included only male youth participants, 13 included only female youth participants, 26 included both and 16 reported coach-focused findings. Sports represented were soccer (n=33), rugby (n=8), basketball (n=7), multisport (n=7), handball (n=5), floorball (n=3), field hockey (n=3), volleyball (n=1) and futsal (n=1).

Details of study characteristics and risk of bias are presented in online supplemental table S3 . D&B scores ranged from 4/33 to 24/33 (median=14/33) from a variety of study designs, including 20 RCTs, 16 cross-sectional, 9 quasi-experimental, 8 cohort, 6 qualitative, 3 ecological, 3 mixed-methods and 3 pre-experimental. The D&B scores for the two top D&I-related relevant studies—an RCT Type 2 study (n=1) was 21/33 and an RCT Type 3 hybrid study (n=1) was 17/33. Using the GRADE guidelines for the process of rating the quality of evidence available and interpreting the quality assessment, the strength of recommendations was ‘low’ given the multiplicity of designs. 42 43

Characteristics of current D&I-related studies

23 studies (33.8%) reported using a D&I /behaviour change framework/model. D&I frameworks included Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintentance (RE-AIM) Framework (n=7), Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (n=1), Precede-Proceed Model (n=1), Translating Research into Injury Prevention Practice (n=1) and Promoting Action on Research Implementation of Health Sciences (n=1) and the Adherence Optimisation Framework (n=1). Behaviour change models included the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) (n=8), Theory of Planned Behaviour (n=1) and the Health Belief Model (n=1).

Assessment of study relevance to D&I

Two RCTs of 68 included D&I-related studies (2.9%) were identified as highly relevant to D&I best practices (ie, Type 2 or 3 hybrid approach). 55 56 18 (27.9%) RCTs reported a secondary analysis of D&I strategies 12 16 19 30 53 57–69 ; classified as Type 1 hybrids. Five (8.3%) quasi-experimental studies used Type 2 or Type 3 hybrid approach 22 70–73 ; the remaining studies (n=4; 5%) were classified as quasi-experimental Type 1 hybrids. 74–77 Many observational studies (n=17; 26.7%), 78–94 were highly relevant based on being fully-focused observational-implementation studies; 5 (6.7%) were partially-focused observational-implementation studies. 52 95–98 The remaining observational studies (n=17; 23.3%) were observational-implementation studies, 35 99–114 reporting D&I outcomes from a qualitative lens using interviews and surveys.

The RITES scores for the 14 D&I-related RCTs that examined injuries as primary outcome and D&I outcomes as secondary (Type 1 hybrid approach) are presented in table 1 . Almost all (13 of 14; 92.9%) of the RCTs focused mainly on intervention efficacy (as opposed to effectiveness) regarding the flexibility of NMT warm-up programmes. Cumulatively, effectiveness was rarely (7.1%) prioritised as a primary focus across all the 56 possible ratings of the RITES domains for all 14 studies. 50% of the domain ratings demonstrated efficacy as a priority and 42.9% of the ratings were indicated for a balance between efficacy and effectiveness.

• View inline

RITES domain scores for included trials

Contextual predictors of NMT warm-up programme implementation

50 (73.5% of total) studies identified ≥1 barrier or facilitator within their findings, with 10 (14.7% of total) specifically examining barriers/facilitators as their main objectives. Full list is provided in online supplemental table S4 . The most common barriers identified were time restrictions (n=30), 30 35 59 62 69 70 73 74 78 79 81 82 84 87–91 93 96 98 101 102 105 107 108 112 114 reduced buy-in/support (n=8) 62 75 84 87 105 110–112 and limited awareness of preventative effects of programmes (n=8). 74 84 103 104 107 109 113 Facilitators included comprehensive workshops from trained instructors (n=11), 53 71 78–80 84 90 96 99 100 112 accessibility of supplementary resources (n=10) 82 84 87 89 90 105 114 and uptake/support from multiple stakeholders (n=7). 56 67 84 101 103 105 112 Moreover, suggestions from multiple socioecological levels indicated that increasing programme education and support, increased sport-specific activities and improved awareness of preventive effects, influence NMT implementation success. 36 88 89 115 116 Figure 2 , adapted from Basow et al 117 illustrates the contextual factors reported in the literature. 117 This evidence-informed model shows the important barriers and facilitators that influence the end-user implementation of NMT warm-up programmes across the three key socioecological levels of change.

