components of research literature review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Research Proposal

83 Components of the Literature Review

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal.  The following sections present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea.  After reading the introduction your reader should:

• Understand what it is you want to do;
• Have a sense of your passion for the topic;
• Be excited about the study´s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs.  Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research?  Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important, and to whom or to what are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal.  In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words.  A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation.  If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5-7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem.  While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing.  Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. As key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal and it is a key component of the research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate.  Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed.  Chapter V, “ The Literature Review ,” describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop.  As such, it is important to know how to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic.  Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review.  However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data.  For example, an unexpected finding may develop as one collects and/or analyzes the data and it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding.  This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of the authors of this textbook´s research related to community resilience.  During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall.  Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized.  This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.  Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods.  In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods.  For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider what methods have not been employed but could be.  Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

• Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.
• Specify the research operations you will undertake and he way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.
• Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually do the methods (i.e. coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research and describe how you will address these barriers.
• Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research.  For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, new theoretical understanding, or a new method for analyzing data?  How might your study influence future studies?  What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field?  Who or what may benefit from your study?  How might your study contribute to social, economic, environmental issues?  While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings.  In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation.  Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how and in what ways you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal and it provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study.  Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

• Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.
• Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.
• Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other design and methods were not chosen.
• State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,
• Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence related to the research problem.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal.  In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography.  A reference list does what the name suggests, it lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal.  All references in the reference list, must appear in the body of the research proposal.  Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …”  As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself.  Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.  In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal.  Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is a good literature review?
• Types of Literature Reviews
• What are the parts of a Literature Review?
• What is the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review?

Parts of a Literature Review

Introduction      .

• To explain the focus and establish the importance of the subject
• provide the framework, selection criteria, or parameters of your literature review
• provide background or history
• outline what kind of work has been done on the topic
• briefly identify any controversies within the field or any recent research that has raised questions about earlier assumptions
• In a stand-alone literature review, this statement will sum up and evaluate the current state of this field of research
• In a review that is an introduction or preparatory to a thesis or research report, it will suggest how the review findings will lead to the research the writer proposes to undertake.
• To summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in the field
• To note major themes or topics, the most important trends, and any findings about which researchers agree or disagree
• Often divided by headings/subheadings
• If the review is preliminary to your own thesis or research project, its purpose is to make an argument that will justify your proposed research. Therefore, the literature review will discuss only that research which leads directly to your own project.
• To summarize the evidence presented and show its significance
• Rather than restating your thesis or purpose statement, explain what your review tells you about the current state of the field
• If the review is an introduction to your own research, the conclusion highlights gaps and indicates how previous research leads to your own research project and chosen methodology. 
• If the review is a stand-alone assignment for a course, the conclusion should suggest any practical applications of the research as well as the implications and possibilities for future research.
• Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, ASA)
• Follow the guidelines to format citations and create a reference list or bibliography
• Cite Your Sources

This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0  International License. adapted from UofG,McLaughlin Library

• << Previous: Types of Literature Reviews
• Next: What is the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review? >>
• Last Updated: Nov 21, 2023 12:49 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lamission.edu/c.php?g=1190903

Los Angeles Mission College. All rights reserved. - 13356 Eldridge Avenue, Sylmar, CA 91342. 818-364-7600 | LACCD.edu | ADA Compliance Questions or comments about this web site? Please leave Feedback

University Library

Write a literature review.

• Examples and Further Information

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

• Next: Examples and Further Information >>

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License except where otherwise noted.

Land Acknowledgement

The land on which we gather is the unceded territory of the Awaswas-speaking Uypi Tribe. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, comprised of the descendants of indigenous people taken to missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista during Spanish colonization of the Central Coast, is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and heal from historical trauma.

The land acknowledgement used at UC Santa Cruz was developed in partnership with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chairman and the Amah Mutsun Relearning Program at the UCSC Arboretum .

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

29 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

thank you SOOO much it is really helpful ..

Submit a Comment 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.

• Print Friendly

Research Process :: Step by Step

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

A literature review must do these things:

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

Ask yourself questions like these:

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

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

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

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments
• Directories

• My Library Account (Sofia) View checkouts, fees, place requests and more
• Interlibrary Loans Request books from external libraries
• Zotero Manage your citations and create bibliographies
• E-journals via BrowZine Browse & read journals through a friendly interface
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
• Course Reserves Online course readings
• Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
• WebPrint Upload documents to print with DPrint
• Sofia Discovery tool
• Databases by subject
• Course Reserves
• E-journals via BrowZine
• E-journals via Sofia
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
• Intercampus Delivery of Bound Periodicals/Microforms
• Interlibrary Loans
• Spectrum Research Repository
• Special Collections & Archives
• Additional resources & services
• Loans & Returns (Circulation)
• Subject & course guides
• Learn with the Library
• Instructional Services
• Open Educational Resources Guide
• General guides for users
• Ask a librarian
• Bibliometrics & research impact guide
• Concordia University Press
• Copyright Guide
• Digital Scholarship
• Digital Preservation
• Open Access
• ORCID at Concordia
• Research data management guide
• Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
• Systematic Reviews
• Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
• Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
• Desktop computers, software & availability maps
• Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
• Printers, copiers & scanners
• Technology Sandbox
• Visualization Studio
• Webster Library
• Vanier Library
• Grey Nuns Reading Room
• Book a group study room/scanner
• Study spaces
• Floor plans
• Room booking for academic events
• Exhibitions
• Librarians & staff
• University Librarian
• Memberships & collaborations
• Indigenous Student Librarian program
• Wikipedian in residence
• Researcher-in-Residence
• Feedback & improvement
• Annual reports & fast facts
• Annual Plan
• Library Services Fund
• Giving to the Library
• Webster Transformation blog
• Policies & Code of Conduct

The Campaign for Concordia

Library Research Skills Tutorial

Log into...

• My Library account (Sofia)
• Interlibrary loans
• Article/chapter scan
• Course reserves

Quick links

How to write a literature review

What is a literature review.

The literature review is a written overview of major writings and other sources on a selected topic. Sources covered in the review may include scholarly journal articles, books, government reports, Web sites, etc. The literature review provides a description, summary and evaluation of each source. It is usually presented as a distinct section of a graduate thesis or dissertation.

Purpose of the literature review

The purpose of the literature review is to provide a critical written account of the current state of research on a selected topic:

• Identifies areas of prior scholarship
• Places each source in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the specific issue, area of research, or theory under review.
• Describes the relationship of each source to the others that you have selected
• Identifies new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Points the way forward for further research.

Components of the literature review

The literature review should include the following:

• Objective of the literature review
• Overview of the subject under consideration.
• particular position, those opposed, and those offering completely different arguments.
• Discussion of both the distinctiveness of each source and its similarities with the others.

Steps in the literature review process

Preparation of a literature review may be divided into four steps:

• Define your subject and the scope of the review.
• Search the library catalogue, subject specific databases and other search tools to find sources that are relevant to your topic.
• Read and evaluate the sources and to determine their suitability to the understanding of topic at hand (see the Evaluating sources section).
• Analyse, interpret and discuss the findings and conclusions of the sources you selected.

Evaluating sources

In assessing each source, consideration should be given to:

• What is the author's expertise in this particular field of study (credentials)?
• Are the author's arguments supported by empirical evidence (e.g. quantitative/qualitative studies)?
• Is the author's perspective too biased in one direction or are opposing studies and viewpoints also considered?
• Does the selected source contribute to a more profound understanding of the subject?

Examples of a published literature review

Literature reviews are often published as scholarly articles, books, and reports. Here is an example of a recent literature review published as a scholarly journal article:

Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206-222. Link to the article

Additional sources on writing literature reviews

Further information on the literature review process may be found below:

• Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review
• Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper
• Galvin, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences
• Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success

Adapted with permission and thanks from How to Write a Literature Review originally created by Kenneth Lyons, McHenry Library, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

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: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Essential Components of a Literature Review

Get knowledgeable about all the components of a literature review. Dive into this comprehensive guide to achieve a successful one.

The literature review is the cornerstone of academic research due to the fact that it offers a thorough overview and critical analysis of the content of previously published scholarly works on a certain subject. As scholars set out on their intellectual journeys, it becomes increasingly important to comprehend the key components that are involved in creating an effective and compelling literature review.

The essential components of a literature review will be explored in depth in this article. Researchers can improve the quality and credibility of their work, significantly add value to current knowledge, and build a strong base for future research by having a thorough understanding of these components.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical and thorough examination of all previously published academic works that are pertinent to a certain research topic or question, including books, journals, dissertations, and conference papers. It serves as a knowledge synthesis, giving an overview and assessment of the existing literature in a certain field or subject area.

The main goal of a literature review is to identify, examine, and summarize the most important conclusions, concepts, theories, methods, and controversies that have been made in existing literature. It tries to determine the existing level of knowledge, identify any gaps or inconsistencies, and point out areas that require additional research. 

A thorough search for relevant sources, a critical assessment of their value, and creating an organized and coherent synthesis of the data are all components of a well-conducted literature review. It helps researchers situate their own work within the broader academic context, identify research questions or gaps to address, and build on existing knowledge.

Researchers may additionally demonstrate their expertise with the subject, showing their comprehension of the pertinent theories and concepts, and provide the groundwork for the theoretical framework of their own research through the literature review. It can be used to critically engage with already published works, assess other perspectives, and add to the intellectual debate within a given topic.

Purpose of a Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to provide an in-depth overview and analysis of existing knowledge, research, and scholarly literature on a specific topic. It fulfills a number of essential purposes in academic and research contexts, including:

• Sets the context by summarizing current knowledge and identifying gaps.
• Identifies areas needing further investigation.
• Evaluates the quality of existing research.
• Prevents duplication and plagiarism by ensuring novelty.
• Supports theoretical frameworks and hypotheses.
• Synthesizes and summarizes many sources of existing knowledge.
• Informs research methodology decisions.
• Guides the direction of the research study.

Examples of Literature Reviews

Here are some examples of literature reviews:

Posttransplantation Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review

The goal of this systematic literature review is to offer a thorough examination of the body of literature on posttransplantation diabetes (PTD) at this time. The review’s main objectives are to examine the best management practices and comprehensively assess the incidence of PTD, as well as its risk factors and prognostic implications. This review seeks to advance knowledge of PTD and improve patient treatment in transplant settings by integrating and evaluating pertinent studies.

Child Well-being: A Systematic Review of the Literature

This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive assessment of the current state of child well-being research by examining the existing literature in English. The review addresses key research questions, including the definition of child well-being, the domains that contribute to child well-being, the indicators used to measure child well-being, and the methodologies employed for measuring child well-being. The findings of this review contribute to a deeper understanding of child well-being and can inform policies and interventions aimed at promoting positive outcomes for children.

Psychological Safety: A Systematic Review of the Literature

This systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the empirical research on psychological safety, including its antecedents, outcomes, and moderators at various levels of analysis. With a growing body of empirical evidence in this field, a systematic review is necessary to synthesize the existing literature. In addition to reviewing empirical studies, this study identifies gaps and it emphasizes the importance of integrating key theoretical perspectives to enhance our understanding of how psychological safety develops and influences work outcomes across different levels of analysis. Furthermore, the review provides suggestions for future empirical studies to advance our knowledge of psychological safety. 

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews that researchers can employ based on their research objectives and the nature of the topic. Here is a brief description of each type:

Chronological

Organizes research in chronological order to illustrate the historical development of ideas and theories over time.

Focuses on common themes or topics across studies to provide a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter.

Methodological

Evaluates research methodologies used in previous studies, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and analytical techniques.

Theoretical

Analyzes and synthesizes theoretical frameworks and models utilized in research to establish their relevance and applicability.

Integrative

Goes beyond summarizing studies by identifying patterns, relationships, and connections between different studies to provide a cohesive understanding of the topic. 

Employs a rigorous and predefined methodology to select, evaluate, and synthesize relevant research studies. It involves predefined search criteria, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and systematic data extraction to minimize bias and ensure a thorough analysis of the literature.

Maps the existing literature on a broad research topic, identifying key concepts and areas for further investigation. Scoping reviews are particularly useful when the research area is complex or lacks a clear focus.

Meta-Analysis

Quantitatively synthesizes data from multiple studies using statistical analysis to generate pooled effect sizes and draw robust conclusions.

5 Steps to Writing a Literature Review

A literature review should not be a mere summary of sources. It should demonstrate critical thinking, analysis, and the ability to synthesize information from various sources to support your research objective. Here are the steps to writing a literature review:

1. Define your goal

Clarify the purpose of your literature review. Determine if you are aiming to provide an overview, identify research gaps, support a hypothesis, or offer a critical analysis.

2. Do your research

Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant scholarly literature using databases, academic journals, books, and other reputable sources. Select articles, studies, and sources that are directly related to your research topic.

3. Ground summary in relevance

Summarize and synthesize the key findings, arguments, and methodologies of the selected sources. Ensure that your summary directly relates to your research goal and provides meaningful insights.

4. Develop review logically

Organize the literature review in a logical manner. You can choose to structure it chronologically, thematically, or based on other relevant categories. Clearly present the main points and subtopics, and establish connections and relationships between the sources.

5. Include references/works cited list

Properly cite all the sources you have used in your literature review. Follow the appropriate citation style (such as APA, MLA, or Harvard) and provide complete and accurate information for each source in your references or works cited list.

Difference Between a Literature Review and An Annotated Bibliography

A literature review and an annotated bibliography are two distinct academic writing assignments that serve different purposes. 

A literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a specific research topic. It involves summarizing, evaluating, and synthesizing the key findings, theories, and methodologies of relevant scholarly sources.

Annotated bibliographies, on the other hand, concentrate on giving a concise overview and evaluation (annotation) of each cited source. It tries to educate the reader about the sources’ quality, relevancy, and content. 

For more information on annotated bibliographies, you can visit the article here which provides a detailed explanation of what an annotated bibliography is and how to create one. 

While a literature review covers a broader range of literature and requires a deeper analysis, an annotated bibliography focuses on a narrower selection of sources and provides concise annotations for each entry.

By following the essential components of a literature review discussed in this article, researchers can ensure a high-quality review. Thorough planning, systematic searching, critical evaluation, organization, synthesis, analysis, and effective communication are key. Mastering these components enables researchers to contribute valuable insights and advance knowledge in their field. A well-executed literature review serves as the foundation for robust research and facilitates new discoveries.

Communicate Science VIsually with The Power of The Best and Free Infographic Maker

The Mind the Graph platform offers scientists a powerful and free infographic maker to communicate science visually. With this platform, scientists can effectively convey complex research findings, concepts, and data through engaging and eye-catching infographics. Mind the Graph empowers scientists to harness the power of visual storytelling, making their research accessible, memorable, and impactful to a broader audience.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Literature Reviews

• Introduction

Problem formulation

Conducting your literature review, evaluating the data, analysing the material.

• Resources on writing and research
• Citing and referencing
• You should think about your research topic and identify central areas and issues.
• Next you should compile a list of keywords to help you when searching for materials on your topic.

This involves sourcing the literature pertinent to your research topic. Material could be in any format such as books, journals, websites, multimedia sources etc. It is at this stage that the library will be most useful to you.

There are a number of library resources that might be useful to you when conducting your search:

• The library catalogue  – You can search the catalogue to find materials (books, journals etc) that are available in the library.
• Library Search - simultaneously searches the library catalogue PLUS online databases, online journals, ebooks, articles, and material freely available online. The library recommends that you use this comprehensive discovery search tool.
• Online databases– the library subscribes to a number of online databases covering a variety of subjects. These can be accessed through the library website on  Databases A-Z
• Journals. Journals in print format covering a number of subject disciplines are shelved to the left of the entrance to the library.
• Journals in electronic format and print can be searched for online by logging on to Publication Finder .   You can search by journal title, search within a particular journal for your topic, or browse by discipline.
• Library PC’s– there are a number of PC’s on the mezzanine level of the library where you can access the internet and look at web resources related to your topic.
• Library laptops are available to borrow for three hours within the library.

The resources that you find in the library or electronically could help you to find more material on your topic. Make sure to consult the bibliographies in books, journal article references and links pages on websites which will point you towards other useful material.

Before including any material that you have found in your literature review you must evaluate your results to ensure that the information you have found is relevant, accurate, reliable and current. There are a number of criteria you can use to decide this:

• what is the content of the source? ( look at contents pages, indexes, abstracts etc.)
• who are the intended audience? (books aimed at the general public may not be specific enough)
• Who is the author?
• What is the edition and publication date? (i.e. is the information recent)
• Is the source from a well regarded journal?
• Has the work been reviewed and what do they say?

You need to carefully evaluate web sources as they are not always reliable or accurate. Some other things to keep in mind when evaluating web sources are:

• what is the domain of the site? (i.e. is it an educational or government site or just someone’s home page),
• when was it last updated?
• Have reputable sites got links to this site?

At this stage you must read, interpret and structure the data that you have gathered and finally you must write the review. The review must consist of:

• An Introduction– here the topic should be specified, overall trends and conflicts in the literature should be outlined and gaps in previous research identified. It is also very important at this point to justify your reasons for writing the review.
• A body– this will be the bulk of the review and here you will discuss each piece of literature in turn. Research studies should be presented in a logical order e.g. chronological, thematically etc. Previous studies should be summarised and critically evaluated.
• A conclusion– discuss which studies have made the greatest contribution to the subject. Evaluate the current general state of research in this area and finally discuss the research opportunities in this area.
• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Resources on writing and research >>
• Last Updated: Jul 17, 2023 2:11 PM
• URL: https://tudublin.libguides.com/c.php?g=694824

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

• {{item.title}} {{item.title}} 0" aria-label="Find options under this page" @click="mobchildshow(true, item.title)" class="more-menu">
• {{subitem.title}}

Writing a research proposal

How to write a research proposal.