Contextual predictors of NMT implementation across multiple socioecological levels. (Adapted from Basow et al (2021)).(116). Notes. SE, self-efficacy. NMT, neuromuscular training. Bold represents top barrier(s)/facilitator(s).

51 (75%) studies used implementation strategies for NMT warm-up programmes. The most frequently used strategies were Workshops with supplementary Resources (WR; n=24), followed by Workshops with supplementary Resources, plus in-season Personnel support (WRP; n=14). Three studies employed both WR and WRP strategies. Other methods for implementation included only workshops (n=9), only supplementary resources (n=4), supplementary resources and personnel support (n=2), workshops with personnel support (n=1) and supervision (n=1). Note, some studies are duplicated throughout the table when multiple D&I strategies are compared. 22 53 56 86

The key D&I concepts that were reported within the included studies were adherence or adherence-related (eg, self-efficacy, translation and perception). Specific outcomes within these concepts were further examined from the individual study results. We did not have enough evidence to present a meta-analysis of the effect of D&I strategies on D&I outcomes. Therefore, online supplemental table S5 presents a qualitative summary of the relationships between reported D&I exposure and D&I outcomes. 40 studies reported adherence-related outcomes, of which 32 (80%) were indicated to have potential D&I effect. Studies using WRP (n=14) reported completing between 1.4 and 2.6 sessions/week and cumulative utilisation of 39–85.6%; 9 of these 14 studies have potential D&I effect. Studies using WR (n=24) presented utilisation frequency ranging from 0.8 to 3.2 sessions/week and cumulative utilisation of 55–98% of sessions; 16 of these 24 have potential D&I effect. In studies evaluating workshops only (n=9; 22%), frequency utilisation was reported between 1 and 2 sessions/week across eight of the nine studies and one study had 52% cumulative utilisation; two have potential D&I effect.

Effects of D&I strategies on injury outcomes

Three RCTs specifically examined the effects of the D&I strategies used to deliver NMT programmes on injury outcomes ( table 2 ). Two studies that compared both WR and WRP to supplementary resource only found no significant differences between strategies, 53 56 they reported reduced injury rates in the highest adherence groups by 56% and 72%, respectively. Another study comparing WR and WRP to a standard of practice warm-up found a 36% reduction of ankle and knee injuries when using WR and a 38% reduction in ankle and knee injuries without supervision. 22 There were no significant differences in injury rates between groups.

Injury Outcomes by D&I strategies and adherence

This study evaluated current literature to inform evidence-based best practices for the D&I of NMT programmes in youth team sport. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the D&I of NMT programmes in youth sport. To improve the practical implementation of NMT warm-ups, factors associated with implementation success and current best practices for delivering context-specific NMT programmes are required to be evaluated. 118 In this review, we found few D&I-related studies use D&I or behaviour change frameworks, theories or models to guide their research questions. We discovered the number of RCTs examining the effectiveness of D&I strategies for NMT programme delivery is limited. Common barriers to NMT implementation include programme flexibility and time restrictions; and the use of coach workshops and supplementary resources are currently the primary strategy in NMT programme D&I facilitation.

One-third of the included studies used a D&I framework or behaviour change model in their research work. The HAPA and RE-AIM models were the most frequently used. These models are a conceptual and organised combination of theories required to direct the design, evaluation and translation of evidence-based interventions (NMT programmes) and the context in which they are being implemented. 36 71 119 It is imperative for D&I studies to use these frameworks/models to fully understand specific implementation processes and contexts. Future D&I studies should consider using appropriate frameworks or models, including adaptations and combination of models to guide their specific aims.

Relevance to D&I

Across the relevant literature, a variety of designs and levels of evidence were included.

Of 68 studies, 7 (10.3%) were found to be ‘highly relevant’ toward informing D&I best practice (2 (2.9%) RCTs, 5 (7.4%) quasi-experimental). Other ‘relevant’ studies evaluated implementation as secondary objectives (Type 1 hybrid designs) and/or were of lower level of evidence. 33 observational studies were ‘highly relevant’ to D&I, assessing D&I outcomes and barriers and facilitators from a qualitative lens. While these studies are important for understanding D&I context, more high-quality and highly relevant studies such as RCTs and quasi-experimental designs using the Type 3 hybrid approach, or non-hybrid approach focused on solely evaluating the effectiveness of D&I strategies, are needed to advance the widespread adoption and continued use of NMT programmes in youth team sport.

Effectiveness versus efficacy

Effectiveness is indicative of an evidence-informed intervention’s readiness for practical implementation. 36 Findings from our RITES scores evaluation indicate that the majority of the RCTs had a primary focus on efficacy and not effectiveness. Although many RCT studies had a fair balance between efficacy and effectiveness for participant characteristics, trial settings and clinical relevance domains (≥50% of RCTs), there is a lack of flexibility in the development and evaluation of the evidence supporting current NMT warm-up programmes. These disparities regarding practical implementation have implications for D&I research and practice in this field. Current NMT programmes may need to be modified or adapted to the local context and evaluated further to improve implementation in youth sport settings.

Contextual considerations

In our Adapted Socioecological Model ( figure 2 ), we demonstrate that the utilisation of NMT programmes by individual players within youth team sport can depend on their coach adopting and implementing the warm-up, which may also be dependent on larger organisational systems. Barriers related to end-users’ success in wide-spread adoption and long-term maintenance can be moderated; however, researchers and implementers have to be intentional about tackling these recognised barriers and associated challenges 25 87 104 115 ; integrating the facilitators of successful implementation intending to reduce and address these obstacles is essential. The barriers and facilitators identified in this systematic review provide insight into the combination of D&I strategies that should be formulated and tested by D&I researchers in the sports injury prevention field.

Within the current review, lack of time, whether it be learning, instructing and/or practicing the programme, is a common barrier that plays a significant role in implementation. A recent narrative review focused solely on the barriers and facilitators associated with exercise-based warm-up programmes showed similar conclusions regarding time restrictions. 115 Collective themes within this literature for players, coaches and organisations found that reduced buy-in and support at different levels impacted the adoption of NMT warm-up programmes. The lack of awareness and knowledge of the injury prevention benefits of NMT warm-up programmes also presented major barriers to buy-in, leading to reduced implementation success. Future interventions should ensure that education about evidence-informed injury prevention outcomes associated with programme adherence is integrated within their D&I strategies.

D&I science is a growing field of study. A variety of D&I outcomes were identified such as self-efficacy, intention, reach, outcome expectancy and most commonly, adherence or adherence-related outcomes. These outcomes were evaluated using different D&I strategies for NMT warm-up programmes. The most commonly reported strategies were Workshops with supplementary Resources with/without in-season Personnel support. Evaluation of D&I outcomes showed that adherence or adherence-related outcomes were most frequently reported across studies. Various measures of adherence as defined by Owoeye et al (2020) were identified, including cumulative utilisation, utilisation frequency, utilisation fidelity, duration fidelity and exercise fidelity. 36

Adherence remains the most common D&I outcome in the sport injury prevention literature. 36 120 In this review, we defined adherence and adherence-related thresholds for a moderate-to-high dose-response to be ≥70% cumulative utilisation and/or ≥1.5 session/week to achieve the desired protective effects. This was done with consideration of pragmatism and a practical balance between programme efficacy and effectiveness given the existing literature. 24 91 32 of 40 studies (80%) from those with adherence or adherence-related outcomes had a potential D&I effect based on a moderate-to-high adherence or adherence-related outcome level. The use of WR and WRP was the most common D&I strategies for delivering NMT warm-up programmes. While there are several areas for improvement for the practical D&I of NMT warm-up programmes in youth sport settings, the use of comprehensive workshops and supplementary resources at various levels, particularly with coaches, appears to be the optimal best practice. However, only two ‘highly relevant’ D&I studies (RCTs) from the current systematic review presented conclusions based on the effectiveness of D&I strategies and outcomes specifically.