For many subjects, writing a research proposal is a key part of your postgraduate research degree application. This is your opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and how you want to contribute to the subject.  

We use the proposal to match your interest with an appropriate supervisor to make sure you have the best support during your degree. We are looking for originality and relevance when assessing the overall quality of your application, including your suitability for this level of study.  

We highly recommend that you explore which academic researchers are working in your subject area and contact them first with any questions, this is a good opportunity to firm up your ideas, further explore the topic and talk with others in your field.  

What is a research proposal?  

A research proposal is a concise and coherent document, usually between 1500 – 2000 words, maximum 4 x A4 pages. You should outline your proposed research project, why it is of relevance (rationale), what research questions are you going to ask, what you hope to achieve (aims and objectives) and how you plan to carry out your research (methodology).   

Step-by-step 

This page is your comprehensive guide to writing a research proposal and will cover seven key elements of a proposal:  

Working title

You should include a title for your thesis in the proposal.

Your title may change as you further your research, but at this stage it's important to state succinctly what your research will cover.

Introduction

Briefly identify your idea, what is your ‘research question’?

It could be the theory you want to test, or a more open question. It would be useful to give examples, 3-5 research questions from recently completed PhDs in a relevant field. You should discuss the context around your research topic, such as current debates and issues. The important thing here is that you introduce your research project with clarity and in a way that stimulates your reader’s interest.

Demonstrate the significance of your research project.

To do this, explain why your research is important, what makes it original and how it will contribute to existing knowledge within its field.

Aims and objectives

What are you hoping to achieve with your research?

Try and produce four or five bullet points of objectives for each aim, which demonstrate your understanding of how to meet your research aims. You can use the SMART acronym to support you in creating objectives, which involves making your objectives: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time specific.

Literature Review

Demonstrate your knowledge and awareness of relevant literature

A literature review is a discussion and evaluation of academic literature or a relevant body of knowledge (for practice-based research). You should use this section of your proposal to show that you are familiar with work in your chosen topic area and that your research will contribute something new and/or meaningful to it.

Methodology

Explain how you plan to carry out your research

The methodology section of your research proposal is where you explain how you plan to carry out your research. This should include the research techniques and methods you will use, why these are most appropriate and how you will implement them. You should also include a discussion of the research strategy (general approach) you will adopt, with appropriate justification, including the analytical approach. The section should also contain the range of research findings that will be gathered from the research and how you will analyse or evaluate this. For practice based research, include how will your portfolio of artefacts, code, software, compositions, computer games etc. articulate the originality of your research?

Reference all the materials you used in the preparation your proposal

You may also list references that you didn't directly draw upon, to demonstrate awareness of literature relating to your proposed material.

Support from academic staff in drafting your research proposal

Your research proposal will be read by academics with an interest in your field of research. You are therefore encouraged to contact members of academic staff informally prior to submitting your application to discuss to your research proposal. This can often speed up the applications process, as you can identify the member(s) of staff you have spoken to on your research degree application form.

Use the Huddersfield Research Portal to browse academic staff profiles and search using key words to find staff members who share your research interests.

Changing aspects of your research proposal after gaining a place as a research student

Your research proposal is your starting point, and we understand that as your idea develop s , your proposed research is likely to change. As such, you will not be obliged to adhere to the specifics of your proposal if you are offered a place as a research degree candidate at Huddersfield. However, as the proposal is the foundation of your working relationship with your supervisor(s), you will need to discuss any changes with them first. 

Useful tips for writing a research proposal

• Maintain a focus in your proposal: Your research proposal should be clear and concise, outlining your research idea and its benefits to your chosen field of study, in a way that the reader can clearly understand. Remember, your proposal is just the starting point and an outline and does not need to be overly complicated.
• Share your proposal: Ask someone you trust (a friend, family member, tutor) to read your proposal and provide some feedback. Do they understand what your research is about? Do they think your aims and objectives are achievable? Does your research engage them?
• Align your proposal topic with University research themes: Whilst it is important to choose a research topic that you are passionate about, your proposal will be assessed (in part) on its fit with our University research themes. You therefore need to choose a topic which aligns with topics of interest to the University or academic school you hoping to work within and make it clear how your project matches up with them.
• Be realistic in your proposal: Your proposal is assessed not only on its quality, originality and fit with our research themes but also the likelihood of completion, so make sure that the scope of your research project is reasonable and realistic .
• Take your time when writing your proposal: There are a lot of elements to a high-quality research proposal, so take the time to ensure that you meet them all. At the University of Huddersfield, there are three opportunities for enrolling onto a research degree programme during the academic year (October, January, and April), meaning less time pressure when working on your proposal and application.

Once you have written your proposal, what next?

Once you have written your research proposal you will need to complete an application form. Look at our how to apply webpage for more information.

How to apply for a research degree

Our step-by-step guide will help you to make the most out of your application for a research degree

Scholarships and funding

Explore our funding options, including scholarships and Doctoral Loans.

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

• Sanne Peters   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6235-1752 1 ,
• Lisa Guccione 2 , 3 ,
• Jill Francis 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Stephanie Best 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ,
• Emma Tavender 6 , 7 ,
• Janet Curran 8 , 9 ,
• Katie Davies 10 ,
• Stephanie Rowe 1 , 8 ,
• Victoria J. Palmer 11 &
• Marlena Klaic 1  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  63 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework.

A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers’ reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree.

Conclusions

The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

While stakeholder engagement in research seems ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and outcomes is frequently missing.

Fifteen evaluation themes were identified in the literature, of which research process , cognitive and emotional factors were the most frequently reported.

The Co-design Evaluation Framework can assist researchers with research co-design evaluation and provide guidance regarding what and when to evaluate.

The framework can be used prospectively, concurrently, and retrospectively to make improvements to existing and future research co-design projects.

Introduction

Lots of money is wasted in health research that does not lead to meaningful benefits for end-users, such as healthcare professionals and consumers [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. One contributor to this waste is that research often focusses on questions and outcomes that are of limited importance to end-users [ 4 , 5 ]. Engaging relevant people in research co-design has increased in order to respond to this issue. There is a lack of consensus in the literature on the definition and processes involved in undertaking a co-design approach. For the purposes of this review, we define research co-design as meaningful end-user engagement that occurs across any stage of the research process , from the research planning phase to dissemination of research findings [ 6 ]. Meaningful end-user engagement refers to an explicit and measurable responsibility, such as contributing to writing a study proposal [ 6 ]. The variety of research co-design methods can be seen as a continuum ranging from limited involvement, such as consulting with end-users, to the much higher effort research approaches in which end-users and researchers aim for equal decision-making power and responsibility across the entire research process [ 6 ]. Irrespective of the intensity of involvement, it is generally recommended that a co-design approach should be based on several important principles such as equity, inclusion and shared ownership [ 7 ].

Over time, increasing attention has been given to research co-design [ 6 , 8 ]. Funding bodies encourage its use and it is recommended in the updated UK MRC framework on developing and evaluating complex interventions [ 9 ]. End-user engagement has an Equator reporting checklist [ 10 ] and related work has been reported by key organisations, such as the James Lind Alliance in the UK ( www.jla.nihr.ac.uk ), Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the US ( www.pcori.org ) and Canadian Institutes of Health Research ( https://cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/41592.html ). In addition, peer reviewed publications involving co-design have risen from 173 per year in 2000 to 2617 in 2022 (PubMed), suggesting a growing importance in research activities.

Engaging end-users in the health research process is arguably the right thing to do, but the processes and outcomes of co-design have rarely been evaluated in a rigorous way [ 6 ]. Existing anecdotal evidence suggests that research co-design can benefit researchers, end-users and lead to more robust research processes [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Both researchers and end-users have reported positive experiences of engaging in the co-design process. Potential benefits include a better understanding of community needs, more applicable research questions, designs and materials and improved trust between the researchers and end-users. Several reviews on conducting research co-design have concluded that co-design can be feasible, though predominantly used in the early phases of research, for example formulating research questions and developing a study protocol [ 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. However, these reviews highlighted that engagement of end-users in the research process required extra time and funding and had the risk of becoming tokenistic [ 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The use of resources in co-design studies might need to be justified to the funder as well as its impacts. A rigorous evaluation of research co-design processes and outcomes is needed to identify areas of potential improvement and to determine the impact of research co-design. Several overviews of reviews on research co-design have been published but with no or limited focus on evaluation [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Moreover, current literature provides little guidance around how and what to evaluate, and which outcomes are key.

This study thus had two aims:

To conduct a systematic overview of reviews to identify evaluation methods and process and outcome variables reported in the published health research co-design literature.

To develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

This project used a multifaceted, iterative approach to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework. It consisted of the following steps: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The reporting checklist for overviews of reviews was applied in Additional file 1 [ 24 ].

Step 1: A systematic overview of reviews

We conducted a systematic overview of reviews [ 25 ], reviewing literature reviews rather than primary studies, to investigate the following question: What is known in the published literature about the evaluation of research co-design in health research? The protocol of our systematic overview of reviews was published in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022355338).

Sub questions:

What has been co-designed and what were the objectives of the co-design process?

Who was involved and what was the level of involvement?

What methods were used to evaluate the co-design processes and outcomes?

What was evaluated (outcome and process measures) and at what timepoint (for example concurrently, or after, the co-design process)?

Was a co-design evaluation framework used to guide evaluation?

Search strategy

We searched OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews on the 11th of October 2022 for literature reviews that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. The search strategy was based on previous reviews on co-design [ 6 , 14 , 26 ] and refined with the assistance of a research librarian and the research team (search terms in Additional file 2). Papers published from January 2000 to September 2022 were identified and retrieved by one author (SP).

Study selection

Database records were imported into EndNote X9 (The EndNote Team, Philadelphia, 2013) and duplicates removed. We managed the study selection process in the software program Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Two independent reviewers (SP, MK or LG) screened the titles and abstracts of all studies against the eligibility criteria (Table  1 ). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer (either SP, MK or LG, depending on which 2 reviewers disagreed). If there was insufficient information in the abstract to decide about eligibility, the paper was retained to the full-text screening phase. Full-text versions of studies not excluded at the title and abstract screening phase were retrieved and independently screened by two reviewers (SP, MK or LG) against eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer, and recorded in Covidence.

Data extraction of included papers was conducted by one of three reviewers (SP, MK or LG). A second reviewer checked a random sample of 20% of all extracted data (LG or SP). Disagreements were resolved through regular discussion. Data were extracted using an excel spreadsheet developed by the research team and included review characteristics (such as references, type of review, number of included studies, review aim), details about the co-design process (such as who was involved in the co-design, which topics the co-design focused on, what research phase(s) the co-design covered, in which research phase the co-design took place and what the end-users’ level of involvement was) and details about the co-design evaluation (what outcomes were reported, methods of data collection, who the participants of the evaluation were, the timepoint of evaluation, whether an evaluation framework was used or developed and conclusions about co-design evaluation).

Types of end-users’ involvement were categorised into four groups based on the categories proposed by Hughes et al. (2018): 1. Targeted consultation; 2. Embedded consultation; 3. Collaboration and co-production and 4. User-led research, see Table  2 .

Data extraction and analysis took place in three iterative phases (Fig.  1 ), with each phase containing one third of the included studies. Each phase of data extraction and analysis was followed by stakeholder panel meetings (see step 2 below). This stepwise approach enabled a form of triangulation wherein themes that emerged through each phase were discussed with the stakeholder panel and incorporated both retrospectively (re-coding data in the prior phase) and prospectively (coding new data in the next phase).

Iterative phases in the process of the Co-design evaluation framework development

All reported outcomes of research co-design in the first phase (one third of all data) were inductively coded into themes, according to the principles of thematic analysis [ 28 ]. Two researchers (SP and MK) double coded 10% of all data and reached consensus through discussion. Given that consensus was high, one researcher (SP) continued the coding while having frequent discussions and reviews within the research team. In phase 2 (also one third of all data), deductive coding was based on the themes identified in the first round. Data of the first phase were re-coded, if new codes emerged during the stakeholder panel meeting. The same process took place for the third phase.

Step 2: Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews

Results from step 1 were presented to the stakeholder panel to interpret and critique the review findings. The panel consisted of ten people, including a mix of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers. Stakeholders were selected for their experience or expertise in research co-design. The number of meetings was not pre-determined, rather, it was informed by the outcomes from step 1. The number of stakeholders in each meeting ranged from six to ten.

A core group from the broader stakeholder panel (SP, MK, LG, JF) with a breadth of research experience and methodological expertise discussed the themes arising from both steps 1 and 2 and considered various ways of presenting them. Multiple design options were considered and preliminary frameworks were developed. Following discussion with the stakeholder panel, it was agreed that the evaluation themes could be grouped into several clusters to make the framework more comprehensible. The grouping of evaluation themes into clusters was informed by reported proposed associations between evaluation themes in the literature as well as the stakeholder panel’s co-design experience and expertise. Evaluation themes as well as clusters were agreed upon during the stakeholder panel meetings.

Step 3: Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel

The consensus meeting included the same stakeholder panel as in step 2. The meeting was informed by a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The NGT is a structured process for obtaining information and reaching consensus with a target group who have some association or experience with the topic [ 29 ]. Various adaptations of the NGT have been used and additional pre-meeting information has been suggested to enable more time for participants to consider their contribution to the topic [ 30 ]. The modified NGT utilised in this study contained the following: (i) identification of group members to include experts with depth and diverse experiences. They were purposively identified at the start of this study for their expertise or experience in research co-design and included: a patient consumer, a clinician, three clinician researchers and six researchers with backgrounds in behavioural sciences, psychology, education, applied ethics and participatory design. All authors on this paper were invited by e-mail to attend an online meeting; (ii) provision of information prior to the group meeting included findings of the overview of reviews, a draft framework and objectives of the meeting. Five authors with extensive research co-design experience were asked to prepare a case example of one of their co-design projects for sharing at the group meeting. The intention of this exercise was to discuss the fit between a real-world example and the proposed framework; (iii) hybrid meeting facilitated by two researchers (SP & JF) who have experience in facilitating consensus meetings. Following presentation of the meeting materials, including the preliminary framework, group members were invited to silently consider the preliminary framework and generate ideas and critiques; iv) participants sharing their ideas and critiques; v) clarification process where group members shared their co-design example project and discussed the fit with components of the initial framework, and vi) silent voting and/or agreement on the framework via a personal email to one of the researchers (SP).

Step 1: Systematic overview of reviews

The database searches identified a total of 8912 papers. After removing 3016 duplicates and screening 5896 titles and abstracts, 148 full texts were sought for retrieval. Sixteen were not retrieved as they were not available in English ( n  = 2) or full-text was not available ( n  = 14). Of the remaining 132 papers assessed for eligibility, 81 were excluded. The final number of papers included in this overview of reviews was 51 (See Fig.  2 ).

PRISMA flow chart (based on [ 31 ]) of overview of reviews

Characteristics of the included studies

Of the 51 included reviews [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ], 17 were systematic reviews, 12 were scoping reviews, 14 did not report the type or method of review, three were narrative reviews, two were qualitative evidence synthesis, another two were a structured literature search and one was a realist review. The number of studies included in the reviews ranged from 7 to 260. Nineteen reviews focused on co-design with specific populations, for example older people, people with intellectual disabilities, people living with dementia and 32 reviews included co-design with a range of end-users. The co-design focused in most cases on a mix of topics ( n  = 31). Some reviews were specifically about one clinical topic, for example critical care or dementia. In ten cases, the clinical topics were not reported. Co-design took place during multiple research phases. Thirty-six reviews covered co-design in agenda/priority setting, 36 in study design, 30 in data collection, 25 in data analysis and 27 in dissemination. With regards to the research translation continuum, most of the co-design was reported in practice and community-based research ( n  = 32), three reviews were conducted in basic research and 11 in human research. The types of end-users’ involvement in co-design ranged from targeted consultation ( n  = 14) to embedded consultation ( n  = 20), collaboration and co-production ( n  = 14) to end-user- led research ( n  = 6), including papers covering multiple types of involvement. Seventeen papers did not report the types of involvement. The reported co-design included a variety of time commitments, from a minimum of a one-off 60-min meeting to multiple meetings over multiple years. Twenty-seven reviews did not report details about the end-users’ types of involvement.

Identified evaluation themes

Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and were arranged into two higher level groups: 1. within the co-design team and 2. broader than co-design team (Table  3 ). The themes related to the first group (within the co-design team) included: Structure and composition of the co-design group, contextual enablers/barriers, interrelationships between group members, decision making process, emotional factors, cognitive factors, value proposition, level/ quality of engagement, research process, health outcomes for co-design group and sustainment of the co-design team or activities. The themes within the second group (broader than co-design team) included: Healthcare professional-level outcomes, healthcare system level outcomes, organisational level outcomes and patient and community outcomes.