Many studies (n=26/68; 38.2%) included both male and female participants; however, no sex-differences were described. When examining D&I outcomes, only 7/26 (26.9%) had moderate-to-high adherence when looking at both male and female youth players. In total, 84.6% of the female-only (11/13) and 72.7% of the male-only studies (8/11) reported moderate-to-high adherence levels. These findings suggest greater attention and efforts for adherence and implementation of NMT programmes in the male youth team sport setting may need further consideration compared with the female youth sport context.

Of the preliminary evidence for Type 2 and 3 hybrid designs, the literature highlighted in the synthesis of this data that WR are effective strategies in injury prevention and showed more moderate-to-high adherence levels. Given that most studies are doing some form of WR, adding in-season personnel support does not increase the protective effect and may be less sustainable given that resources, time and support are significant barriers to the D&I of these programmes.

Additionally, greater implementation and programme buy-in were found in studies where uptake of these NMT programmes was supported across multiple stakeholders, particularly at the organisation level. 19 67 90 103 112 Catering to programme deliverers (coaches, organisations, parents) and evaluating their awareness, perception and self-efficacy may help further inform our understanding of D&I and how we can best work to promote programme uptake further.

D&I strategies and injury outcomes

The findings from this systematic review suggest that while various D&I intervention strategies are effective at reducing injuries in youth team sports, the ranges of injury rate ratios are similar across studies employing different strategies (32–88% lower injury rates across WR strategy studies and 41–77% lower injury rates across WRP strategy studies). 22 53 56 Although this was not the proposed evaluation of these studies, our findings demonstrate that the use of workshops may influence D&I success and the availability of supplementary resources alone may not be efficacious. Future evaluation of the influence of delivery strategies should be considered.

Future directions

Using facilitators to reduce barrier burden.

Regarding NMT strategy evaluation, our findings show that most of the current programmes focus on efficacy over effectiveness, particularly in the aspect of intervention flexibility; this suggests a need for the adaptation of NMT programmes to fit local contexts. NMT programme developers should consider more enjoyable and user-friendly exercises that include sport-specific activities (eg, ball work, partner drills, tags). Increasing variations also improves player buy-in and increases intrinsic motivation. At a coaching level, workshops on NMT programmes should include evidence-informed education on the injury prevention benefits and should incorporate content addressing coach self-efficacy to enhance implementation quality. 16 100 121 An ongoing pragmatic evaluation of NMT programme effectiveness is warranted as they undergo adaptation to local contexts.

Organisations have expressed limited knowledge and education for implementation as a significant barrier to successful NMT programme use. 90 99 101 105 112 115 122 Implementers should look to provide accessible resources and encourage further support from multiple stakeholders, including the governing bodies. This could lead to policy changes within the club and result in greater uptake of these programmes long-term. Collaborations among stakeholders (researchers, youth sport administrators, coaches and players) in programme development, evaluation, D&I are necessary to improve efforts for impactful practical translation of programmes.

Research recommendations

The support for NMT programmes within youth sport is extensive. 28 Although these programmes have been shown to be effective for injury prevention in many sports, 10 11 sport representation across D&I studies in our review was limited. Scaling up of NMT programmes and supporting continued research into other sports is vital for increased context-specific D&I of these programmes to reduce the overall burden of youth sport injuries.

Compliance and adherence were often used interchangeably, despite having distinct definitions. Although their mathematical calculations are similar, these two constructs are contextually different. Compliance refers to individuals conforming to prescribed recommendations in controlled intervention settings, 123 while adherence refers to the agreement of an individual’s behaviour to recommended evidence-based interventions in uncontrolled settings. 36 Standardised definitions should be considered more frequently by researchers to build on current knowledge and inform future D&I research.

Using D&I frameworks/models can improve NMT programme implementation success in a practical setting. 71 124 Application of D&I frameworks/models, including behaviour change models, 124 is limited in injury prevention and this is reflected in the current systematic review. Future studies should use D&I frameworks/models to help guide the implementation of these NMT programmes. In doing so, researchers can gain a better understanding of the contextual and behaviour change aspects related to youth sport injury prevention. 115

Limitations

Given the broad nature of our research question, specific results were required for inclusion. Despite being specific to our objectives, our limitations set for participant age range, team sport settings and English language studies only, may have resulted in missing other studies that evaluated D&I interventions and outcomes related to NMT programmes.

Due to the heterogeneous nature of studies, meta-analysis was not possible for any of our objectives. Inclusion of various study designs, although comprehensive, impeded this process and resulted in inconsistent injury and adherence definitions across our population of interest. Furthermore, the subjective nature of many qualitative studies included may have resulted in variability within the data extracted. With the varied definitions used for each specific outcome and design, we looked to consolidate the terminology used into more succinct and unified language and we encourage this to be employed by researchers.

Methodological flaws existed in the included studies that may warrant caution about the interpretation of our conclusions. For example, many of the included studies did not include power calculations or reported low power, increasing the chance of Type 2 error. Further, many studies did not consider confounding or effect modification in their analyses or failed to report the validity of measurement tools used for injury data collection. We also acknowledge that publication bias may have favoured the inclusion of studies demonstrating significant findings (eg, effectiveness, efficacy). By considering quality assessment as an objective, we aimed to account for these limitations.

There was limited evidence supporting the effect of D&I strategies on D&I-specific outcomes. There were only two high-level evidence (RCTs) studies in this review that directly discussed the matter of D&I strategies on D&I outcomes. 55 56 D&I-related outcomes were evaluated as secondary objectives in other high-level evidence studies, therefore, we could only examine the relationship between D&I strategy and outcome to assess if the strategy used resulted in moderate-to-high adherence levels, given our pre-established thresholds.

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrates that: (1) Few D&I-related studies are based on D&I or behaviour change theories, frameworks or models; (2) few RCTs have examined the effectiveness of D&I strategies for delivering NMT programmes; (3) programme flexibility and time restrictions are the most common barriers to implementation and; (4) a combination of coach workshops and supplementary resources are currently the primary strategy facilitating NMT programme D&I; however their effectiveness is only evaluated in a few studies. This systematic review provides foundational evidence to facilitate evidence-informed knowledge translation practices in youth sport injury prevention. Transitioning to more high-quality D&I research RCTs and quasi-experimental designs that leverage current knowledge of barriers and facilitators, incorporates Type 2 or Type 3 hybrid approaches and uses behaviour change frameworks are important next steps to optimise the translation of NMT programmes into routine practice in youth team sport settings.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