The research process was the most frequently reported evaluation theme in the reviews ( n  = 44, 86% of reviews), followed by cognitive factors ( n  = 35, 69%) and emotional factors ( n  = 34, 67%) (Table  4 ). Due to variability in reporting practices, it was not possible to specify the number of primary studies that reported specific evaluation themes. Evaluation methods for the themes were not reported in the majority of reviews ( n  = 43, 84%). If evaluation methods were mentioned, they were mainly based on qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, field notes, document reviews and observations (see overview with references in Additional file 3). Survey data was mentioned in three reviews. Many reviews reported informal evaluation based on participant experiences (e.g. informal feedback), reflection meetings, narrative reflections and authors’ hypotheses (Additional file 3). The timing of the evaluation was only mentioned in two papers: 1. Before and after the co-design activities and 2. Post co-design activities. One paper suggested that continuous evaluation might be helpful to improve the co-design process (Additional file 3).

The systematic overview of reviews found that some authors reported proposed positive associations between evaluation themes (Table  5 ). The most frequently reported proposed association was between level/quality of engagement and emotional factors ( n  = 5, 10%). However, these proposed associations did not seem to have any empirical evidence and evaluation methods were not reported.

All evaluation themes were grouped into the following clusters (Table  6 ): People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment.

Only one paper reported the evaluation in connection to the research phases (Agenda/priority setting, study design, data collection, data analysis and dissemination). This paper reported the following outcomes for the following research phases [ 58 ]:

Agenda/priority setting: Research process; Level/quality of engagement; Cognitive factors; Attributes of the co-design group; Interrelationships between group members; Sustainment of the co-design team or activities; Patient and community outcomes.

Study design: Attributes of the co-design group; Interrelationships between group members; Level/quality of engagement; Cognitive factors; Emotional factors; Research process.

The various research phases in which consumers could be involved, as well as the clusters of evaluation themes, informed the design of the co-design evaluation framework.

Two main options were voted on and discussed within the stakeholder panel. The two main options can be found in Additional file 4. Draft 2 was the prefered option as it was perceived as more dynamic than draft 1, representing a clearer interplay between the two contexts. The stakeholder panel suggested a few edits to the draft, such as the inclusion of bi-directional arrows in the tree trunk and a vertical arrow from underground to above ground with the label ‘impact’.

The final version of the Co-design Evaluation framework is presented in Fig.  3 .

Research Co-design evaluation framework

Figure  3 presents co-design evaluation as the below-ground and above-ground structures of a tree. The tree metaphor presents the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground) as the basis for system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in this Figure. These evaluation components relate to the methods, processes, and outcomes of consumer involvement in research.

The context within the co-design group (the roots of the tree) consists of the people, group processes and research processes, with various evaluation themes (dot points) related to them, as well as contextual barriers and enablers that relate to situational aspects that might enable or hinder consumer engagement. The context outside the co-design group, i.e., the wider community (the branches and leaves of the tree), comprises people who were not involved in the research co-design process, the system-level and sustainment-related outcomes. These above ground groups are potential beneficiaries or targets of the co-design activities.

The arrows in the middle of the trunk represent the potential mutual influence of the two contexts, suggesting that an iterative approach to evaluation might be beneficial. For example, when deciding the composition of the co-design group, it may be important to have an appropriate representation of the people most impacted by the problem issue or topic at hand. Or, if a co-designed healthcare intervention does not achieve the desired outcomes in the wider context, the co-design group might consider potential ways to improve the intervention or how it was delivered. Evaluation of a research co-design process might start with the foundations (the roots of the tree) and progress to above ground (the tree grows and might develop fruit). Yet, depending on the aim of the evaluation, a focus on one of the two contexts, either below or above ground, might be appropriate.

Which, and how many, components are appropriate to evaluate depends on the nature of the co-design approach and the key questions of the evaluation. For example, if a co-design approach is used in the very early stages of a research program, perhaps to identify priorities or to articulate a research question, then 'below' the ground components are key. While a randomised study comparing the effects of a co-designed intervention versus a researcher-designed intervention might only consider 'above' the ground components.

The white boxes on the right-hand side of Fig.  3 indicate the research phases, from agenda/priority setting to dissemination, in which consumers can and should be involved. This co-design evaluation framework may be applied at any phase of the research process or applied iteratively with a view to improving future co-design activities.

This systematic overview of reviews aimed to build on current literature and develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of research co-design. Fifty-one included reviews reported on fifteen evaluation themes, which were grouped into the following clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. Most reviews did not report measurement methods for the evaluation themes. If methods were mentioned, they mostly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers’ reflections. This finding strengthens our argument that a framework may be helpful in supporting methodologically robust studies to assess co-design processes and impacts. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has adopted a tree metaphor. It presents the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground) as the underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate stakeholder involvement in research, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. Which, and how many, components are appropriate to evaluate depends on the nature of the co-design approach and the key questions that stakeholders aim to address. Nonetheless, it will be important that evaluations delineate what parts of the research project have incorporated a co-design approach.

The Equator reporting checklist for Research Co-Design, GRIPP2, provides researchers with a series of concepts that should be considered and reported on when incorporating patient and public involvement in research [ 10 ]. These concepts include, but are not limited to, methods of involving patients and the public in research and intensity of engagement. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework is not intended as a replacement for the GRIPP2, rather, it can be used prospectively to inform development of the co-design project or retropsectively to inform completion of the GRIPP2. Table 7 provides hypothetical examples of research questions that co-design evaluation projects might address. The framework could be used at multiple points within co-design projects, including prospectively (planning for evaluation before the co-design process has started), concurrently ( incorporating improvements during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future projects).

Our systematic overview of reviews identified multiple evaluation themes. Some of these overlapped with reported values associated with public involvement in research [ 80 ], community engagement measures [ 15 ] and reported impacts of patient and public involvement in research, as described by others [ 16 , 81 , 82 ]. The added value of our systematic overview of reviews is that we went beyond a list of items and took it one step further by looking at evaluation themes, potential associations between evaluation themes, clusters of evaluation themes and ultimately developed a framework to assist others with research co-design evaluation.

Some reviews in our overview of reviews proposed potential associations between evaluation themes. Yet, these proposed associations were not empirically tested. One of the included studies [ 58 ] proposed conditions and mechanisms involved in co-design processes and outcomes related to diabetes research. Although it is a promising starting point, this should be further explored. A realist evaluation including other research topics and other approaches, such as the use of logic models, which was also recognised in the updated MRC framework [ 9 ], might help to build on explorations of included mechanisms of action [ 83 ] and give insight into how core ingredients contribute to certain co-design processes and outcomes. As recognised by others [ 6 , 84 ], the reporting practice of research co-design in the literature could be improved as details about context, mechanisms and expected outcomes are frequently missing. This will also help us to gain a better understanding of what works for whom, why, how and in which circumstances.

The lack of a consistent definition of co-design makes it challenging to identify and synthesise the literature, as recognised by others [ 6 ]. Given that there are so many different terms used in the literature, there is a risk that we might have missed some relevant papers in our overview of reviews. Nevertheless, we tried to capture as many as possible synonyms of co-design in our search terms. The absence of quality assessment of included studies in our overview of reviews can be seen as a limitation. However, our overview of reviews did not aim to assess existing literature on the co-design process, but rather focused on what to evaluate, how and when. We did note whether the reported evaluation themes were based on empirical evidence or authors’ opinions. Primary studies reported in the included reviews were not individually reviewed as this was outside the scope of this paper. A strength in our methods was the cyclical process undertaken between steps 1 and 2. Analysis of the data extracted from the overview was refined over three phases following rigorous discussions with a diverse and experienced stakeholder panel. It was a strength of our project that a mix of stakeholders were involved, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers.

Stakeholders are frequently engaged in research but if research co-design processes and outcomes are not evaluated, there will be limited learning from past experiences. Evaluation is essential to make refinements during existing projects and improve future co-design activities. It is also critical for ensuring commitments to the underpinning values of c-odesign are embedded within activities.

A systematic review of all primary studies within the included reviews of this overview of reviews, would allow greater depth relating to the practicalities of how to evaluate certain themes. It would lead to a better understanding of existing measures and methods and which evaluation areas need further development. Future research should also focus on whether co-design leads to better outcomes than no co-design (only researcher-driven research). To our knowledge, this has not been explored yet. Moreover, future research could gain better insight into the mechanisms of change within co-design and explore potential associations between evaluation themes for example, those proposed in the included reviews between level/quality of engagement and emotional factors.

We followed a systematic, iterative approach to develop a Co-Design Evaluation Framework that can be applied to various phases of the research co-design process. Testing of the utility of the framework is an important next step. We propose that the framework could be used at multiple points within co-design projects, including prospectively (planning for evaluation before the co-design process has started), concurrently (to incorporate improvements during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future projects).

Availability of data and materials

All data generated during this study are included either within the text or as a supplementary file.

Abbreviations

Medical Research Council

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.

Ioannidis JP. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver S. Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18(9):935–8.

Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.

Ní Shé É, Harrison R. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1551–6.

Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17:50.

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the “how” and “what” of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5.

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.

Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, et al. Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: A literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18.

Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review. Milbank Q. 2020;98(2):493–553.

Modigh A, Sampaio F, Moberg L, Fredriksson M. The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1208–21.

Clavel N, Paquette J, Dumez V, Del Grande C, Ghadiri DPS, Pomey MP, et al. Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ preferences and experience. Health Expect. 2021;24(6):1924–35.

Newman B, Joseph K, Chauhan A, Seale H, Li J, Manias E, et al. Do patient engagement interventions work for all patients? A systematic review and realist synthesis of interventions to enhance patient safety. Health Expect. 2021;24:1905 No Pagination Specified.

Lowe D, Ryan R, Schonfeld L, Merner B, Walsh L, Graham-Wisener L, et al. Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD013373.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):240–53.

Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:402.

Abrams R, Park S, Wong G, Rastogi J, Boylan A-M, Tierney S, et al. Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2021;12(2):239–47.

Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):24.

Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, Fernandes RM, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):145.

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2018;21(6):1183–90.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2008;3(2):77–101.

Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.

Harvey N, Holmes CA. Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(2):188–94.

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

Baldwin JN, Napier S, Neville S, Clair VAWS. Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):801–9.

Bench S, Eassom E, Poursanidou K. The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: A scoping review of the literature. Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42(2):217–31.

Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, Puts M, Babineau J, Grinbergs-Saull A, et al. Patient engagement in research related to dementia: a scoping review. Dementia. 2018;17(8):944–75.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2014;7(4):387–95.

Di Lorito C, Birt L, Poland F, Csipke E, Gove D, Diaz-Ponce A, et al. A synthesis of the evidence on peer research with potentially vulnerable adults: how this relates to dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32(1):58–67.

Di Lorito C, Bosco A, Birt L, Hassiotis A. Co-research with adults with intellectual disability: A systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):669–86.

Fox G, Fergusson DA, Daham Z, Youssef M, Foster M, Poole E, et al. Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review. EBioMedicine. 2021;70:103484.

Frankena TK, Naaldenberg J, Cardol M, Linehan C, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H. Active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in health research - a structured literature review. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;45–46:271–83.

Fudge N, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age Ageing. 2007;36(5):492–500.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):ArtID e0141091.

Legare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Legare J, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: A knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):E45–74.

McCarron TL, Clement F, Rasiah J, Moran C, Moffat K, Gonzalez A, et al. Patients as partners in health research: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24:1378 No Pagination Specified.

Miller J, Knott V, Wilson C, Roder D. A review of community engagement in cancer control studies among indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21(3):283–95.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Shen S, Doyle-Thomas KAR, Beesley L, Karmali A, Williams L, Tanel N, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):543–54.

Velvin G, Hartman T, Bathen T. Patient involvement in rare diseases research: a scoping review of the literature and mixed method evaluation of Norwegian researchers’ experiences and perceptions. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):212.

Wiles LK, Kay D, Luker JA, Worley A, Austin J, Ball A, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0261808.no pagination

Cook N, Siddiqi N, Twiddy M, Kenyon R. Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026514.

Chambers E, Gardiner C, Thompson J, Seymour J. Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review. Palliat Med. 2019;33(8):969–84.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.

Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009415.

Boivin A, L’Esperance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–84.

Anderst A, Conroy K, Fairbrother G, Hallam L, McPhail A, Taylor V. Engaging consumers in health research: a narrative review. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44(5):806–13.

Arnstein L, Wadsworth AC, Yamamoto BA, Stephens R, Sehmi K, Jones R, et al. Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:34.

Becerril-Montekio V, Garcia-Bello LA, Torres-Pereda P, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Reveiz L, Langlois EV. Collaboration between health system decision makers and professional researchers to coproduce knowledge, a scoping review. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022;28:28.

Google Scholar  

Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, Li L, Nair K, McGillion MH, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect. 2020;23:523 No Pagination Specified.

Dawson S, Campbell SM, Giles SJ, Morris RL, Cheraghi-Sohi S. Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):3–22.

Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, et al. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(5):907–20.

Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E. Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature. Eur J Cancer Care. 2008;17(3):233–44.

Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E, McDonald C, Kearney N. A review of literature about involving people affected by cancer in research, policy and planning and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(1):21–33.

Jones EL, Williams-Yesson BA, Hackett RC, Staniszewska SH, Evans D, Francis NK. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):243–50.

Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, Naaf M, Estabillo JA, Gomez ED, et al. Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. Milbank Q. 2016;94(1):163–214.

Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):788–800.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D. Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One [Electronic Resource]. 2014;9(12):e113274.

Lee DJ, Avulova S, Conwill R, Barocas DA. Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(9):552–8.

Malterud K, Elvbakken KT. Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: A systematic review of outcomes and experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2020;48(6):617–28.

Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, Leroi I, Starling B, Parsons S. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC geriatr. 2019;19(1):220.

Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006(3):CD004563.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(15):1-148 III-IV.

Orlowski SK, Lawn S, Venning A, Winsall M, Jones GM, Wyld K, et al. Participatory Research as One Piece of the Puzzle: A Systematic Review of Consumer Involvement in Design of Technology-Based Youth Mental Health and Well-Being Interventions. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(2):e12.

Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(1):3–20.

Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M, Belone L, Mau M, et al. Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(4):680–90.

Sangill C, Buus N, Hybholt L, Berring LL. Service user’s actual involvement in mental health research practices: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(4):798–815.

Schelven F, Boeije H, Marien V, Rademakers J. Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition in projects in health and social care: A scoping review. Health Expect. 2020;23:789 No Pagination Specified.

Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research-A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2017;14(12):29.

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.

Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, Lindquist-Grantz R, Parsons A, Melink K. Immigrants as research partners: A review of immigrants in community-based participatory research (CBPR). J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;19(6):1457–68.

Walmsley J, Strnadova I, Johnson K. The added value of inclusive research. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):751–9.

Weschke S, Franzen DL, Sierawska AK, Bonde LS, Strech D. Schorr SG. Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications. medRxiv; 2022. p. 21.

Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, Froggatt K, Gibson A, Jacoby A, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: A narrative review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2015;18(5):661–75.

Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Pol Syst. 2020;18(1):51 no pagination.

Stallings SC, Boyer AP, Joosten YA, Novak LL, Richmond A, Vaughn YC, et al. A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):731–42.

Grindell C, Coates E, Croot L, O’Cathain A. The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):877.

Staley K. “Is it worth doing?” Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the graphic designers, Jenni Quinn and Kevin Calthorpe, for their work on Fig. 3 .

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Sanne Peters, Jill Francis, Stephanie Best, Stephanie Rowe & Marlena Klaic

Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Lisa Guccione, Jill Francis & Stephanie Best

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Jill Francis

Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Stephanie Best

Emergency Research, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Emma Tavender

Department of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Australia

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Ottawa, Canada

Janet Curran & Stephanie Rowe

Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Canada

Janet Curran

Neurological Rehabilitation Group Mount Waverley, Mount Waverley, Australia

Katie Davies

The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Victoria J. Palmer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SP coordinated the authorship team, completed the systematic literature searches, synthesis of data, framework design and substantial writing. MK and LG were the second reviewers for the systematic overview of reviews. MK, LG and JF assisted with framework design.  SP, LG, JF, SB, ET, JC, KD, SR, VP and MK participated in the stakeholder meetings and the consensus process. All authors commented on drafts and approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanne Peters .

Ethics declarations

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

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., supplementary material 4., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Peters, S., Guccione, L., Francis, J. et al. Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework. Implementation Sci 19 , 63 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

Download citation

Received : 01 April 2024

Accepted : 31 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research co-design
• Stakeholder involvement
• End-user engagement
• Consumer participation
• Outcome measures

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

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

An official website of the Department of Health & Human Services

• Search All AHRQ Sites
• Email Updates

1. Use quotes to search for an exact match of a phrase.

2. Put a minus sign just before words you don't want.

3. Enter any important keywords in any order to find entries where all these terms appear.

• The PSNet Collection
• All Content
• Perspectives
• Current Weekly Issue
• Past Weekly Issues
• Curated Libraries
• Clinical Areas
• Patient Safety 101
• The Fundamentals
• Training and Education
• Continuing Education
• WebM&M: Case Studies
• Training Catalog
• Submit a Case
• Improvement Resources
• Innovations
• Submit an Innovation
• About PSNet
• Editorial Team
• Technical Expert Panel

Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Craske ME, Hardeman W, Steel N, et al. Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2024;Epub Jul 16. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017283.

At several points during a hospital stay, a patient may receive a medication review with a pharmacist to reduce the risk of medication errors. This review characterizes themes and components of pharmacist-led medication reviews associated with positive patient outcomes . Patient involvement in goal setting was identified as a successful component that would benefit from additional research.

Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: a multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study. November 16, 2022

A realist synthesis of pharmacist-conducted medication reviews in primary care after leaving hospital: what works for whom and why? December 2, 2020

Families as partners in hospital error and adverse event surveillance. March 8, 2017

Optimizing Pediatric Patient Safety in the Emergency Care Setting. October 19, 2022

Association of adverse effects of medical treatment with mortality in the United States: a secondary analysis of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors study. January 30, 2019

Effects of a brief team training program on surgical teams' nontechnical skills: an interrupted time-series study. August 11, 2021

Association of diagnostic stewardship for blood cultures in critically ill children with culture rates, antibiotic use, and patient outcomes: results of the Bright STAR Collaborative. May 18, 2022

Association of clinical specialty with symptoms of burnout and career choice regret among US resident physicians. September 26, 2018

The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. October 12, 2022

Return on investment for vendor computerized physician order entry in four community hospitals: the importance of decision support. July 10, 2013

Impact of pharmacist-led discharge medication reconciliation on error and patient harm prevention at a large academic medical center. July 17, 2024

Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation is best practice. October 11, 2023

Impact of pharmacist-led admission medication reconciliation on patient outcomes in a large health system. September 20, 2023

Interdisciplinary collaboration across secondary and primary care to improve medication safety in the elderly (The IMMENSE study) - a randomized controlled trial. November 30, 2022

Criteria for the selection of paediatric patients susceptible to reconciliation error. November 16, 2022

Analysis of pharmacist-identified medication-related problems at two United Kingdom hospitals: a prospective observational study. March 18, 2020

Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). February 3, 2016

Results of the Medications At Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) study: an analysis of medication reconciliation errors and risk factors at hospital admission. March 17, 2010

Medication safety in acute care in Australia: where are we now? Part 2: a review of strategies and activities for improving medication safety 2002-2008. October 14, 2009

ISMP medication error report analysis. May 7, 2008

Connect With Us

Sign up for Email Updates

To sign up for updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your email address below.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 Telephone: (301) 427-1364

• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Electronic Policies
• HHS Digital Strategy
• HHS Nondiscrimination Notice
• Inspector General
• Plain Writing Act
• Privacy Policy
• Viewers & Players
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• The White House
• Don't have an account? Sign up to PSNet

Submit Your Innovations

Please select your preferred way to submit an innovation.

Continue as a Guest

Track and save your innovation

in My Innovations

Edit your innovation as a draft

Continue Logged In

Please select your preferred way to submit an innovation. Note that even if you have an account, you can still choose to submit an innovation as a guest.

Continue logged in

New users to the psnet site.

Access to quizzes and start earning

CME, CEU, or Trainee Certification.

Get email alerts when new content

matching your topics of interest

in My Innovations.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 10 September 2024

When urban poverty becomes a tourist attraction: a systematic review of slum tourism research

• Tianhan Gui   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6069-3046 1 &
• Wei Zhong 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1178 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Business and management

Over the last two decades, the phenomenon of “slum tourism” and its academic exploration have seen considerable growth. This study presents a systematic literature review of 122 peer-reviewed journal articles, employing a combined approach of bibliometric and content analysis. Our review highlights prominent authors and journals in this domain, revealing that the most cited journals usually focus on tourism studies or geography/urban studies. This reflects a confluence of travel motivations and urban complexities within slum tourism. Through keyword co-occurrence analysis, we identified three primary research areas: the touristic transformation of urban informal settlements, the depiction and valorization of urban poverty, and the socio-economic impacts of slum tourism. This study not only maps the current landscape of research in this area but also identifies existing gaps. It suggests that the economic, social, and cultural effects of slum tourism are areas that require more in-depth investigation in future research endeavors.

Similar content being viewed by others

Knowledge mapping of relative deprivation theory and its applicability in tourism research

Bibliometric analysis of trends in COVID-19 and tourism

A ten-year review analysis of the impact of digitization on tourism development (2012–2022)

Introduction.

“Slums” are defined by UN-Habitat ( 2006 ) as underdeveloped urban areas lacking in a durable housing, adequate living space, safe water access, sanitation, and tenure security. Emerging from urban growth disparities, these informal settlements have proliferated since the latter half of the 20th century, especially in the Global South’s cities. Despite progress in urban planning and poverty reduction, UN-Habitat ( 2020 ) reports that over a billion people, with 80% in developing regions, still live in such conditions.

Slums undeniably “represent one of the most enduring faces of poverty, inequality, exclusion and deprivation” (UN-Habitat, 2020 , p. 25), necessitating policy intervention. However, the term “slum” is controversial among scholars as it often carries negative connotations, conflating poor housing conditions with the identities of residents (Gilbert, 2007 ). Beyond poverty and disease, it suggests crime and immorality, contributing to a narrative of fear and fascination (Davis, 2006 ; Mayne, 2017 ).

Recent decades have seen a surge in “slum tours” in the Global South, attracting tourists from the affluent North. Driven by complex motives that “consist of a mix of adventurous inquiry and humanitarian ambitions” (Dürr, 2012b , p. 707), tourists from the affluent North desire to glimpse “the other side of the world” (Steinbrink, 2012 , p. 232). This trend has turned guided tours in informal settlements into a booming business in cities like Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, and Nairobi, drawing approximately one million tourists annually (Frenzel, 2016 ).

Modern slum tourism has deep historical roots, originating as “slumming” in Victorian England and early 20th-century America. Rapid urbanization in cities like London and New York created neglected areas, which, to middle and upper-class observers, represented a mysterious and chaotic “other world” (Steinbrink, 2012 ). This perception of danger and uncivilization paradoxically attracted bourgeois curiosity (Frenzel et al. 2015 ).

By the late 1970s, with the surge in international tourism, this localized “slumming” transformed into a global phenomenon. Affluent residents from the Global North began exploring underprivileged urban pockets in the Global South, making these areas tourism hotspots (Freire-Medeiros, 2009 ; Iqani, 2016 ). This trend marked the beginning of modern slum tourism, a practice that took a significant turn in the 1990s in South Africa. Initially focusing on anti-apartheid landmarks in townships like Soweto, Johannesburg (Steinbrink, 2012 ), these tours diversified to other cities, including Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Manila (Frenzel et al. 2015 ). The once sporadic visits to informal settlements have now metamorphosed into well-orchestrated tours, often recommended by travel guidebooks. Today’s travelers can dine at local eateries, visit schools, interact with residents, or even step inside their homes (Frenzel, 2017 ; Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ). The industry has professionalized, with cities in the Global South attracting tourists mainly from the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and Scandinavia (Frenzel, 2012 ; Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ; Steinbrink, 2012 ).

The burgeoning interest in slum tourism has sparked significant scholarly discourse, particularly in the new millennium. Research in this realm predominantly orbits around the ethical implications of such tourism, its role in mitigating poverty, and the duties of governing bodies in these scenarios. Slum tourism research encompasses various disciplines, including urban studies, tourism and hospitality, and human geography, with a significant proliferation of publications in recent years.

The surge in research has also led to several evaluative studies scrutinizing the breadth and depth of the subject. Frenzel’s ( 2013 ) thematic review, for instance, probed the nexus between slum tourism and poverty alleviation. Given that most slum tours proclaim poverty alleviation as their core intent, Frenzel’s inquiry into the intersection of this mission with tourism was insightful. He also championed the need for a rigorous exploration of the multifaceted valorization of poverty within tourism dynamics. A more expansive review by Frenzel et al. ( 2015 ) delved into various research focuses like the evolution of slum tourism, tourist experiences, operational aspects, economic implications, and so on. Their assessment underscored existing research voids, emphasizing the necessity for more nuanced, comparative studies. Tzanelli ( 2018 ) examined the socio-cultural and political drivers behind tourists’ inclinations towards informal settlements, critically analyzing the epistemological frameworks employed by scholars.

While these reviews have significantly sketched the contours of the discipline, many leaned heavily on conventional literature review techniques—predicated on selected, and at times, circumscribed resources (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008 ). Such manual methodologies, albeit insightful, are prone to biases “during the identification, selection, and synthesis of included studies” (Haddaway et al. 2015 , p. 1956). A systematic literature review, which adheres to rigorous protocols and curtails subjective inclinations, would be more enriching. Such a methodological shift not only offers a panoramic view of pivotal research arguments and deliberations but also illuminates evolving trends and perspectives. The surge in slum tourism literature recently underscores its dynamic nature, necessitating a renewed scrutiny of nascent discussions eluding preceding reviews.

Addressing this research exigency, our current endeavor undertakes a comprehensive examination of a gamut of articles illuminating diverse research angles on slum tourism. Employing both bibliometric and qualitative content analysis techniques, our study dissects 122 journal articles published over the past twenty years. We endeavor to spotlight seminal authors and journals, delineate prevailing themes in slum tourism studies, and carve out prospective trajectories for forthcoming research endeavors.

Methodology

Search process and sample selection.

A systematic review requires researchers to thoroughly examine all existing studies in a certain research area. This ensures a replicable, scientific, and transparent approach with minimal bias (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009 ). We adopt the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) guideline (Moher et al. 2009 ) to identify eligible articles. The screening process is presented in Fig. 1 . We consulted an advanced keyword search on Google Scholar to retrieve literature on slum tourism. We chose Google Scholar because it provides broader access to a diverse range of scholarly articles, including those from various regions and disciplines that may not be indexed in databases like Web of Science or Scopus. Furthermore, since this study aims to review research articles on slum tourism, which is pertinent in the Global South, many journals or articles published or authored in the Global South are not indexed in Web of Science or Scopus but can be found on Google Scholar. This accessibility is vital for ensuring the inclusion of relevant studies that reflect the diverse contexts of slum tourism.

The systematic workflow and results.

For our subject search, we used the keywords “slum tourism.” We consciously omitted country-specific terms like barrios, township, and favela to prevent a regional bias (Baffoe and Kintrea, 2023 ). Google Scholar Advanced Search provides the choice to locate keywords either “in the title of the article” or “anywhere in the article.” We chose the latter, ensuring the inclusion of articles that might employ regional terms synonymous with “slum” in their titles. This approach also considered the potential cross-referencing of slum tourism literature in these articles. Conducted in August 2023 without time constraints, our search yielded 2690 materials.

To uphold the literature’s quality, only peer-reviewed scientific articles were chosen, excluding “grey literatures” such as reports, theses, conference proceedings, and other similar outputs. Books and book chapters were not incorporated into our review because our focus extended to trends in slum tourism research. The accelerated pace of academic publishing in journals, as compared to the longer timelines associated with books, means they often house the most current findings and trends. Utilizing a bibliometric analysis approach, we found the standardized structure of journal articles particularly beneficial, allowing for a more straightforward process in extracting, comparing, and synthesizing data. Books and their chapters, given their varied formats, might not always provide this level of consistency. Recognizing that a systematic review cannot encompass all languages, we confined our study to English-written articles.

After the initial screening, 148 articles closely related to slum tourism were identified. Our perspective on slum tourism aligns with Frenzel’s ( 2018 , p. 51) definition, describing it as “tourism where poverty and associated signifiers become central themes and (part of the) attraction of the visited destination.” Upon a thorough review of the full texts, it became apparent that some articles, while mentioning “slum tourism,” did not primarily focus on it. For instance, the work of Jones and Sanyal ( 2015 ) discusses the portrayal of Dharavi—India and Asia’s largest informal settlement—in slum tours, arts, and documentaries. Although their article addresses how Dharavi is represented in slum tours, its primary focus is on the depiction of informal settlements and urban poverty across various media, not slum tourism per se. Consequently, this article was excluded from our dataset. We also eliminated editorials, short commentaries, research notes, and prior literature reviews. This filtering narrowed our selection to 107 peer-reviewed articles. An exhaustive examination of their references added another 15 articles, giving a total of 122 articles. Figure 1 visualizes the selection process.

Data analysis

This study utilized both bibliometric and qualitative content analyses. Bibliometric analysis is crucial for identifying both established and emerging research themes as well as influential authors, key studies, and prominent journals (Hajek et al. 2022 ). We employed VOSviewer, a leading bibliometric analysis software, to undertake co-citation and keyword co-occurrence analyses, examining slum tourism research. Co-citation analysis pinpoints influential authors, studies, and journals, leveraging citations as pivotal indicators of scientific impact (De Bellis, 2009 ). Meanwhile, keyword co-occurrence analysis highlights prominent keywords and their relationships, signposting research field hotspots (Wang and Yang, 2019 ).

Augmenting the bibliometric approach, our qualitative content analysis delved deeper into the primary themes of slum tourism research. The keyword co-occurrence analysis supplied a broad view of research themes and trending topics. Emerging nodes and clusters helped pinpoint dominant research themes. By meticulously analyzing each article’s content, we executed a critical review of every theme. We also broached prospective research trajectories in the article’s conclusion.

Overview of slum tourism research

Figure 2 illustrates the evolving research landscape of slum tourism. The journey began in 2004 with two seminal papers by Kaplan ( 2004 ) and Rogerson ( 2004 ). Both delved into Johannesburg’s township tourism, emphasizing tourism’s potential in poverty mitigation and the region’s economic upliftment. Post-2004, the domain attracted escalating scholarly interest, evidenced by a notable publication upswing from 2012 onward.

Publishing trends of slum tourism research.

Two pivotal discursive events in Bristol (2010) and Potsdam (2014) further catalyzed the field’s evolution. Gathering global experts on slum tourism, these events spurred foundational texts that have since informed the discipline. The post-Bristol momentum produced a special Tourism Geographies issue in 2012, curated by Frenzel and Koens. Successive publications, like the “Slum Tourism” special issue of Die Erde 144 (2) in 2013, and the themed “Slum Tourism” issue of Tourism Review International in 2015, further cemented the field’s prominence. Undoubtedly, these seminal conferences and publications have been instrumental in surging scholarly endeavors in slum tourism research.

We conducted a co-citation analysis to pinpoint the leading authors and journals in the realm of slum tourism research. A co-citation refers to the simultaneous citation of two documents (Small, 1973 ). Such analysis aids scholars in organizing scientific literature and grasping the evolution of specific research domains (Surwase et al. 2011 ).

Figure 3 illustrates the outcomes of our author co-citation analysis. We established a threshold of 40 citations to identify the most influential authors within our dataset of 4229 authors. Only 11 authors met this threshold, allowing for a focused examination of the core contributors in the field. Their significant scholarly impact is reflected by their extensive citations, with node size in the visualization representing co-citation strength. Rogerson, Frenzel, and Steinbrink emerged as the most frequently cited authors, with the highest link strengths of 3978, 3173, and 2734, respectively. Rogerson’s work delved into the economic ramifications of tourism in South African townships, highlighting the part slum tourism plays in poverty reduction and sustainable community economic growth (Booyens and Rogerson, 2019 a, 2019b ; Rogerson, 2014 ). He also discussed urban tourism’s influence on small and medium-sized enterprises (Rogerson, 2004 , 2008 ). In contrast, Frenzel and Steinbrink examined the commercialization of urban informal settlements and the portrayal and appreciation of poverty (Frenzel, 2017 ; Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ; Steinbrink, 2012 , 2013 ).

Author co-citation network.

Other notable authors in this field include Freire-Medeiros, who discussed the transformation of Brazilian favelas into tourist attractions (Freire-Medeiros et al. 2013 ; Freire-Medeiros, 2007 , 2009 , 2011 ), Koens, who probed the growth of small and medium-sized businesses in South African townships (Koens and Thomas, 2015 , 2016 ) and local perceptions of slum tourism in India (Slikker and Koens, 2015 ), and Booyens, who primarily focused on responsible tourism in South African townships (Booyens, 2010 ; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019b , 2018). Rolfes also made a significant contribution by studying the ethical aspects of slum tourism (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013 ; Rolfes, 2010 ).

Intriguingly, although not a slum tourism specialist, Urry stands among the eleven most-cited authors. He is renowned for introducing “the tourist gaze” concept (Urry, 1990 ), suggesting that tourist experiences and choices are more influenced by the tourism industry, societal norms, and cultural factors than by personal autonomy. This theory offers a crucial framework for understanding how poverty is portrayed in slum tourism and the dynamics between tourists and local residents.

Figure 4 presents the map of journal co-citations, illuminating the academic areas focused on the topic of “slum tourism.” A journal co-citation analysis, conducted with a threshold of 40 citations, identified 11 key journals from a pool of 3013 in our dataset, underscoring their central roles in the discourse of the field. Notably, the Annals of Tourism Research occupies a central position on the map with the highest link strength of 2608, highlighting its prominence as the most-cited journal in slum tourism research. These journals are categorized into two primary clusters: tourism studies and geography/urban studies. This categorization reflects the dual scholarly interest in slum tourism, which intertwines travel motivations with the complexities of urban environments. On one hand, tourism researchers probe the allure of these regions, the ensuing cultural interactions, and the ethical debates surrounding poverty as an attraction. Conversely, geography and urban studies scholars explore the spatial structures of informal settlements, underlying socio-economic drivers, and the reciprocal impact between tourism and urban evolution. Collectively, these disciplines provide a nuanced view of slum tourism’s multifaceted nature. Notably, Development Southern Africa does not align strictly with these categories, but as a multidisciplinary journal emphasizing policy and practice in Southern Africa—a hub for modern slum tourism—it garners frequent citations.

Journal co-citation network.

After meticulously reviewing the 122 publications, we pinpointed the locations that are focal points for slum tourism research. As presented in Table 1 , South Africa, India, and Brazil emerge as the most extensively researched countries in this domain. They are closely followed by Kenya, Mexico, Colombia, Egypt, and Indonesia.

Township tourism in South Africa, deeply rooted in the country’s complex history, is a significant topic in slum tourism research. This form of tourism, which emerged in post-apartheid South Africa (Steinbrink, 2012 ), focuses on areas historically designated as “black only” zones, where disparities still exist (Iqani, 2016 ). Originating in Soweto, Johannesburg, it has since spread to other major cities. The 2010 FIFA World Cup, hosted by South Africa, notably boosted its popularity (Marschall, 2013 ). Today, Cape Town is a key destination for township tourism, with townships like Langa and Khayelitsha attracting tourists due to their historical significance (Rolfes, 2010 ).

Similar to South Africa, favela tourism in Brazil has political roots. These favelas, initially informal settlements for the formerly enslaved (Iqani, 2016 ), gained international attention after the 1992 Earth Summit, when delegates visited Rio de Janeiro’s favelas (Frenzel, 2012 ). Their prominence increased further during the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics (Steinbrink, 2013 ). Despite their cultural richness, favelas face challenges like crime and drug trafficking (Freire-Medeiros, 2009 ). Rio’s favelas, especially Rocinha and Santa Marta, attract numerous tourists each year (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ).

In India, the scenario of slum tourism is notably different, with Mumbai’s Dharavi, one of the world’s largest informal settlement, being a key focus of India-specific studies. Other informal settlements in cities like Kolkata and Delhi have also attracted scholarly attention (Holst, 2015 ; Sen, 2008 ). These informal settlements are characterized by their micro-industries and recycling efforts, showcasing the resilience and entrepreneurial spirit of the residents (Gupta, 2016 ). Although a relatively new trend compared to its counterparts, India’s slum tourism industry has burgeoned, spawning numerous tour operators (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ).

Over time, slum tourism has gained traction, spreading to nations across the Global South, including Kenya, Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, and the Philippines. In our study, while most articles were location-specific, ten adopted a holistic approach, discussing the overarching theme of slum tourism.

Prominent areas of slum tourism research

We conducted a keyword co-occurrence analysis on our slum tourism research dataset to identify and visualize the most significant themes by examining the frequency and relationships of keywords. This method facilitated the identification of central research clusters and thematic hotspots within the topic. Figure 5 illustrates the network of keywords that frequently co-occur in slum tourism studies. To refine our data, we consolidated similar keywords, for example, pairing “township” with “townships” and “developing countries” with “developing world.” For this analysis, we set a threshold to include keywords that appeared at least three times, leading to the selection of 44 out of 322 keywords, thereby emphasizing their significance within the field. In the network, each node represents a keyword; larger nodes indicate higher frequencies of occurrence. Our analysis revealed six distinct clusters, each differentiated by a unique color.

Network visualization of the keywords co-occurrence.

The red cluster focuses on “slum tourism,” examining the development of tourism in informal settlements and its wide-ranging socio-economic impacts. This cluster covers aspects such as “branding” and the role of “tour guides,” and emphasizes key socio-economic factors including “residents’ perceptions” and “poverty alleviation.” Simultaneously, the green cluster, highlighting terms such as “township tourism” and “economic development,” shifts focus to the growth of local, often small-to-medium-sized, tourism businesses, particularly spotlighting township tourism in South Africa. Meanwhile, the light blue cluster examines the impact of slum tourism on local communities, with a special focus on “community-based tourism” and favela tourism in Brazil. The yellow cluster delves into the portrayal of poverty as a key draw in slum tourism, questioning its classification as “poverty tourism” and exploring the shift towards more ethical, “pro-poor,” and responsible tourism practices. Concurrently, the purple cluster critically examines the portrayal and perception of poverty in slum tourism, focusing on tourist perspectives influenced by the “tourist gaze” and social media. Lastly, the dark blue cluster analyzes how globalization and rising consumer culture have spurred the growth of slum tourism, integrating themes like “globalization,” “space,” and “consumption,” and underscoring poverty’s central role in this phenomenon.

In our thematic analysis of publications, we integrated clusters with similar themes. The red, green, yellow, and light blue clusters, which focus on the socio-economic impacts of slum tourism on local communities, were merged. The red and dark blue clusters, addressing the transformation of urban informal settlements into tourist destinations and their driving factors, were also combined into a single theme. Furthermore, the purple and yellow clusters, centered on the portrayal and perception of poverty in slum tourism, were grouped together. Our review systematically examines these unified themes, as illustrated in Table 2 .

Touristic transformation of urban informal settlements

The transformation of urban informal settlements into tourist destinations has been extensively discussed in earlier literature on slum tourism. This transformation hinges significantly on cultural and historical heritage. As previously mentioned, Brazil’s favelas and South Africa’s townships attracted visitors with political and cultural interests (Frenzel, 2012 ; Steinbrink, 2012 ). Gradually, with the globalization that stimulated global mobility and the rise of consumer culture, these locales became spaces of interaction, juxtaposing mobility and immobility on a global scale (Dürr, 2012a ). As many informal settlements in the Global South were represented in global media, they gained increasing touristic attention. For instance, after the success of the film “The City of God” in 2003, the number of foreign visitors to favelas in Rio grew significantly (Freire-Medeiros, 2011 ). As Freire-Medeiros ( 2009 , p. 582) mentioned in another article that tours in these informal settlements “are equally indebted to the phenomenon of circulation and consumption, at a global level, of the favela as a trademark.”

In the touristic transformation of informal settlements, policy plays a pivotal role. For instance, local governments in South Africa actively encouraged township tourism by creating museums, developing historical and political heritage sites, and promoting township upgrading programs (Booyens, 2010 ; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019b ; Marschall, 2013 ). In Brazil, favela tourism served as a means to enhance its image in the context of preparations for mega-events in Rio, a strategy dubbed “Festifavelasation” (Steinbrink, 2013 ). South Africa pursued a similar path after securing the 2010 FIFA World Cup (Marschall, 2013 ). In Colombia, a policy known as “social urbanism” led Medellin, previously known for its drug barons and criminal activities, to undergo social and economic transformation, attracting both interest and tourists (Hernandez‐Garcia, 2013 ).

In analyzing our dataset’s articles, it is evident that slum tours primarily occur in well-known informal settlements of the Global South, such as Mumbai’s Dharavi, Rio de Janeiro’s Rocinha, and Johannesburg’s Soweto. These locations are preferred due to the factors previously mentioned. However, this growing industry often overlooks numerous lesser-known and more impoverished communities (Koens, 2012 ). Issues such as insufficient infrastructure, the absence of tourist attractions, and poor security hinder the growth of tourism in informal urban settlements. This situation is clearly seen in areas like Harare, Zimbabwe (Mukoroverwa and Chiutsi, 2018 ), and certain townships in Durban, South Africa (Chili, 2015 ).

A significant barrier is also the lack of awareness of pro-poor tourism in these lesser-known areas. Munyanyiwa et al.’s ( 2014 ) research in Harare’s townships revealed that many residents were unaware of township tourism, compounded by insufficient infrastructure and community involvement to support it. Moreover, residents were unsure of how to benefit from such initiatives, with historical tourism activities largely unknown to them. Similarly, Attaalla’s ( 2016 ) study in Egypt highlighted the minimal awareness of pro-poor tourism, the absence of a comprehensive government policy to develop this tourism type, and the scarcity of specialized Egyptian tour operators and travel agencies in the pro-poor tourism market. For successful tourism in these areas, it’s vital to enhance infrastructure, safety, and offer innovative tourism experiences (Mukoroverwa and Chiutsi, 2018 ). Additionally, improved information dissemination and increased stakeholder engagement are essential (Munyanyiwa et al. 2014 ).

The transition of informal settlements into tourist destinations brings several challenges. Notably, the commercialization of these marginalized areas can aestheticize deprivation and social inequality, turning them into themed spaces that reinforce stereotypes and maintain informal settlements as attractions shaped by tourist expectations (e.g. Altamirano, 2022b ; Dürr, 2012a ). Building on this point, Dürr et al. ( 2020 ) highlighted that marketing urban poverty and violence as a city brand could exacerbate existing inequalities. Research also shows that in many touristic informal settlements, local residents often do not fully engage with or benefit from tourism (Koens and Thomas, 2015 ; Marschall, 2013 ). Furthermore, public policies aimed at transforming these settlements sometimes lack consistency, creating insecurity among locals (Altamirano, 2022b ). Addressing these issues requires enhanced policies and increased community involvement in tourism, posing significant challenges for local governments.

Valorization and representation of urban poverty

In 2010, the term “poverty tourism” was recognized in slum tourism research, casting a spotlight on the intricate connection between poverty and this type of tourism (Rolfes, 2010 ). This tourism variant is not without controversy, interrogating the confluence of poverty, power, and ethical dilemmas (see Chhabra and Chowdhury, 2012 ; Korstanje, 2016 ; Outterson et al. 2011 ). This dynamic between the commodification of impoverished settlements and their portrayal within the tourism spectrum has ignited fervent academic debate.

Frenzel ( 2014 ) critically observed that within the paradigm of slum tourism, poverty transcends its role as a mere backdrop, ascending to the primary spectacle. Consequently, this leads to the commodification of urban impoverishment, turning it into a tourism commodity with tangible monetary value (Rolfes, 2010 ). Scholars have extensively dissected this juxtaposition. While some examine the framing, representation, and marketing dimensions (Dürr et al. 2020 ; Meschkank, 2011 ; Rolfes, 2010 ), others argued that poverty becomes romanticized, perceived more as a cultural artifact rather than an urgent societal issue (Crossley, 2012 ; Huysamen et al. 2020 ; Nisbett, 2017 ).

In this tapestry, both tourists and tour operators play pivotal roles in framing the narrative. Operators, tapping into the tourists’ quest for the “authenticity” embedded in the narratives of global urbanization, exert significant influence in shaping perceptions (Meschkank, 2012 ; Rolfes, 2010 ). Studies have observed that in an attempt to counteract the inherently negative perceptions surrounding informal settlements (Dyson, 2012 ), operators often position these spaces as beacons of hope, underlining the tenacity, optimism, and aspirations of the residents (Crossley, 2012 ; Dürr et al. 2020 ; Huysamen et al. 2020 ; Meschkank, 2011 ). Moreover, to navigate the moral complexities that tourists might grapple with, operators design their offerings as ethical enterprises, promising both enlightenment for the tourists and tangible economic upliftment for the communities (Muldoon and Mair, 2016 ; Nisbett, 2017 ).

However, such strategies face intellectual scrutiny for their potential to obfuscate the palpable suffering that underpins these urban landscapes. Several studies affirm that poverty dominates the observational narratives across tours in global cities from Mumbai to Rio de Janeiro (Crossley, 2012 ; Dürr et al. 2020 ; Meschkank, 2012 ). As Clini and Valančiūnas ( 2023 ) observed, such sanitized representations, while better than negative stereotypes, could unintentionally normalize the systemic inequalities associated with poverty. This approach not only risks reducing the perceived need for urgent poverty alleviation efforts but also may leave existing societal inequalities unchallenged. This has prompted critiques that label the phenomenon as commercial “voyeurism, and exploitation for commercial ends” (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013 , p. 162).

For tourists, their motivation often orbits around the pursuit of “authenticity” when they consider visiting informal settlements (see Clini and Valančiūnas, 2023 ; Crossley, 2012 ; Gupta, 2016 ; Meschkank, 2011 ; Steinbrink, 2012 ). Marketed as unvarnished encounters with reality, informal settlements are often depicted as bastions of culture, diversity, and authenticity (Frenzel et al. 2015 ). This category of slum tourism is, thus, situated within the broader realm of “reality tourism,” promising participatory experiences in socio-economically challenged urban landscapes (Wise et al. 2019 ). However, this approach, despite aligning with general tourism patterns, is not devoid of problems. The very essence of this touristic venture, which is to experience urban impoverishment, inherently establishes an imbalanced dynamic between tourists and inhabitants, leading to its characterization as a form of voyeurism. (Dürr et al. 2020 ; Meschkank, 2011 ).

In the last decade, slum tourism has diversified with new tours offered by locals and NGOs, aiming to challenge stereotypes and present a more complex picture of informal settlements. Frenzel ( 2014 ) noted that guides can empower communities by focusing on often-ignored aspects of these areas. While motivations vary, with some guides driven by profit and others by community welfare and resisting gentrification effects, the role of guides is crucial. Angelini’s ( 2020 ) examination of favela tours accentuated the nuanced challenges faced by these guides, as they attempt to strike a balance between authentic representation and the commodification of their environments. Further, Dürr et al. ( 2021 ) in their ethnographic study in Mexico City’s Tepito, showed how guides can positively portray deprived areas without depoliticizing them, contextualizing local achievements within city politics and using historical narratives to emphasize the area’s significance.

In the digital era, social media significantly influences the slum tourism narrative (Sarrica et al. 2021 ). The Internet is vital for operators to market and sell tours and provide information to potential travelers (Privitera, 2015 ). Many studies have analyzed slum tourism portrayals in online reviews and media, exploring how these areas and experiences are represented (Huysamen et al. 2020 ; Nisbett, 2017 ; Sarrica et al. 2021 ; Shang et al. 2022 ; Wise et al. 2019 ). For instance, Nisbett ( 2017 ) highlighted concerns about reviews that often gloss over poverty’s complexities, focusing instead on the tours’ economic aspects. Similarly, Huysamen et al. ( 2020 ) observed that tourist narratives tend to paint these areas as “slums of hope,” ignoring the disparity between wealthy tourists and impoverished locals. Ekdale and Tuwei ( 2016 ) studied texts from Kibera visitors, noting that while tourists claim to gain authentic understanding of global inequality, their privileged perspective remains unexamined. These “ironic encounters” often reinforce global inequalities, serving more as self-validation for tourists than a true engagement with local challenges.

On the flip side, social media’s role in depicting informal settlements is not always reductive. Some academics posit that these platforms can provide a counter-narrative to skewed representations by offering avenues to disseminate a diverse array of authentic stories and perspectives (Sarrica et al. 2021 ). Crucially, social media can amplify local residents’ voices, allowing them to share concerns about slum tourism, including privacy, potential exploitation, and daily life disruptions (Crapolicchio et al. 2022 ). The digital era thus presents both opportunities and challenges for slum tourism, underscoring the need for ethical and respectful interactions that honor and authentically represent these communities’ narratives.

Social and economic impact of slum tourism to local communities

The economic and social impacts of tourism in these informal settlements are prominent themes in slum tourism research. Across various countries, including Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia, tourism has spurred urban development and improved living conditions in informal settlements (Anyumba, 2017 ; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019a ; Mekawy, 2012 ; Sulistyaningsih et al. 2022 ; Torres, 2012 ). Developments like aerial cable cars in Brazil’s favelas and minibus-taxis in South African townships have evolved local transportation systems (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2017 ; Rietjens et al. 2006 ). These advancements facilitate social transformation, such as increased security investments in Brazilian favelas (Freire-Medeiros et al. 2013 ) and “social urbanism” in Colombian barrios, integrating marginalized communities and improving education and security (Hernandez‐Garcia, 2013 ). A comparative study of the touristification of Gamcheon Culture Village (Busan, South Korea) and Comuna 13 (Medellin, Colombia) highlighted that effective governance can create community networks and stakeholder partnerships, fostering entrepreneurial opportunities (Escalona and Oh, 2022 ).

Tourism holds potential as a means to reduce poverty by creating employment opportunities in impoverished urban areas (Aseye and Opoku, 2015 ; Cardoso et al. 2022 ; Paul, 2016 ). Slum tourism, in particular, fosters entrepreneurship, allowing residents to start their own tour companies or bed and breakfasts. However, challenges for local entrepreneurs include limited market access, stiff competition, low marketing budgets, poor business locations, and lack of support from established firms, often leading to the marginalization of smaller operators in a market dominated by larger companies (see Chili, 2018 ; Hikido, 2018 ; Mokoena and Liambo, 2023 ; Mtshali et al. 2017 ; Nemasetoni and Rogerson, 2005 ). Further, small business owners frequently lack essential education and marketing skills (see Leonard and Dladla, 2020 ; Letuka and Lebambo, 2022 ; Rogerson, 2004 ). Mokoena and Liambo ( 2023 ) observed that only a minority of entrepreneurs adopt competitive strategies in their businesses.

Scholars have also observed that the profits from slum tourism are insufficient for significant poverty alleviation (Freire-Medeiros, 2009 , 2012 ). Koen and Thomas’ study of South Africa townships ( 2015 ) highlighted the challenge to the idea that small business owners reinvest their profits locally for economic development. Successful entrepreneurs often leave their townships due to a lack of local ties, leading to economic benefits being concentrated among a small, predominantly male, privileged group, while marginalized groups’ businesses yield lower gains. Moreover, most slum tour companies depend heavily on foreign support, resulting in substantial economic leakage (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ; Meschkank, 2012 ; Rolfes, 2010 ).

The social implications of slum tourism form a major focus in recent academic studies, particularly regarding how local residents perceive this tourism form. Surveys and interviews with inhabitants of informal settlements have uncovered a range of reactions, including positive, negative, skeptical, and indifferent attitudes toward slum tourism (Amo et al. 2019 ; Auala et al. 2019 ; Freire-Medeiros, 2012 ; Marschall, 2013 ; Slikker and Koens, 2015 ).

In Rio, Mumbai, and Nairobi, some studies reveal that residents feel embarrassed by slum tourism, as certain operators emphasize negative community aspects to cater to tourists seeking “real” poverty experiences, leading to privacy issues (Freire-Medeiros, 2012 ; Kieti and Magio, 2013 ; Slikker and Koens, 2015 ). Conversely, slum tourism is also viewed positively in many areas. Slikker and Koens’ ( 2015 ) study in Mumbai and Amo et al. ( 2019 ) research in Medellin found residents believe it counters negative stereotypes and raises community visibility. In Nairobi and Cape Town, locals welcome it as a source of income and jobs (Chege and Mwisukha, 2013 ; Potgieter et al. 2019 ). Additionally, Muldoon et al.’s South African studies suggest slum tourism empowers residents by bringing international attention to townships, giving them more control over their narratives and a sense of importance (Muldoon, 2020 ; Muldoon and Mair, 2022 ).

Indeed, the social impact of tourism is dualistic. As Altamirano ( 2022a ) pointed out, while tourism can establish new material and symbolic frameworks, providing residents with chances for counter-hegemonic actions, it does not uniformly support the cultural empowerment of impoverished communities. Instead, it can result in neoliberal development and increased surveillance. This underscores the necessity for thoughtful policymaking in slum tourism, advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being and cultural richness of communities over mere profit generation, particularly in environments marked by urban disparities and complex power dynamics.

Booyens and Rogerson ( 2019 b) suggested that slum tourism ought to function as a type of “creative tourism,” fostering solidarity and mutual understanding between tourists and local residents, stimulating economic growth in communities, and increasing awareness of the North-South disparity in the postcolonial context. The transition to pro-poor tourism heavily relies on effective policy implementation. Therefore, numerous scholars have advocated for policy instruments to enhance safety and infrastructure, and to facilitate effective coordination among various stakeholders, alongside strengthening institutional frameworks (e.g. Aseye and Opoku, 2015 ; Booyens, 2010 ; Chege and Mwisukha, 2013 ; Rusata et al. 2023 ).

Furthermore, the success of slum tourism largely depends on local community engagement (Duarte and Peters, 2012 ). Yet, in many cases, such as in India (Slikker and Koens, 2015 ), Kenya (Kieti and Magio, 2013 ), Brazil (Freire-Medeiros, 2012 ), and elsewhere, local residents’ participation is limited. Various factors contribute to this, including inadequate business knowledge and skills, and social and financial barriers (Dzikiti and Leonard, 2016 ; Hammad, 2021 ; Leonard and Dladla, 2020 ). Addressing this, researchers emphasize the need for tourism-specific training and resources for local entrepreneurs, particularly focusing on youth (Dzikiti and Leonard, 2016 ; Mbane and Ezeuduji, 2022 ; Nkemngu, 2014 ). To leverage slum tourism for community development, equipping locals with the skills and tools for effective tourism participation is crucial, though it remains a challenging goal.

Conclusion and future research agenda

Over the past two decades, “slum tourism” and its academic study have expanded significantly. Our systematic review of 122 peer-reviewed journal articles sheds light on key authors and journals in this field. The most cited journals typically specialize in tourism studies or geography/urban studies, underscoring the blend of travel motivations and urban complexities in slum tourism. Our findings show that South Africa, India, and Brazil are the most researched countries, with others like Kenya, Mexico, Colombia, Egypt, and Indonesia also being significant. The keyword co-occurrence analysis identified three primary research areas: the touristic transformation of urban informal settlements, the portrayal and valorization of urban poverty, and the socio-economic impacts of slum tourism. This study not only outlines the scope of current research but also points out gaps, suggesting that the economic, social, and cultural effects of slum tourism warrant further exploration in future studies.

The economic aspects of slum tourism, widely debated in academic circles, pose unanswered questions about the actual financial benefits for local residents and communities. Frenzel and Koens ( 2012 ) noted a lack of quantitative evaluations, leaving the impact of slum tours on poverty reduction and urban development uncertain. Existing research, primarily qualitative involving interviews, ethnography, media content analysis, and stakeholder surveys, fails to adequately measure the economic impact on informal settlements. Although studies like those by Chege and Mwisukha ( 2013 ) and Potgieter et al. ( 2019 ) indicated resident perceptions of slum tourism as a source of income and employment, these lack concrete statistical backing. The financial dynamics of slum tourism, including the economic leakage stemming from reliance on external and foreign support (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015 ; Meschkank, 2012 ; Rolfes, 2010 ), warrant more in-depth investigation. Future research should focus on tracing profit distribution in slum tourism and assessing its real effects on the communities, considering the prominent role of local guides and their relationships with tour operators.

The intangible impacts of slum tourism, including social, political, and cultural aspects, are a fertile area for future research. Shifting focus to local residents’ views, recent studies have shown slum tourism’s broad influence beyond just economic factors, notably in changing perceptions of poverty. However, as Koens ( 2012 ) pointed out, evaluating these impacts is complex due to the deep social and historical contexts within these communities. Advocates for authentic local engagement, like Slikker and Koens ( 2015 ) and Freire-Medeiros ( 2012 ), emphasized the importance of giving local residents a voice. Muldoon’s research ( 2020 ; Muldoon and Mair, 2022 ) in South Africa demonstrates how township tourism allows locals to redefine their identities and interactions with tourists. On the other hand, Freire-Medeiros ( 2012 ) noted in Brazil’s Rocinha the possibility of residents altering narratives for tourist appeal. This highlights the need to integrate the genuine experiences of locals into slum tourism research to fully grasp its diverse impacts.

The potential for slum tourism to either reinforce or challenge existing power dynamics and stereotypes represents a dynamic area of ongoing debate, ripe for further theoretical exploration. Slum tourism is emblematic of neoliberal capitalist practices, where the lived experiences of marginalized communities are commodified and consumed predominantly by Western tourists. This pattern aligns with David Harvey’s concept of “accumulation by dispossession,” where the exploitation and aestheticization of poverty serve to reinforce global economic disparities (Harvey, 2003 ). By transforming informal settlements into tourist attractions, slum tourism becomes a mechanism of cultural commodification, packaging poverty-stricken environments for sale and perpetuating a global hierarchy that privileges affluent tourists while marginalizing local residents.

The representation of informal settlements within this tourism framework often involves selective storytelling, echoing Edward Said’s notion of “Orientalism.” This process portrays the “Other” in ways that reinforce Western superiority and exoticize non-Western realities, contributing to the perpetuation of stereotypes and obscuring the systemic causes of poverty (Said, 2003 ). Such portrayals often sanitize the harsh realities of poverty, presenting informal settlements as exotic and intriguing destinations, thus skewing the understanding of global inequalities and framing poverty more as a cultural artifact than an urgent social issue.

Conversely, slum tourism holds potential to challenge and subvert these entrenched power dynamics and stereotypes. When approached through the lens of ethical representation, it becomes a platform that amplifies marginalized voices and promotes more equitable narratives. This approach is deeply rooted in theories of participatory development and empowerment, which argue that local communities should be active agents in shaping their own narratives, rather than passive subjects (Dürr et al. 2021 ; Frenzel, 2014 ). Employing local guides and focusing on authentic narratives that highlight both the challenges and resilience of informal settlement residents can provide a counter-narrative to dominant discourses, promoting a more nuanced and respectful understanding of these communities.

The role of social media in slum tourism highlights the significance of digital globalization in shaping narratives. Social media platforms provide avenues for local residents to share their perspectives, thereby democratizing the discourse and challenging stereotypical representations (Sarrica et al. 2021 ). This aligns with the ethics of representation, advocating for portrayals that respect the dignity and agency of marginalized communities (Crapolicchio et al. 2022 ). By enabling a more participatory and inclusive approach, social media can help mitigate the voyeuristic tendencies of slum tourism and foster a more ethical engagement with these communities.

Another prominent takeaway from this systematic literature review is the observation that the practice, perception, and success of slum tourism vary significantly across different cultural and geographical contexts. In Brazil, for instance, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro have been transformed into tourist destinations, influenced not only by their portrayal in internationally acclaimed films but also by the mega-events hosted in the city. This phenomenon has led to a form of tourism that often celebrates the cultural vibrancy of these areas, despite underlying issues of poverty and inequality. Conversely, in India, Mumbai’s Dharavi is marketed as a hub of entrepreneurship and industry, attracting tourists more interested in the economic dynamics of informal settlement life than in cultural spectacle alone. These differences illustrate how local contexts shape the thematic emphasis of slum tours.

However, the ability to develop slum or pro-poor tourism is not uniformly distributed. Many areas lack the necessary infrastructure, adequate security, or appealing tourist attractions, which impedes their ability to attract and sustain tourism. For instance, some townships in Durban, South Africa, and informal settlements in Harare, Zimbabwe, contend with issues such as poor security and insufficient infrastructure, making them less appealing to tourists and challenging to market as destinations (Chili, 2015 ; Mukoroverwa and Chiutsi, 2018 ). This disparity highlights the uneven impacts of global tourism trends on local communities and points to the necessity for ethical and sustainable tourism practices in urban settings marked by significant socio-economic divides.

To enhance our understanding of slum tourism dynamics and to devise more effective interventions, it is crucial to undertake further comparative studies. These studies should delve into why certain areas are successful in developing tourism that benefits local communities while others falter, considering both global influences and local conditions. Such research is imperative for uncovering the potential of tourism as a tool for social and economic improvement in marginalized urban areas and contributes significantly to the broader discourse on globalization, urban inequality, and sustainable development.

In this vein, a pivotal area for future research is transforming “slum tourism” into a form of responsible tourism that transcends the poverty-centric narrative often associated with terms like “slum,” “township,” and “favela” (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013 ; Rolfes, 2010 ; Steinbrink et al. 2012 ). While it is valuable to highlight the cultural and historical aspects of these communities, such portrayals frequently overlook the entrenched structural inequality and violence that pervade these areas. Furthermore, tourism often concentrates only on well-known locations, ignoring the most impoverished and lesser-known settlements, thus raising questions about the applicability of sustainable development strategies in these marginalized areas (Frenzel, 2013 ). It is essential that future research explores how slum tourism can truly benefit residents and address broader socio-economic challenges, ensuring it evolves into a form of responsible tourism.

This shift towards responsible slum tourism necessitates a comprehensive emphasis on ethical considerations, community involvement, and sustainable economic benefits for local residents. Ethical considerations must encompass respect for the dignity and agency of the communities involved, eschewing exploitative practices that commodify poverty for tourist consumption. Community involvement is imperative, as it enables residents to influence how their neighborhoods are portrayed and ensure their central participation in both managing and benefiting from tourism initiatives. This might include training local guides, engaging residents in creating tour content, and allocating a substantial share of tourism revenues back into the community.

Furthermore, ensuring sustainable economic benefits for residents is fundamental to responsible slum tourism. This involves fostering tourism that generates reliable income opportunities for locals, such as through establishing small businesses or cooperative ventures tailored to the tourism industry. Potential enterprises could include local eateries, souvenir shops, and accommodation services, all managed and operated by community members. Investment in infrastructure improvements that support tourism activities and simultaneously enhance resident quality of life is also crucial. Additionally, it is essential to implement mechanisms to track the flow of financial benefits to ensure that the revenue generated by tourism is indeed benefiting the local communities as intended.

The data collection for this study, completed in August 2023, revealed a notable gap: the lack of research on the impact of the COVID pandemic on slum tourism, despite the pandemic lasting three years. The pandemic has disproportionately affected informal settlement dwellers, as evidenced by Seddiky et al. ( 2023 ). For instance, Bangkok’s informal settlement residents have suffered significant economic hardships (Pongutta et al. 2021 ), and containment measures have led to widespread business closures, impacting low-income, daily wage earners in impoverished communities (Solymári et al. 2022 ). This absence of academic focus on COVID’s specific impact on slum tourism marks a limitation in current literature. The pandemic’s disruption of travel presents an opportunity to reassess and develop more sustainable tourism practices that could benefit residents in impoverished areas.

Additionally, this study’s focus on slum tourism in the Global South overlooks the re-emerging field of slum or poverty tourism in the Global North. For instance, Burgold ( 2014 ) explored guided walking tours in Berlin-Neukölln, an area known for poverty and social issues, contrasting them with traditional tourism and highlighting their role in changing perceptions and aiding local residents’ societal integration. Similarly, “homeless experience” tours in cities like Toronto, London, Amsterdam, and Seattle offer insights into the lives of homeless individuals (Haven Toronto, 2018 ; Kassam, 2013 ). These tours, as controversial in the Global North as in the South, raise ethical concerns about commodifying poverty. Proponents see them as empathy-building, while critics view them as exploitative. The dynamics of poverty tours vary between developed and less developed countries, presenting a potential area for future comparative research.

“Slum tourism,” a relatively new research field, reflects the complexities of rapid urbanization and the North-South power dynamics in a globalized era. The current study offers a comprehensive, longitudinal perspective on slum tourism research, charting future directions for scholarly inquiry. It also provides valuable insights for practitioners to reassess the role of tourism in poverty alleviation within urban informal settlements in the Global South. For public policy, this research is instrumental in shaping strategies for urban development, poverty alleviation, and sustainable tourism, advocating for the integration of informal settlements into wider economic frameworks. Academically, it enriches the existing body of knowledge, spurring interdisciplinary research and delving into lesser-explored aspects of slum tourism. Additionally, by shedding light on the effects of tourism in these communities, the study promotes more informed, respectful, and responsible tourist behavior, encouraging travelers to adopt a more empathetic and culturally sensitive approach.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available in an uploaded CSV file.

Altamirano ME (2022a) Legitimizing discourses within favela tourism. Tour Geogr 25(7):1–18

Google Scholar  

Altamirano ME (2022b) Overcoming urban frontiers: Ordering Favela tourism actor-networks. Tour Stud 22(2):200–222

Article   Google Scholar  

Amo MDH, Jayawardena CC, Gaultier SL (2019) What is the host community perception of slum tourism in Colombia? Worldw Hosp Tour Themes 11(2):140–146

Angelini A (2020) A Favela that yields fruit: community-based tour guides as brokers in the political economy of cultural difference. Space Cult 23(1):15–33

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Anyumba G (2017) Planning for a Township Tourism destination: Considering red flags from experiences in Atteridgeville, South Africa. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 6(2):1–22

Aseye FK, Opoku M (2015) Potential of slum tourism in urban Ghana: A case study of Old Fadama (Sodom and Gomorra) slum in Accra. J Soc Dev Sci 6(1):39–45

Attaalla FAH (2016) Pro-poor tourism as a panacea for slums in Egypt. Int J Tour Hosp Rev 3(1):30–44

Auala LSN, van Zyl SR, Ferreira IW (2019) Township tourism as an agent for the socio-economic well-being of residents. African Journal of Hospitality . Tour Leis 8(2):1–11

Baffoe G, Kintrea K (2023) Neighbourhood research in the Global South: What do we know so far? Cities 132:104077

Booyens I (2010) Rethinking township tourism: Towards responsible tourism development in South African townships. Dev South Afr 27(2):273–287

Booyens I, Rogerson C (2019a) Creative tourism: South African township explorations. Tour Rev 74(2):256–267

Booyens I, Rogerson C (2019b) Re-creating slum tourism: Perspectives from South Africa. Urban Izziv 30(supple):52–63

Burgold J (2014) Slumming the Global North? Überlegungen zur organisierten Besichtigung gesellschaftlicher Problemlagen in den Metropolen des Globalen Nordens. Z F ür Tour 6(2):273–280

Burgold J, Rolfes M (2013) Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai. Erde 144(2):161–174

Cardoso A, da Silva A, Pereira MS, Sinha N, Figueiredo J, Oliveira I (2022) Attitudes towards slum tourism in Mumbai, India: analysis of positive and negative impacts. Sustainability 14(17):10801

Chege PW, Mwisukha A (2013) Benefits of slum tourism in Kibera slum in Nairobi, Kenya. Int J Arts Commer 2(4):94–102

Chhabra D, Chowdhury A (2012) Slum tourism: Ethical or voyeuristic. Tour Rev Int 16(1):69–73

Chili NS (2015) Township Tourism: The politics and socio-economic dynamics of tourism in the South African township: Umlazi, Durban. J Econ Behav Stud 7(4):14–21

Chili NS (2018) Constrictions of emerging tourism entrepreneurship in the townships of South Africa. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 7(4):1–10

Clini C, Valančiūnas D (2023) Bollywood and slum tours: poverty tourism and the Indian cultural industry. Cult Trends 32(4):366–382

Crapolicchio E, Sarrica M, Rega I, Norton LS, Vezzali L (2022) Social representations and images of slum tourism: Effects on stereotyping. Int J Intercult Relat 90:97–107

Crossley É (2012) Poor but Happy: Volunteer Tourists’ Encounters with Poverty. Tour Geogr 14(2):235–253

Davis M (2006) Planet of Slums. Verso

De Bellis N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press

Denyer D Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In D Buchanan & A Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage Publications Ltd

Duarte R, Peters K (2012) Exploring the other side of Favela tourism. an insight into the residents’ view. Rev Tur Desenvolv 2(17/18):1123–1131

Dürr E (2012a) Encounters over garbage: Tourists and lifestyle migrants in Mexico. Tour Geogr 14(2):339–355

Dürr E (2012b) Urban poverty, spatial representation and mobility: Touring a slum in Mexico. Int J Urban Reg Res 36(4):706–724

Dürr E, Acosta R, Vodopivec B (2021) Recasting urban imaginaries: politicized temporalities and the touristification of a notorious Mexico City barrio. Int J Tour Cities 7(3):783–798

Dürr E, Jaffe R, Jones GA (2020) Brokers and tours: selling urban poverty and violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. Space Cult 23(1):4–14

Dyson P (2012) Slum tourism: representing and interpreting “Reality” in Dharavi, Mumbai. Tour Geog 14(2):254–274

Dzikiti LG, Leonard L (2016) Barriers towards African youth participation in domestic tourism in post-apartheid South Africa: The case of Alexandra Township, Johannesburg. Afr J HospTour Leis 5(3):1–17

Ekdale B, Tuwei D (2016) Ironic encounters: Posthumanitarian storytelling in slum tourist media. Commun Cult Crit 9(1):49–67

Escalona M, Oh D (2022) Efficacy of Governance in Sustainable Slum Regeneration: Assessment framework for effective governance in sustainable slum tourism regeneration. Rev de Urban 46:131–151

Freire-Medeiros B (2007) Selling the favela: thoughts and polemics about a tourist destination. Rev Bras Ciências Soc 22(65):61–72

Freire-Medeiros B (2009) The favela and its touristic transits. Geoforum 40(4):580–588

Freire-Medeiros B (2011) I went to the city of god’: Gringos, guns and the touristic favela. J Lat Am Cultural Stud 20(1):21–34

Freire-Medeiros B (2012) Favela tourism: Listening to local voices. In F Frenzel, K Koens, & M Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 175–192). Routledge

Freire-Medeiros B, Name L (2017) Does the future of the favela fit in an aerial cable car? Examining tourism mobilities and urban inequalities through a decolonial lens. Can J Lat Am Caribb Stud 42(1):1–16

Freire-Medeiros B, Vilarouca MG, Menezes P (2013) International tourists in a “pacified” favela: Profiles and attitudes. the case of santa marta. Rio de Jan Erde 144(2):147–159

Frenzel F (2012) Beyond ‘Othering’: The political roots of slum tourism. In F Frenzel, K Koens, & M Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 32–49). Routledge

Frenzel F (2013) Slum tourism in the context of the tourism and poverty (relief) debate. DIE ERDE – J Geogr Soc Berl 144(2):117–128

Frenzel F (2014) Slum Tourism and Urban Regeneration: Touring Inner Johannesburg. Urban Forum 25(4):431–447

Frenzel, F (2016). Slumming it: The tourist valorization of urban poverty. Zed Books Ltd

Frenzel F (2017) Tourist agency as valorisation: Making Dharavi into a tourist attraction. Ann Tour Res 66:159–169

Frenzel F (2018) On the question of using the concept ‘Slum Tourism’ for urban tourism in stigmatised neighbourhoods in Inner City Johannesburg. Urban Forum 29(1):51–62

Frenzel F, Blakeman S (2015) Making slums into attractions: The role of tour guiding in the slum tourism development in Kibera and Dharavi. Tour Rev Int 19(1–2):87–100

Frenzel F, Koens K (2012) Slum tourism: developments in a young field of interdisciplinary tourism research. Tour Geogr 14(2):195–212

Frenzel F, Koens K, Steinbrink M, Rogerson CM (2015) Slum tourism: State of the art. Tour Rev Int 18(4):237–252

Gilbert A (2007) The return of the slum: does language matter? Int J Urban Reg Res 31(4):697–713

Gupta V (2016) Indian reality tourism-a critical perspective. Tour Hosp Manag 22(2):111–133

Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A (2015) Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol 29(6):1596–1605

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hajek P, Youssef A, Hajkova V (2022) Recent developments in smart city assessment: A bibliometric and content analysis-based literature review. Cities 126:103709

Hammad AA (2021) Exploring the Role of Slum Tourism in Developing Slums in Egypt. J Assoc Arab Univ Tour Hosp 20(1):58–77

Harvey D (2003) The New Imperialism . Oxford University Press

Haven Toronto (2018) Poverty tourism: Take a homeless holiday . Haven Toronto

Hernandez‐Garcia J (2013) Slum tourism, city branding and social urbanism: the case of Medellin, Colombia. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):43–51

Hikido A (2018) Entrepreneurship in South African township tourism: The impact of interracial social capital. Ethn Racial Stud 41(14):2580–2598

Holst T (2015) Touring the Demolished Slum? Slum Tourism in the Face of Delhi’s Gentrification. Tour Rev Int 18(4):283–294

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Huysamen M, Barnett J, Fraser DS (2020) Slums of hope: Sanitising silences within township tour reviews. Geoforum 110(March)):87–96

Iqani M (2016) Slum tourism and the consumption of poverty in TripAdvisor reviews: The cases of Langa, Dharavi and Santa Marta. In Consumption, media and the global south: Aspiration contested (pp. 51–86). Springer

Jones GA, Sanyal R (2015) Spectacle and suffering: The Mumbai slum as a worlded space. Geoforum 65:431–439

Kaplan L (2004) Skills development for tourism in Alexandra township, Johannesburg. Urban Forum 15(4):380–398

Kassam A (2013) Poorism, the new tourism . Maclean’s

Kieti DM, Magio KO (2013) The ethical and local resident perspectives of slum tourism in Kenya. Adv Hosp Tour Res (AHTR) 1(1):37–57

Koens K (2012) Competition, cooperation and collaboration: business relations and power in township tourism. In F Frenzel, K Koens, & M Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum tourism (pp. 101–118). Routledge

Koens K, Thomas R (2015) Is small beautiful? Understanding the contribution of small businesses in township tourism to economic development. Dev South Afr 32(3):320–332

Koens K, Thomas R (2016) “You know that’s a rip-off”: policies and practices surrounding micro-enterprises and poverty alleviation in South African township tourism. J Sustain Tour 24(12):1641–1654

Korstanje ME (2016) The ethical borders of slum tourism in the mobile capitalism: A conceptual discussion. Rev de Tur -Stud Si Cercetari Tur 21:22–32

Leonard L, Dladla A (2020) Obstacles to and suggestions for successful township tourism in Alexandra township. South Africa . e-Rev Tour Res (ERTR) 17(6):900–920

Letuka P, Lebambo M (2022) A typology of challenges facing township micro-tour operators in Soweto, South Africa. Afr J Sci, Technol, Innov Dev 14(7):1829–1838

Marschall S (2013) Woza eNanda: perceptions of and attitudes towards heritage and tourism in a South African township. Transform: Crit Perspect South Afr 83(1):32–55

Mayne A (2017) Slums: The history of a global injustice. Reaktion Books

Mbane TL, Ezeuduji IO (2022) Stakeholder perceptions of crime and security in township tourism development. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 11(3):1128–1142

Mekawy MA (2012) Responsible slum tourism: Egyptian experience. Ann Tour Res 39(4):2092–2113

Meschkank J (2011) Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty tourism and the tensions between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal 76(1):47–62

Meschkank J (2012) Negotiating poverty: the interplay between Dharavi’s production and consumption as a tourist destination. In F Frenzel, K Koens, & M Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism (pp. 162–176). Routledge

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group*, P. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269

Mokoena SL, Liambo TF (2023) The sustainability of township tourism SMMEs. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci 12(1):341–349

Mtshali M, Mtapuri O, Shamase SP (2017) Experiences of black-owned Small Medium and Micro Enterprises in the accommodation tourism-sub sector in selected Durban townships, Kwazulu-Natal. Afr J HospTour Leis 6(3):130–141

Mukoroverwa M, Chiutsi S (2018) Prospects and challenges of positioning Harare as an urban township tourism destination. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 7(4):1–11

Muldoon ML (2020) South African township residents describe the liminal potentialities of tourism. Tour Geogr 22(2):338–353

Muldoon ML, Mair HL (2016) Blogging slum tourism: A critical discourse analysis of travel blogs. Tour Anal 21(5):465–479

Muldoon ML, Mair HL (2022) Disrupting structural violence in South Africa through township tourism. J Sustain Tour 30(2–3):444–460

Munyanyiwa T, Mhizha A, Mandebvu G (2014) Views and perceptions of residents on township tourism development: Empirical evidence from Epworth, Highfields and Mbare. Int J Innov Res Dev 3(10):184–194

Nemasetoni I, Rogerson CM (2005) Developing small firms in township tourism: Emerging tour operators in Gauteng, South Africa. Urban Forum 16(2–3):196–213

Nisbett M (2017) Empowering the empowered? Slum tourism and the depoliticization of poverty. Geoforum 85(July):37–45

Nkemngu AP (2014) Stakeholder’s participation in township tourism planning and development: The case of business managers in Shoshanguve. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 3(1):1–10

Outterson K, Selinger E, Whyte K (2011) Poverty Tourism, Justice, and Policy: Can Ethical Ideals Form the Basis of New Regulations? Public Integr 14(1):39–50

Paul NIJ (2016) Critical analysis of slum tourism: A retrospective on Bangalore. ATNA J Tour Stud 11(2):95–113

Petticrew M Roberts H (2008) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons

Pongutta S, Kantamaturapoj K, Phakdeesettakun K, Phonsuk P (2021) The social impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on urban slums and the response of civil society organisations: A case study in Bangkok, Thailand. Heliyon 7(5):E07161

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Potgieter A, Berman GK, Verity JM (2019) The relationship between socio-cultural impacts of a township tour and the overall life satisfaction of residents in townships in the Western Cape, South Africa. Afr J Hosp Tour Leis 8(4):1–17

Privitera D (2015) Tourist valorisation of urban poverty: an empirical study on the web. Urban Forum 26(4):373–390

Rietjens S, Makoriwa C, de Boer S (2006) Utilising excess minibus-taxi capacity for South African townships tours. Anatolia 17(1):75–92

Rogerson C (2004) Urban tourism and small tourism enterprise development in Johannesburg: The case of township tourism. GeoJournal 60(3):249–257

Rogerson C (2014) Rethinking slum tourism: Tourism in South Africa’s rural slumlands. Bull Geogr 26(26):19–34

Rogerson C (2008) Shared growth in urban tourism: evidence from Soweto, South Africa. Urban Forum 19(4):395–411

Rolfes M (2010) Poverty tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings regarding an extraordinary form of tourism. GeoJournal 75(5):421–442

Rusata T, Atmadiredja G, Kornita A (2023) Slum tourism: representing and interpreting reality in city. Indones J Tour Leis 4(1):55–64

Said EW (2003) Orientalism. Penguin

Sarrica M, Rega I, Inversini A, Norton LS (2021) Slumming on social media? E-mediated tourist gaze and social representations of indian, south African, and Brazilian slum tourism destinations. Societies 11(3):106

Seddiky MA, Chowdhury NM, Ara E (2023) Satisfaction level of slum dwellers with the assistance of the city corporation during COVID 19: the Bangladesh Context. Soc Sci 12(9):520

Sen A (2008) Sex, sleaze, slaughter, and salvation: phoren tourists and slum tours in Calcutta (India). Journeys 9(2):55–75

Shang Y, Li FS, Ma J (2022) Tourist gaze upon a slum tourism destination: a case study of Dharavi, India. J Hosp Tour Manag 52(September):478–486

Slikker N, Koens K (2015) Breaking the silence”: Local perceptions of slum tourism in Dharavi. Tour Rev Int 19(1):75–86

Small H (1973) Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24(4):265–269

Solymári D, Kairu E, Czirják R, Tarrósy I (2022) The impact of COVID-19 on the livelihoods of Kenyan slum dwellers and the need for an integrated policy approach. PloS One 17(8):e0271196

Steinbrink M (2012) We did the Slum!’—Urban poverty tourism in historical perspective. Tour Geogr 14(2):213–234

Steinbrink M (2013) Festifavelisation: Mega-events, slums and strategic city-staging - The example of Rio de Janeiro. Erde 144(2):129–145

Steinbrink M, Frenzel F, Koens K (2012) Development and globalization of a new trend in tourism. In F. Frenzel, K. Koens, & M. Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism (pp. 19–36). Routledge

Sulistyaningsih T, Jainuri J, Salahudin S, Jovita HD, Nurmandi A (2022) Can combined marketing and planning-oriented of community-based social marketing (CBSM) project successfully transform the slum area to tourism village? A case study of the Jodipan colorful urban village, Malang, Indonesia. J Nonprofit Public Sect Mark 34(4):421–450

Surwase G, Sagar A, Kademani BS, Bhanumurthy K (2011) Co-citation analysis: An overview. BEYOND LIBRARIANSHIP: Creativity, Innovation and Discovery (BOSLA National Conference Proceedings) , 179–185

Torres I (2012) Branding slums: A community-driven strategy for urban inclusion in Rio de Janeiro. J Place Manag Dev 5(3):198–211

Tzanelli R (2018) Slum tourism: A review of state-of-the-art scholarship. Tour Cult Commun 18(2):149–155

UN-Habitat. (2006) State of the World’s Cities 2006/7

UN-Habitat (2020) World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization

Urry J (1990) Tourist Gaze: Travel, Leisure and Society. In Tourist gaze: travel, leisure and society . Sage Publications Ltd

Wang H, Yang Y (2019) Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities 93:43–61

Wise N, Polidoro M, Hall G, Uvinha RR (2019) User-generated insight of Rio’s Rocinha favela tour: Authentic attraction or vulnerable living environment? Local Econ 34(7):680–698

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Tianhan Gui & Wei Zhong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Tianhan Gui spearheaded the conceptual background, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. Wei Zhong directed the methodology, supervised the data analysis, and also contributed to the manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Zhong .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gui, T., Zhong, W. When urban poverty becomes a tourist attraction: a systematic review of slum tourism research. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1178 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03696-w

Download citation

Received : 22 March 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 10 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03696-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

Components and entities of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in healthcare sector: a scoping review

• Javad Miri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1464-6788 1 ,
• Golrokh Atighechian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3290-2765 2 ,
• Hesam Seyedin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-4052 3 &
• Ahmad Reza Raeisi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-4340 4  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2417 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Disasters can cause casualties and significant financial loss. In accordance with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, areas affected by disasters must be built back better. Accurate post-disaster damage and loss assessments are critical for the success of recovery programs. This scoping review aimed to identify the components and entities of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program.

An comprehensive search for relevant literature was performed using several databases, including the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Magiran. The search was limited to papers published between 2010 and 2022. In addition, we searched the grey literature for resources related to post-disaster damage and loss assessments. Study selection and data extraction were evaluated by a third reviewer. The main themes were determined through a consensus process and agreement among team members.

A total of 845 papers were identified, 41 of which were included in the review. The grey literature search yielded 1015 documents, 23 of which were associated with the study’s purpose. The findings were classified into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes. The main-themes include the following: Concepts and Definitions; Post-Disaster Damage and Loss Assessment Procedures; Healthcare sector procedures; Assessments Tools, and Methods; Intra-sectoral, Inter-sectoral, and cross-cutting issues.

Conclusions

The existing corpus of literature on post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector offers only limited insights into the entities and components involved. It is of great importance that stakeholders have an extensive grasp of these pivotal concepts and principles, as they are fundamental in enabling effective responses to disasters, informed decision-making, and facilitating rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Consequently, there is a considerable scope for further investigation in this area.

Scoping review registration number

https://osf.io/nj3fk .

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The most significant consequences of disasters are health impacts that occur in the aftermath [ 1 ]. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods not only have a detrimental impact on an individual’s health but also result in significant damage to the healthcare sector, reducing its capacity to respond and recover effectively. This, in turn, leads to a rise in mortality and morbidity rates [ 2 , 3 ]. Disasters directly damage the physical structure of hospitals, clinics, and healthcare centers and indirectly affect the health sector by destroying community infrastructure, such as water, electricity, fuel, transportation, and communication systems. Additionally, disasters can impact healthcare providers and their families [ 4 , 5 ].

Providing essential health services is challenging during disasters because of infrastructure failure and the inefficiency of healthcare centres [ 6 ]. It is evident that the health centres play a pivotal role in alleviating the negative consequences that arise in the aftermath of disasters. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of this vital infrastructures [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Comprehending the health consequences of disasters provides the basis for identifying demands, improving capacity, and providing opportunities for reconstruction and future disaster risk reduction [ 10 ].

The convergence of four seminal accords on disaster risk reduction, development finance, sustainable development, and climate change at the end of 2015 presented a singularly promising opportunity to achieve coherence across related policy domains. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction represents the global policy framework of the United Nations from 2015 to 2030. This represents a significant advance in global policy coherence concerning health, development, and climate change [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. One of the principal objectives of the Sendai Framework is to enhance disaster preparedness for an effective response and “build back better“(BBB) in recovery [ 14 ].

The scope of disaster recovery is broader than that of response. In the context of the health system, recovery is defined as the reconstruction, restoration, and upgrading of the components of a country’s health sector and the main functions of public health, in accordance with the BBB principle and the goals of sustainable development [ 15 ]. For an optimal reconstruction, it is necessary to develop a legal, technical, and comprehensive framework. The success of a reconstruction program depends on an accurate assessment of the damage, loss, and needs of the post-disaster area to determine the approaches, goals, priorities, and measures required for reconstruction [ 2 ].

The post-disaster reconstruction of the health system in developing countries is hindered by some factors, including a lack of knowledge and expertise, limited budget and planning, political competition, fraud, and embezzlement or misuse of social benefits [ 3 , 16 ]. Considering the argument of ‘humanitarian ignorance’, In light of the argument put forth by scholars who refer to this phenomenon as “humanitarian ignorance,“ [ 17 ], it can be argued that this “knowledge” does exist and that it is purposeful ignorance of said knowledge.

In 2008, the European Union, World Bank, and United Nations Development Group implemented a standard post-disaster assessment approach and developed a comprehensive and collaborative post-disaster assessment program [ 18 ]. In damage and loss assessments, experts in each sector calculate post-disaster damage and loss, which are essential in reconstruction programs [ 19 , 20 ].

Chapin et al. (2009) studied the impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on healthcare facilities in southern Peru. They reported that after an earthquake of magnitude 7.9 in Peru, 60% of the health centers in the region were affected to the degree that they were unable to provide client services. This study revealed that reports of damage assessments in a single disaster were sometimes not the same [ 21 ]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. Data analysis revealed that the impaired function of some healthcare centers in the affected areas significantly affected the health needs of the local communities [ 22 ].

Similar to other social sectors, the disaster impacts on the healthcare sector is considerable and is one of the concerns of managers and experts in the healthcare sector. In light of the pivotal role of the health sector in post-disaster response and recovery, as well as in the development of a post-disaster reconstruction program, it is crucial to conduct a thorough assessment of damage and losses incurred following a disaster. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the health sector can serve as a foundation for the creation of a coherent and integrated framework for health reconstruction. The absence of a post-disaster damage and loss assessment program may result in certain requirements being overlooked, the results of which are not deemed acceptable, facilities being allocated on a non-prioritized basis, and there being no basis for monitoring the implementation of plans and activities. Assessment is a demanding and decisive management task that is effective in decision-making, planning, monitoring, handling a program, and taking coherent actions. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment has a direct impact on decision-making, planning, monitoring of responses, and the implementation of recovery operations. Consequently, these assessments must be purposeful and scheduled.

Review objective and research questions

This scoping review was conducted to identify the entities and components of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs in the healthcare sector. The PCC framework, which includes the participants, concepts, and context recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute, was used to develop the research question [ 23 ]. The research question for this scoping review is as follows: what information is available about the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program?

A knowledge gap exists in the field of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To address this issue, the most appropriate methodology for achieving the study’s objective was identified as a scoping review. This systematic scoping review was conducted under the proposed Joanna Briggs Institute method [ 24 ]. The study included the following steps: defining and aligning the research objectives and questions, developing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, describing the planned approach to the evidence search, study selection, data extraction, presentation of the evidence, searching for evidence, selecting the evidence, extracting the evidence, analyzing the evidence, presenting the results, and summarizing the evidence [ 23 ]. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework on 4 June 2022 [ 25 ] and was published in BMJ Open [ 26 ]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR Checklist 1) [ 27 ] checklist was used to report the results of this scoping review.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In keeping with the scoping review methodology, our inclusion criteria (Table  1 ) were broad, and our search was comprehensive in capturing the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program. We included literature reviews, primary empirical articles, case studies, opinion pieces, and editorials published in English or Persian “due to geographical focus, and researcher language skills”. In addition, grey literature related to the study objective, including dissertations, organizational documents, post-disaster assessment reports, and guidelines, was searched and reviewed. Table  2 presents a distribution of studies by location, organization, and document type.

Search strategy

The search strategy was drafted with the help of an experienced informaticist librarian and was further refined through team discussion. Initially, a primary search was conducted on the Google Scholar, PubMed, World Bank, and PreventionWeb websites. The following concepts were extracted from the documents: post-conflict consequences in health systems, disaster impacts on the healthcare sector, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, post-earthquake hospital functionality, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, disaster damage, operational status of healthcare facilities during a hurricane, and the impacts of extreme events. An appropriate search strategy was used for each database (Table  3 ).

Study selection

We searched all English and Persian articles published from 2010 to 2022 on the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Magiran databases. Our search started on 20 January 2022. The search results were imported into Endnote X9 software. After removing the duplicates, J. Miri checked all the remaining titles to remove unrelated documents. The titles and abstracts of the remaining articles were independently examined by two authors (J. Miri and A.R. Raeisi) to reach a common understanding of the selection criteria, discussion of disagreements, and definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining articles were uploaded to Rayyan software to facilitate record screening. The full texts of articles whose abstracts did not meet the exclusion criteria or were ambiguous were reviewed. Discrepancies in inclusion or exclusion decisions were resolved through discussion (G. Atighechian). Finally, the reference lists were checked to identify relevant studies. In the grey literature search, researchers also investigated organizations’ websites related to disaster management, such as the UNDP, World Bank, UNDRR, International Recovery Platform, PreventionWeb, WHO, and FEMA. (Fig.  1 )

Adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from Page et al. [ 47 ].

PRISMA flow diagram of the scoping review process.

Data extraction

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics of the articles and grey literature discussed in this study. General information (title, authors, publication year, study location, and key findings) regarding the questions addressed in this scoping review was extracted from the selected studies. Two independent reviewers extracted all relevant information and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Data analysis and presentation

The documents were organized and analyzed by the researchers using the MAXQDA 2020 software. The data analysis strategy employed at this juncture was a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis is a valuable approach for elucidating experiences, thoughts, or behaviors within a data set. Additionally, researchers have proposed that thematic analysis is an optimal analytical method for novice qualitative researchers due to its transparent and straightforward procedures [ 28 , 29 ].

The search of the related electronic databases led to the identification of 845 articles. After removing the duplicates, 826 studies remained. The titles were screened, and 102 potentially eligible articles were selected. The simultaneous title and abstract review by two independent reviewers led to the selection of 80 articles that were uploaded to Rayyan software. Finally, 41 articles were selected for full-text review. The grey literature search identified 1015 documents, reports, manuals, and guidelines based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the study objectives, and 23 documents were selected for review.

Researchers have classified resources into five categories: articles, books, dissertations, policy documents, and reports. Studies have been conducted in different countries, half of which have been published in the last five years. The findings were categorized into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes according to the research objectives and questions. The main themes, subthemes, and some related codes are presented in (Table  4 ).

This study provides a comprehensive perspective on post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To achieve a common understanding of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector, the researchers first collected definitions and related concepts. Then, organized concepts related to damage and loss assessment teams, damage and loss assessment stages, data collection elements, assessment tools, and programs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the linkages between the healthcare sector and other sectors affected by disasters.

The health system comprises a wide range of organizations, institutions, groups, and individuals in governmental and nongovernmental sectors that policy, produce resources, finance, and provide health services to restore, promote, and maintain public health [ 30 ]. According to the WHO framework, the health system comprises six building blocks; service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, vaccines and technologies, financing, leadership, and governance [ 31 , 32 ]. The realization and promotion of community health and fair cooperation in providing resources are crucial goals of the health system and are considered fundamental in most countries [ 33 ].

The continuity of services is critical in some businesses, such as those in the healthcare sector. However, these trends can be disrupted by disasters [ 34 ]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. The occurrence of this event resulted in a disruption to the continuity of healthcare services. The investigation revealed that the primary causes of the disruption were damage to the infrastructure, including buildings, critical systems, and medical equipment. The results of the study indicated a 15% reduction in healthcare functionality in the affected regions [ 22 ]. In the study by Gufue et al. (2024), the direct economic loss to the health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia was quantified in excess of $511 million. The assessment revealed that 80.6% of health posts, 73.6% of health centres, 80% of primary hospitals, 83.3% of general hospitals and two specialized hospitals were damaged and/or vandalized either fully or in part due to the war [ 35 ]. Therefore, a disaster recovery plan in the healthcare sector is essential for providing necessary measures and minimizing disaster consequences, And international frameworks such as Sendai play an important role in this regard and emphasize the need to develop and implement measures for disaster risk reduction and vulnerability [ 36 , 37 ].

For reconstruction, a reliable post-disaster damage and loss assessment method is required. The diversity of approaches and assessment-related outputs have led to various challenges. A significant obstacle to post-disaster damage and loss assessment is access to consistent, dependable, and detailed data on the impact of disasters. Establishing guidelines for reporting post-disaster damage and loss assessments is necessary to help national and regional institutions collect information in a structured manner [ 38 ]. Accurate data on disaster damage and losses are crucial for effective risk management, including loss accounting, disaster forensics, and risk analysis [ 39 ]. Assessment information is pivotal for effective policy development, resource allocation, and disaster preparedness [ 40 ]. We can improve disaster management and link disaster management science to disaster risk reduction policymaking by using these data [ 38 ].

In the Kermanshah Earthquake Lessons Learned study conducted by Khankeh et al. (2018) in Iran, it was recommended that a standard protocol be established for the receipt of reports from disaster locations in the initial days and weeks following an earthquake. Moreover, the establishment of rapid assessment teams at the local, regional, and national levels, with specific guidelines, was considered a crucial step [ 41 ]. The composition of the assessment team depends on the sector to be assessed. Healthcare sector assessment teams from different disciplines, including public health experts, physicians, epidemiologists, architects, civil engineers, and health economists, can estimate the value of production losses [ 18 , 31 , 42 ].

The post-disaster damage and loss assessment methodology includes pre-disaster baseline data collection, disaster effects, impact analysis, recovery needs estimation, and strategies that recommend appropriate interventions, implementation arrangements, and policies [ 43 ]. Documentation of damage and loss assessments should begin as soon as possible after a disaster [ 44 ]. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment report is a live document that is revised as better data become available [ 45 ]. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment reports should differ according to the assessment stage and type of disaster [ 46 ].

There is the fact that all societies and countries are susceptible to disasters. The primary responsibility for disaster and emergency management is affected by local communities and countries. After a disaster, the healthcare sector faces multiple hazards, limited resources for dealing with them, and high expectations regarding their performance. Multiple stakeholders engage in post-disaster damage and loss assessments and their interventions are guided by various damage and loss assessment methods. Such variations in techniques and related assessment outputs challenge the comparability across assessments and often present conflicting images. Despite the long history of reconstruction in Iran, there are numerous challenges in assessing post-disaster damage and loss. Therefore, there is a need to develop a set of post-disaster damage and loss assessment frameworks, including methodologies and guidelines, for the healthcare sector.

Limited scientific resources for disaster damage assessment in the healthcare sector, access to imperative content, and documentation in the country were limitations of this study. As with all scoping reviews, we did not formally evaluate the quality of the evidence, and because of the varying nature of the studies, only a limited synthesis of results was possible.

In light of the pivotal role of the post-disaster healthcare sector, it is of the utmost importance to develop appropriate post-disaster damage and loss assessment programme that can be adapted to different socio-cultural contexts and varying resources. To date, there have been few studies that have discussed the entities and components of disaster damage and loss assessment programme in the healthcare sector. It was, however, determined that identifying the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program was a necessary step for advancing the healthcare sector in Iran. This review offers a detailed examination of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Pourhosseini SS, Ardalan A, Mehrolhassani MH. Key aspects of Providing Healthcare Services in Disaster Response Stage. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(1):111–8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

UNISDR. Guidance Note on Recovery: Health. 2010. https://www.undrr.org/publication/guidance-note-recovery-health .

World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern M. Implementation guide for health systems recovery in emergencies: transforming challenges into opportunities. Cairo2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336472 .

Kimberley I, Shoaf SJR. Public Health Impact of Disasters: Australian Emergency Management Institute; 2000. https://search.informit.org/doi/ https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.369826620745919 .

Shahpari G, Ashena M, Shahpari M. How earthquakes can affect the Health Sector of the economy? Int J Economic Policy Emerg Economies. 2021;14(1):85–100.

Google Scholar  

Hatami H, Razavi M-MSM, Eftekhar Ardabili MD-MPHH, Majlesi MD-MPHF, Sayed Nozadi MD-MPHM, PhD M. J. Parizadeh. Textbook of Public Health 4th Edition: Arjmand publication; 2019. http://phs.sbmu.ac.ir/uploads/VOLUME_3.htm .

Ardagh MW, Richardson SK, Robinson V, Than M, Gee P, Henderson S, et al. The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2109–15.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Irvin-Barnwell EA, Cruz M, Maniglier-Poulet C, Cabrera J, Rivera Diaz J, De La Cruz Perez R, et al. Evaluating disaster damages and operational status of Health-Care facilities during the emergency response phase of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2020;14(1):80–8.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ochi S, Kato S, Kobayashi KI, Kanatani Y. The Great East Japan Earthquake: analyses of disaster impacts on Health Care clinics. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(3):291–5.

United Nations Development Programme - Headquarters, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Recovery Platform. Guidance notes on recovery: health - Supplementary edition2017.

Carabine E. Revitalising evidence-based policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: lessons from existing International Science partnerships. PLoS Curr. 2015;7.

Aitsi-Selmi A, Egawa S, Sasaki H, Wannous C, Murray V. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, Health, and well-being. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2015;6(2):164–76.

Article   Google Scholar  

Center ADR. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.

United Nations. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 .

United Nations General Assembly. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction (A/71/644). 2016.

Kligerman M, Barry M, Walmer D, Bendavid E. International aid and natural disasters: a pre- and post-earthquake longitudinal study of the healthcare infrastructure in Leogane, Haiti. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92(2):448–53.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fejerskov AM, Clausen ML, Seddig S. Humanitarian ignorance: towards a new paradigm of non-knowledge in digital humanitarianism. Disasters. 2024;48(2):e12609.

Jovel RJM. Mohinder. Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment Guidance Notes: Volume 1. Design and Execution of Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment: World Bank, Washington, DC; 2010. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19047 .

Collaborative EP. Participatory planning guide for post-disaster reconstruction. EPC-Environmental Planning Collaborative, TCG International, LLC.; 2004. pp. 1–22.

Jovel JR, Mudahar MS. Conducting damage and loss assessments after disasters. The World Bank; 2010.

Chapin E, Daniels A, Elias R, Aspilcueta D, Doocy S. Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health service provision in southern Peru. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(4):326–32.

Achour N, Miyajima M. Post-earthquake hospital functionality evaluation: the case of Kumamoto Earthquake 2016. Earthq Spectra. 2020;36(4):1670–94.

Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. 2020.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

Components and entities of post-disaster Damage and loss Assessment Programme in the health sector: a Scoping Review Protocol [Internet]. Center for Open Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NJ3FK .

Miri J, Raeisi AR, Atighechian G, Seyedin H. Developing a conceptual model of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in the Iranian health sector: a qualitative study protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(3):e065521.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.

Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.

Mosadeghrad AM, Rahimi-Tabar P. Health system governance in Iran: a comparative study. Razi J Med Sci. 2019;26(9):10–28.

UNDP. GFDRR, EU. Post-disaster needs assessments guidelines: Volume B - Health. 2014.

Organization WH. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. World Health Organization; 2010.

Haghdoost A, Dehnavieh R, Mehrolhssan MH, Abolhallaje M, Fazaeli AA, Ramezanian M. Future financing scenarios for Iran’s Healthcare System. Arch Iran Med. 2022;25(2):85–90.

Al-Harbi E, Zaghloul SS, editors. Swot analysis on cisco ® high availability virtualization clusters disaster recovery plan. 3rd International Conference on Digital Information Processing and Communications, ICDIPC 2013; 2013: Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (SDIWC).

Gufue ZH, Haftu HK, Alemayehu Y, Tsegay EW, Mengesha MB, Dessalegn B. Damage to the public health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1271028.

De Groeve T, Poljansek K, Ehrlich D. Recording Disaster Losses. Recommendations for a European Research JRC Scientific and Policy reports Joint Research Centre, European Commission. 2013.

Reduction UNISfD. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk reduction 2015. United Nations; 2015.

Corbane C, De Groeve T, Ehrlich D, Poljansek K. A European Framework for Recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data. Isprs J Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 2015;XL–3/W3:277–83.

De Groeve T, Corbane C, Poljanšek K, Ehrlich D. Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in the EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.

Giri S, Risnes K, Uleberg O, Rogne T, Shrestha SK, Nygaard OP, et al. Impact of 2015 earthquakes on a local hospital in Nepal: a prospective hospital-based study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192076.

Khankeh H, Kolivand PH, Beyrami Jam M, Rajabi E. Kermanshah Health Care Services: a lesson learned from Iran’s recent earthquake. Health Emergencies Disasters Q. 2018;3(4):221–33.

World B, European U, United N. Gaza Rapid Damage and needs Assessment, June 2021. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2021.

Book   Google Scholar  

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran UCTiI. Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA): Iran 2019 Floods in Lorestan, Khuzestan, and Golestan Provinces. 2019.

Boisvert S. Disaster recovery: mitigating loss through documentation. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2011;31(2):15–7.

Nepal government G, UNDP. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster needs Assessment Vol. B: Sector Reports; 2015.

Institute NDR. Post-disaster Reconstruction and Rehabilitation National Plan. The National Disaster Management Organization; 2021.

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for financial support.

This work was supported by the Vice-Chancellery of Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran [grant no. 3400686].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Student Research Committee, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Golrokh Atighechian

Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Hesam Seyedin

Health Management and Economics Research Center, Department of Health Services Management, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Ahmad Reza Raeisi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J. Miri contributed to study design, title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, data analysis, writing the first draft of the manuscript, and subsequent revisions of the manuscript. A.R. Raeisi contributed to study design, literature search and project management. G. Atighechian was also involved in drafting the abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and writing the manuscript at all stages. H. Seyedin contributed to the study design and drafting of the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Reza Raeisi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran (IR.MUI.NUREMA.REC.1400.171).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Miri, J., Atighechian, G., Seyedin, H. et al. Components and entities of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in healthcare sector: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 24 , 2417 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5

Download citation

Received : 25 March 2024

Accepted : 18 July 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Healthcare sector
• Health planning

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]