• Cumming SP ,
• Australian Sports Commission
• Meeuwisse DW ,
• Eliason PH , et al
• Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative
• Emmonds S ,
• Weaving D ,
• Lara-Bercial S , et al
• Merkel DL ,
• Raysmith BP ,
• Charlton PC
• Brunner R ,
• Friesenbichler B ,
• Casartelli NC , et al
• Whittaker JL , et al
• Meeuwisse WH
• Gianotti S ,
• Jacquet C ,
• Verhagen E , et al
• Marshall DA ,
• Lopatina E ,
• Lacny S , et al
• Owoeye OBA ,
• Akinbo SRA ,
• Tella BA , et al
• Palacios-Derflingher LM ,
• Pasanen K ,
• Parkkari J ,
• Pasanen M , et al
• Soligard T ,
• Myklebust G ,
• Steffen K , et al
• Thorborg K ,
• Krommes KK ,
• Esteve E , et al
• Webster KE ,
• Räisänen AM , et al
• Räisänen AM ,
• van den Berg C ,
• Owoeye OBA , et al
• Pfeifer K , et al
• Richmond SA ,
• Doyle-Baker PK , et al
• Barengo N ,
• Meneses-Echávez J ,
• Ramírez-Vélez R , et al
• Bizzini M ,
• Sadigursky D ,
• De Lira DNL , et al
• Åkerlund I ,
• Sonesson S , et al
• Hislop MD ,
• Stokes KA ,
• Williams S , et al
• Hopper AJ ,
• Joyce C , et al
• Bergeron MF ,
• Mountjoy M ,
• Armstrong N , et al
• De Ste Croix M ,
• Sanchez SH , et al
• Creech MJ ,
• Peterson DC , et al
• Rauvola RS ,
• Brownson RC
• Owoeye OB ,
• Olawale OA , et al
• Niederer D ,
• Vogt L , et al
• Ardern CL ,
• Büttner F ,
• Andrade R , et al
• Guyatt GH ,
• Vist GE , et al
• Kunz R , et al
• Siemieniuk R ,
• Maddox CD ,
• Subialka JA ,
• Young JL , et al
• Wieland LS ,
• Berman BM ,
• Altman DG , et al
• Landes SJ ,
• McBain SA ,
• Schwartz S ,
• Duncan DT , et al
• Ranganathan P
• Proctor E ,
• Silmere H ,
• Raghavan R , et al
• Schwarzer R
• Hägglund M ,
• Atroshi I ,
• Wagner P , et al
• Steffen K ,
• Romiti M , et al
• Sugimoto D ,
• Barber Foss KD , et al
• Schneider B , et al
• Meeuwisse WH ,
• Al Attar WSA ,
• Alzahrani H , et al
• Alizadeh MH ,
• Shahrbanian S , et al
• Waldén M , et al
• Akasaka K ,
• Otsudo T , et al
• Leppänen M ,
• Vasankari T , et al
• LaBella CR ,
• Huxford MR ,
• Grissom J , et al
• Loppini M ,
• Berton A , et al
• Parsons JL ,
• Carswell J ,
• Nwoba IM , et al
• Rössler R ,
• Bizzini M , et al
• Slauterbeck JR ,
• Choquette R ,
• Tourville TW , et al
• Olsen OE , et al
• Mattacola CG ,
• Bush HM , et al
• Hancock MV ,
• Stokes KA , et al
• RÄisÄnen AM , et al
• Barboza SD ,
• Emery C , et al
• Hellquist E ,
• Ahlqvist K , et al
• Tomsovsky L ,
• Whatman C , et al
• Verhagen E ,
• Gouttebarge V , et al
• Celebrini RG ,
• Miller WC , et al
• Franchina M ,
• Tercier S , et al
• Register-Mihalik J ,
• Choquette R , et al
• Lindblom H ,
• Carlfjord S ,
• Ljunggren G ,
• Perera NKP ,
• Merrett CK ,
• Linnéll J , et al
• Myklebust G , et al
• O’Brien J ,
• Santner E ,
• Befus K , et al
• Räisänen A ,
• Black AM , et al
• Sonesson S ,
• Lindblom H , et al
• Nilstad A ,
• Thein-Nissenbaum J ,
• Ageberg E ,
• Lucander K , et al
• Brodin EM ,
• Watkins R ,
• Cornelissen MH ,
• Baan A , et al
• Donaldson A ,
• Callaghan A ,
• Taylor JR ,
• Novak MA , et al
• MacFarlane AJ ,
• Weiss-Laxer NS , et al
• McGuine TA ,
• Pennuto A , et al
• Munoz-Plaza C ,
• Davis A , et al
• Norcross MF ,
• Johnson ST ,
• Bovbjerg VE , et al
• Jimenez P ,
• Oliver JL , et al
• Denegar CR , et al
• Lambert M , et al
• Withall AL , et al
• Minnig MC ,
• Hawkinson L ,
• Root HJ , et al
• Macpherson A , et al
• Fenelon D , et al
• Bruinsma A , et al
• Verhagen EALM , et al
• Brown JC , et al
• Bogardus RL ,
• Martin RJ ,
• Richman AR , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

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

• Data supplement 1
• Data supplement 2

X @carlavdb_, @amraisanen, @KatiPasanen, @Kat_Schneider7, @CarolynAEmery, @owoeye_oba

Contributors DL, CE and OBAO contributed to development of study proposal and design. DL, CvdB, AMR, IJS, KV, JK, AH, CE and OBAO conducted search, study selection and screening, data extraction and synthesis and quality assessment. DL led the writing of the manuscript and was the guarantor for the project. All authors contributed to drafting and revising the final manuscript. All authors approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Funding This study was funded by Canadian Institutes for Health Research Foundation Grant Program (PI CAE).

Competing interests OBAO is a Deputy Editor for the British Journal of Sports Medicine. CE, KJS and KP are Associate Editors for the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Read the full text or download the PDF: