literature reviews in social research

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Guide Owner

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

• EMU Library
• Research Guides

Social Research Methods

• Literature Reviews
• Welcome. Start Here.
• Social Problem Topics
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Reference Works for Sociology
• Search for News Articles
• Find Articles by tracking citations
• Locating Full Text
• Citing Sources in Sociology

What is a Literature Review?

Literature reviews in the social sciences take a slightly different approach than in the humanities (literature, philosophy, history, etc.) or the sciences (biology, physics, etc.).  This guide focuses ONLY on the social sciences (anthropology, criminology, political science, sociology, etc.).

'literature'  - commonly people use this word for creative written works like novels; but in academics the word 'literature' is also used to mean any collection or body of written work, including research articles and books.

'review' - commonly people use the word review for evaluations, like a movie review; but in academics the word is used broadly to mean a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes literature to give an overview of theory and research on a topic.

Putting it together:

In the social sciences, a literature review is a paper or section of a paper that summarizes and synthesizes. To summarize is to describe the main arguments and conclusions. To synthesize is to compare, contrast, highlight relevant points, relate to ongoing trends or problems, and generally to draw out an argument or position based on the literature being reviewed.

A literature review is not a book review! Book reviews are articles that review a single book title. A literature sums up and analyzes a set of books or articles on a theme.

Literature reviews can be a section of a longer paper or book, or they can stand alone. Social scientists generally include a short review of relevant literature in their research papers to demonstrate how their own research fits into ongoing debates. Longer stand-alone review papers are published to give a picture of the current state of research.  The Annual Reviews publication series are classic examples of stand-alone reviews.

• Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Critical reviews of primary research literature in the sciences and social sciences. EMU access does not include the most recent 5 years.
• example of lit review articles

Guides on writing literature reviews:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• The Literature Review - USC Libraries
• Literature Reviews: An Overview - NCSU libraries

More kinds of review articles

Review articles are generally a kind of secondary source.  That is, they are not presenting empirical findings from a single research project.  They are, however, original , in the sense that the author is using skill, knowledge and creativity to compile and write something new about the material (books, articles) under review.

There are several kinds of review articles.  Book Reviews are a special case, because sometimes they are written by experts but sometimes they are written by journalists or just fans of the book. Typically, a book review describes the main contents of the book, how it relates to existing ideas or works, and gives a judgment as to its value to various readers.  Some book reviews are just a paragraph, but the reviews in scholarly journals can be several pages.  In Esearch, you can limit search results to book reviews only, or screen book reviews out of the results, by clicking into the left-hand column under Content Type . 

Stand-alone Review Articles or Literature Reviews are common in the social sciences. The authors of these articles are experts, usually scholars. The review articles will address a current topic, lay out the main theories or ideas, recent developments in research, and suggest where further research is needed. Typical review articles are published in series such as:

In the health fields, Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses are articles that go a step further. Not only do they summarize and research on a topic, but they carefully analyze the research and may attempt to draw conclusions based on the compiled studies.  For more on these kinds of reviews, see:

• What is a Systematic Review? (Curtin Univ) This guide distinguishes several different kinds of reviews, such as literature review, systematic review, scoping review, etc.
• What is a systematic review? (Cochrane)
• Systematic Reviews (EPPI centre)

Finding related articles

Whether for a literature review or a research paper, the analysis is much easier if it is based on a cluster of related articles and not a random assortment.  Finding articles that are related rarely happens just by doing a single search, but it is not hard. Here are some approaches:

• Start with a textbook, reference book, dissertation or review article and collect the citations of the authors who are mentioned or cited as part of the debate.  Make sure to collect works from all points of view.
• Use citation tracking to see how scholars mention each others' work, whether as examples, evidence or in order to debate.  See below for more on citation tracking.
• << Previous: Social Problem Topics
• Next: Selecting sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 7, 2024 2:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/c.php?g=188066

Social Work Research: Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Finding Scholarly Articles
• Citation Searching
• Evaluating Sources This link opens in a new window
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence-Based This link opens in a new window
• Finding Instruments This link opens in a new window
• Writing & Citing

Using A Literature Review

A literature review is a very practical part of the research process.  It's how you build on other research in the field - identify best practices and tools and learn what doesn't work.  The resources on the page are here to help you structure you literature review so it's as useful as possible.  

Also take a look at any literature reviews you find as you search for articles - in addition to content and further references they'll also provide helpful structural hints. 

• Social Work Literature Review Guidelines Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study, in this case, social work.
• Considerations in Writing a Literature Review This article will briefly outline key points for you to keep in mind when writing literature reviews for social work.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach The purpose of this article is to present a step-by-step guide to facilitate understanding by presenting the critical elements of the literature review process. While reference is made to different types of literature reviews, the focus is on the traditional or narrative review that is undertaken, usually either as an academic assignment or part of the research process.

Conducting a Literature Review & Other Research Methods

What is a Literature Review?

"Literature reviews are systematic syntheses of previous work around a particular topic. Nearly all scholars have written literature reviews at some point; such reviews are common requirements for class projects or as part of theses, are often the first section of empirical papers, and are sometimes written to summarize a field of study. Given the increasing amount of literature in many fields, reviews are critical in synthesizing scientific knowledge." - Encyclopedia of Research Design

• APA Style Sample Papers (seventh edition) by the APA
• Sample APA Paper (lit. review begins page 3)
• Dissertations and Theses Full-Text Global Search here for examples of literature reviews from masters and doctoral theses.

Thinking About A Literature Review

Literature Reviews: An Overview

Additional How-To Guides

• CSU, Chico Office of Graduate Studies - Thesis Assistance Instructions, policies, and guidelines for graduate studies theses/projects.
• CSU, Chico Writing Center Make a one-on-one appointment with a writing tutor to help with your writing assignments.
• Learn How to Write a Review of the Literature University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Literature Review: An Overview for Graduate Students Video overview by North Carolina State University Libraries
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide University of Connecticut University Libraries
• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: Evidence-Based >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 9:49 AM
• URL: https://simmons.libguides.com/SSWResearch

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 August 21, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Social Work Literature Review Guidelines

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.

Literature reviews are designed to do two things: 1) give your readers an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic or idea and 2) demonstrate how your research fits into the larger field of study, in this case, social work.

Unlike annotated bibliographies which are lists of references arranged alphabetically that include the bibliographic citation and a paragraph summary and critique for each source, literature reviews can be incorporated into a research paper or manuscript. You may quote or paraphrase from the sources, and all references to sources should include in-text parenthetical citations with a reference list at the end of the document. Sometimes, however, an instructor may require a separate literature review document and will have specific instructions for completing the assignment.

Below you will find general guidelines to consider when developing a literature review in the field of social work. Because social work is a social science field, you will most likely be required to use APA style. Please see our APA materials for information on creating parenthetical citations and reference lists.

1. Choose a variety of articles that relate to your subject, even if they do not directly answer your research question. You may find articles that loosely relate to the topic, rather than articles that you find using an exact keyword search. At first, you may need to cast a wide net when searching for sources.

For example: If your research question focuses on how people with chronic illnesses are treated in the workplace, you may be able to find some articles that address this specific question. You may also find literature regarding public perception of people with chronic illnesses or analyses of current laws affecting workplace discrimination.

2. Select the most relevant information from the articles as it pertains to your subject and your purpose. Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to demonstrate how your research question fits into a larger field of study.

3. Critically examine the articles. Look at methodology, statistics, results, theoretical framework, the author's purpose, etc. Include controversies when they appear in the articles.

For example: You should look for the strengths and weaknesses of how the author conducted the study. You can also decide whether or not the study is generalizable to other settings or whether the findings relate only to the specific setting of the study. Ask yourself why the author conducted the study and what he/she hoped to gain from the study. Look for inconsistencies in the results, as well.

4. Organize your information in the way that makes most sense. Some literature reviews may begin with a definition or general overview of the topic. Others may focus on another aspect of your topic. Look for themes in the literature or organize by types of study.

For example: Group case studies together, especially if all the case studies have related findings, research questions, or other similarities.

5. Make sure the information relates to your research question/thesis. You may need to explicitly show how the literature relates to the research question; don't assume that the connection is obvious.

6. Check to see that you have done more than simply summarize your sources. Your literature review should include a critical assessment of those sources. For more information, read the Experimental Psychology - Writing a Literature Review handout for questions to think about when reading sources.

7. Be sure to develop questions for further research. Again, you are not simply regurgitating information, but you are assessing and leading your reader to questions of your own, questions and ideas that haven't been explored yet or haven't been addressed in detail by the literature in the field.

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

Chapter 5: The Literature Review

5.1 The Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of everything that has been written about a particular topic, theory, or research question. The word “literature” means “sources of information”. The literature will inform you about the research that has already been conducted on your chosen subject. This is important because we do not want to repeat research that has already been done unless there is a good reason for doing so (i.e., examining a new development in this area or testing a theory with a new population, or even just seeing if the research can be reproduced). A literature review usually serves as a background for a larger work (e.g., as part of a research proposal), or it may stand on its own. Much more than a simple list of sources, an effective literature review analyzes and synthesizes information about key themes or issues.

Purpose of a Literature Review

The literature review involves an extensive study of research publications, books and other documents related to the defined problem. The study is important because it advises you, as a researcher, whether or not the problem you identified has already been solved by other researchers. It also confirms the status of the problem, techniques that have been used by other researchers to investigate the problem, and other related details.

A literature review goes beyond the search for information; it includes the identification and articulation of relationships between existing literature and your field of research. The literature review enables the researcher to discover what material exists about a topic and to understand the relationship between the various contributions. This will enable the researcher to determine the contributions of each source (books, articles, etc.) to the topic. A literature review also enables the researcher to identify and (if possible) resolve contradictions, and determine research gaps and/or unanswered questions.

Even though the nature of the literature review may vary with different types of studies, the basic purposes remain constant and could be summarized as follows:

• Provide a context for your research.
• Justify the research you are proposing.
• Ensure that your proposed research has not been carried out by another person (and if you find it has, then your literature review should specify why replication is necessary).
• Show where your proposed research fits into the existing body of knowledge.
• Enable the researcher to learn from previous theories on the subject.
• Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously.
• Highlight flaws in previous research.
• Outline gaps in previous research.
• Show how your proposed research can add to the understanding and knowledge of the field.
• Help refine, refocus, or even move the topic in a new direction.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

•  Yeshiva Home
•  Ask Us! - Live Chat
• Email us anytime
• Chat with us
• Schedule a Research Consultation
• Feedback & Suggestions

Social Work Research Guide: Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Outside Sources
• Search Techniques
• Literature Review
• Writing Help
• Using E-books This link opens in a new window
• Citations This link opens in a new window

Literature Review Overview

NCSU. (n.d.). “Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students.” [YouTube]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/t2d7y_r65HU

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a systematic review of the published literature on a specific topic or research question.  The literature review is designed to analyze-- not just summarize-- scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents the literature that provides background information on your topic and shows a correspondence between those writings and your research question.

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.).  Retrieved from  http://pitt.libguides.com/c.php?g=210872&p=1391698

• Social Work Literature Review Guidelines

Planning your literature review

Planning your literature review.

Writing a literature review will take time to gather and analyze the research relevant to your topic, so it best to start early and give yourself enough time to gather and analyze your sources.  The process of writing a literature review usually covers the following steps:

• Define your Research question
• Plan your approach to your research and your review
• Search the Literature
• Analyze the material you’ve found
• Manage the results of your research
• Write your Review

Defining Your Research Question

One of the hardest parts of a literature review is developing a good research question.  You don't want a research question that is so broad it encompasses too many research areas and can't be reasonably answered. 

Defining your topic may require an initial review of literature to get a sense of the scope about your topic.   Select a topic of interest, and do a preliminary search to see what kinds of research is being done and what is trending in that area.  This will give you a better sense of the subject and help you focus your research question.

In specifying your topic or research question, you should think about setting appropriate limitations on the research you are seeking. Limiting, for example, by time, personnel, gender, age, location, nationality etc. results in a more focused and meaningful topic. 

Using an example from the Duke University Writing Studio, you may start with a general question: 

Why did the chicken cross the road ?  This question is so general that you could be gathering relevant research for days. 

A more precise research question might be: 

What are some of the environmental factors that occurred in New York City between November and December 2017 that would cause a chicken to cross Amsterdam Avenue at 185th Street?   This research question is specific about a number of variables like time, geography, etc.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

USC. (n.d.). Retrieved from  http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/literaturereview

• When working on a literature review, it's a good idea to save your research in a citation manager such as RefWorks or Zotero.
• If a book or article is not available in the YU Libraries, it can be ordered through Interlibrary Loan.  You should never need to pay for your information.
• The Dissertations & Theses Global database is a good place to start.  You will see what research has already been done on your topic.
• For more detailed information, see below:
• Systematic Literature Searching in Social Work: A Practical Guide with Database Appraisal
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples
• Literature Reviews (From UNC College of Arts & Sciences)
• The Literature Review: a Few Tips on Conducting It
• Conducting a Literature Review: A Brief Interactive Tutorial

Books on Literature Review

These books can be found on reserve at the Pollack Library:

• << Previous: Search Techniques
• Next: Writing Help >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://library.yu.edu/wssw

• Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Library
• Albert Einstein College of Medicine Library
• Yeshiva University Museum
• Offices & Services
• Editor Login
• Staff Guide
• © 2020 Yeshiva University Libraries
• Terms And Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Statement

Literature Reviews in the Social Sciences

• Get started
• Search tips
• Select Databases
• Organize your sources
• Evaluate your sources
• Structure your literature review

The basic organization

Introduction:  layout the general structure of your lit review & how it will be organized

Body:  The body needs to be well-organized (see box below)

Conclusion:   Sum up the 'state of the literature'.  Expose what is lacking and how your research can contribute.  How will you move the conversation forward?

Structuring the body

There are a couple different ways to structure the body of your literature review.  Here are some ideas:

• Thematic:  organize by themes or sub-topics within your general topic
• Methodological:  by different methodologies or approaches to the subject
• Argumentative:  organize by the different arguments surrounding and composing your topic
• Theoretical:  organize by the different theories that have been used to explain a topic

Things to keep in mind...

• Use your sources to support your argument and make a point, but don't forget to keep your own voice.  This is your research paper and your argument.  
• That said, it's also important to see how your sources play off of and are in conversation with each other.  
• Don't take what the authors say at face value--this is your opportunity to be critical of their research design & conclusions.
• Don't rely too much on secondary sources--make sure to include primary research and data when appropriate.
• << Previous: Evaluate your sources
• Last Updated: Jul 9, 2024 9:51 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/litreviews

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

ChatPDF Showdown: SciSpace Chat PDF vs. Adobe PDF Reader

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2024

Knowledge and practices of youth awareness on death and dying in school settings: a systematic scoping review protocol

• Emilie Allard 1 , 2 ,
• Clémence Coupat 1 , 2 ,
• Sabrina Lessard 3 , 4 ,
• Noémie Therrien 5 ,
• Claire Godard-Sebillotte 6 , 7 , 8 ,
• Dimitri Létourneau 1 , 2 ,
• Olivia Nguyen 2 , 9 , 10 ,
• Andréanne Côté 2 , 9 , 10 ,
• Gabrielle Fortin 11 , 12 ,
• Serge Daneault 9 , 13 ,
• Maryse Soulières 3 , 14 ,
• Josiane Le Gall 4 , 15 , 16 &
• Sylvie Fortin 4 , 15 , 17  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  220 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Awareness-raising and education have been identified as strategies to counter the taboo surrounding death and dying. As the favoured venue for youth education, schools have an essential role to play in informing future decision-makers. However, school workers are not comfortable addressing the subjects of death and dying, which, unlike other social issues, have no guidelines to influence awareness of these subjects in youth.

To systematically explore the knowledge and practices on raising awareness about death and dying in schools, the viewpoints of the people involved (young people, school workers; parents), and the factors that either promote or hinder awareness practices.

The scoping review method of Levac and Colquhoun (Implement Sci 5(1):69, 2010) will be used. Using a combination of keywords and descriptors, a body of literature will be identified through 15 databases and through grey literature searches, manual searches, consultation of key collaborators, and the list of relevant literature. Publications since 2009 will be selected if they relate directly to awareness-raising about death and dying in schools. Writings will be selected and extracted by two independent people, and conflicts resolved by consensus. The extracted data will be synthesized using a thematic analysis method. Experts from a variety of disciplines (health sciences, humanities, social sciences, and education) will be consulted to enhance the interpretation of the preliminary results. Results will be presented in narrative form and will include tables and diagrams.

The results of this scoping review will contribute to the development of educational practices adapted to young people and to the identification of future avenues of research on awareness of death and dying.

Peer Review reports

The recent report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death [ 1 ] reveals the uneasy relationship between the twenty-first century society, particularly in affluent countries, with death and dying, i.e. the process surrounding the death of a person, including the idea of our own death. The authors of the report emphasize that there is still much to be done to reverse people’s often negative representations of death and dying and the lack of knowledge, discomfort, anxieties, and sometimes even taboos regarding these issues. Thus, although death and dying are common and inescapable realities for all human beings, addressing these phenomena openly in Western society can be difficult, particularly since the subject is often emotionally laden and sometimes considered taboo [ 1 , 2 ]. This difficulty is even more acute when dealing with children and adolescents, Footnote 1 where factors such as age, developmental stage, personality, or religious beliefs [ 3 , 4 , 5 ] can shape their understanding of dying and death. What’s more, adults are afraid to broach these subjects with young people for fear of causing them suffering and anxiety as well as the fact that they may have their own anxiety about the subject [ 3 , 6 , 7 ].

Yet researchers have shown that young people construct their own understanding of these phenomena, within the societal and cultural context in which they grow up [ 8 ]. Young people come into contact with death and dying in various ways. They may experience bereavement directly, through the death of a close relative (grandparent, parent, friend) or companion animal. Death is also represented in the world of television, media, cartoons [ 9 , 10 , 11 ], books [ 3 , 5 ] and video games [ 12 ].

One way to counter the taboo surrounding death and dying is through awareness-raising and education [ 1 , 13 ]. Death literacy is considered to stem from experiences and learnings about death and dying that help improve individuals’ and communities’ ability to act in these situations [ 14 ]. To become death literate, it is important to support educational initiatives on the subject of death, so young people—considered as social actors and citizens of tomorrow—can be better equipped to face death, understand the situations and care involved with it, and participate in accompanying and supporting those going through these situations.

As the favoured venue for educating youth, schools can play a key role in death literacy. During a talk on end-of-life issues given by the principal investigator (PI) to elementary school children, it was observed that they appreciated being able to openly discuss their views on death and dying, which are largely influenced by their personal experiences (e.g. death of a grandparent) and social interactions (e.g. social media, friends). On the other hand, school workers say they are ill-equipped to tackle this issue with youth, not knowing what to say nor how to approach it [ 15 ]. In a socially and culturally diverse environment that includes young people of different origins, beliefs, migratory statuses, and life experiences, talking about death can be even more sensitive, since it not only involves the abovementioned taboo but also a plurality of cultural and religious beliefs surrounding these final moments of life [ 16 ]. School workers also report being concerned about how parents will react to this topic, which is considered a social taboo and is influenced by the cultural aspects, beliefs, and values held by each family.

To our knowledge, there are no resources for school workers to initiate a dialogue with students about death and dying. However, other social issues (e.g. sexual and gender identity) have been incorporated into the educational curricula in some countries, drawing on government and international guidelines [ 17 ]. While ad hoc initiatives concerning death and dying are being produced [ 18 ], the state of knowledge and practices on raising awareness about these subjects among school-aged young people needs to be clarified. This would make it possible to identify and implement actions that could support the training of school workers in addressing death and dying with youth as well as practices contributing to the death literacy of our future decision-makers.

Goals of the review

To guide the development of cross-sectoral (education, health, and social sciences) death literacy interventions for children and staff in school settings, this systematic scoping review will explore the state of knowledge and practices in raising awareness of death and dying among young people in schools, the viewpoints of the people involved (young people, school workers, parents), and the factors that promote or hinder such awareness-raising. In fact, this type of review will make it possible to conduct an extensive, exhaustive, and comprehensive examination and analysis, including publications of a variety of methods and grey literature. This thereby enables the identification of practices that can inform the development of awareness-raising interventions.

Levac [ 19 ] scoping review method will be used. This method comprises six steps: (1) identify the review questions, (2) identify the literature, (3) select the literature, (4) extract data, (5) report the result, and (6) consult stakeholders.

This protocol is registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) [ 20 ] and based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) (see supplementary file 1). As the scoping review is carried out iteratively, this protocol will serve as the starting point for documenting adjustments and changes to the method.

Step 1: Identify the review questions

The following questions will guide the scoping review:

How do we raise awareness on death and dying in the school settings?

What are the views of young people, parents, and school workers on raising awareness about death and dying in the school settings?

What factors help or hinder this awareness-raising in the school settings?

Step 2: Identify the literature

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Literature that meets the population-concept-context (PCC) criteria will be included [ 21 ].

Two types of population have been identified to answer the questions posed by the scoping review. The main population is youth in schools, i.e. children or teenagers attending elementary or high schools, who are the targets of awareness-raising practices.

Within the selected literature, the scoping review process will also focus on extracting the viewpoints of the people involved with these young people, notably parents, teachers, and other practitioners in school environments (nurse, principal, etc.). These make up our secondary population.

The central concept of this scoping review refers to raising awareness of death and dying, i.e. arousing interest and offering relevant, scientifically informed information to support individual and social reflection on the subject. This concept thus intersects with death education and literacy. As previously mentioned, death literacy results from individuals’ experiences and learnings, enabling them to project themselves into the future (prospection), to better understand and improve experiences around death and dying [ 14 ].

Considering the plurality of terms used to define awareness-raising, education, and literacy on death and dying, the literature include in this scoping review must report on how young people are exposed to and led to reflect on these concepts in a school setting. Dying refers to the physical, psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual processes that lead to a person’s death [ 22 ]. This concept thus incorporates care and practices, as well as the losses and bereavement associated with this period of human existence. Therefore, are included the publications on the full range of end-of-life care, including palliative care, end-of-life care, medical aid in dying, and assisted suicide. Death, the cessation of vital functions, marks the end of life and thus also the end of the dying process. As death and dying are universal social phenomena, no restrictions are placed on health status, context (natural disaster, war, other tragedies, etc.), or the age of the deceased. However, the following types of publications are excluded: those on suicide prevention, those on serious health conditions in which death or the end of life is not a central issue (e.g. chronic illness), and those discussing bereavement not related to death (e.g. divorce).

Publications will be considered if they deal with raising awareness about death and dying explicitly and exclusively in a school setting. Given the differences in educational structures between countries, the school settings included will be all elementary and secondary education environments (or their equivalents). Excluded will be publications about informal education settings (e.g. family, daycare), postsecondary education settings, and activities taking place outside the institutional framework of a school (e.g. extracurricular or community activities).

Type of records

The search strategy will be limited to publication in English or French, but without restriction on the place of study. Over the last few decades, the evolution of technology has led to changes in teaching methods in Western societies. The number of writings on technology in education has boomed since 2009, reflecting the implementation and adaptation of the school environment to the digital age, the development of information technologies, the introduction of the Internet in various communities, the development of distance learning, and generational changes [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. To ensure that this search reflects the challenges of contemporary social, pedagogical, and societal change, only publications from January 1, 2009, onwards will be included.

All types of literature will be considered, including primary studies of various designs (e.g. experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative, mixed), literature reviews (e.g. meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews), grey literature (e.g. theses, research reports, models of educational practice), and theoretical publication dealing specifically with the subject of raising young people’s awareness of dying and death in the school environment. The following are excluded: blogs, media entries, personal opinions, book reviews, letters to the editor, editorials, conference abstracts, and research protocols.

Step 3: Select the literature

Information sources.

Four categories of information sources will be used to identify the literature.

Databases : The following databases will be surveyed: CINAHL Complete (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) (Ovid), EBM (Evidence-Based Medicine) Reviews Cochrane (Ovid), JBI EBP (Evidence-Based Practice) Database (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Global Health (OVID), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Social Sciences Abstracts (EBSCO), Family Studies Abstracts (EBSCO), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), Social Work Abstracts (EBSCO), Erudit, CAIRN, and PubPsy.

Grey literature : A grey literature search will be conducted systematically in the following databases: Dissertations & Theses Global (ProQuest) and Google Scholar.

Reference searching : The reference list of the publications included in the review will be examined to find other relevant sources. The same will be done with the tables of contents of journals that have published key publications.

Key authors and collaborators : The key authors and collaborators to this project will be contacted by email to identify unindexed literature or unpublished practice guidelines, to verify the completeness of the search strategy.

Search strategy

In collaboration with a health sciences librarian, a literature search strategy was developed using a combination of the three concepts (see Table  1 ): (1) death and dying, (2) youth, and (3) school. Initially developed for the CINAHL-Complete (EBSCO) database, the search strategy was subsequently adapted for the other databases. The optimization of the search strategy by descriptors and keywords took place over a 4-month period, between January and May 2023. Keywords are searched for in titles, abstracts, and keywords, to identify publications not indexed in database thesauri. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used for MEDLINE are presented in Table  1 , and supplementary file 2 presents all the search strategies used.

Here is the final strategy for MEDLINE database: (((exp Death/ or Palliative care/ or Terminal care/ or bereavement/ or grief/ or exp Hospice Care/ or exp Hospices/ or exp Euthanasia/ or Suicide, Assisted/ or Attitude to Death/ or Funeral Rites/) or ((Death* or Dying or Palliati* or Hospice* or Euthanasia or Bereav* or Bereft or Grief or Grieving or Mourning or Funeral* or ((Terminal* adj1 (care OR ill*)) or (suicide adj2 assist*)) or "End of life" or "Supportive care").ab,kf,ti.)) AND ((Child/ or Adolescent/) or ((Youth* or Child* or Boy* or Girl* or Kid or Kids or Adolescen* or Teen*).ab,kf,ti.)) AND ((Schools/ or Students/ or School Teachers/ or Teaching/ or exp Curriculum/) or (School* or Kindergarten* or Curriculum* or Teacher* or Pupil* or ((Education or Student*) adj1 (Primary or Secondary or Elementary)).ab,kf,ti.)) AND (limit to yr = "2009—2023")).

Study records

Data management.

The literature obtained through this search strategy will be imported into the Covidence systematic review assistance tool (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd., Melbourne, Australia), which removes duplicates and allows the literature selection process to be done independently by team members.

Selection process

To calibrate the selection process and define the exclusion criteria, a committee, made up of several members of the research team, will select 15% of the literature randomly chosen. Selection tools will be produced following this calibration process, and the rest of the selection will be carried out by four members. The selection process will begin with a reading of each title and abstract. To be included in this first stage, a publication must be independently accepted by two people. Conflicts will be discussed and resolved by consensus, if necessary, involving a team member from outside the selection process.

The second stage of the selection process is the full-text review by two independent team members. Using five full texts, chosen for their differences (e.g. type of records, designs), a calibration process will be undergone by several team members to clarify inclusion and exclusion reasons. At this stage, reasons for exclusion will be documented. Publications deemed uncertain, and conflicts will again be discussed by the selection team, to reach a consensus resolution. A unique identifier will be assigned to the publications included at the end of the selection process.

Step 4: Extract data

As for the selection process, the extraction will be carried out by a subgroup of the research team after a calibration process to fine-tune the extraction tool. The calibration process will be the extraction of two publications by the team members involved in the extraction process to establish agreement. After the calibration process, each publication will be extracted by one person, and the extraction will be validated by another team member. Uncertainties will be discussed as a team. Using a template built in Covidence, the following data will be extracted, if mentioned, and depending on the nature of the selected publication.

General data: Title, publication year, authors’ names, discipline of first author, country, type of writing (e.g. literature review, primary study, practice summary), purpose, and objectives

Theoretical data: The philosophical stance and frame of reference guiding the project or the practice

Data on interventions/practices: Type of awareness-raising practice (e.g. conference presentation, curriculum), characteristics (e.g. time, subjects), barriers and facilitators, people involved, and their characteristics

Methodological data: Research design, setting, sample (number, inclusion, and exclusion criteria), participant characteristics (e.g. age, grade), data collection and analysis methods, strengths, and limitations identified by the authors

Results data: Various stakeholders’ viewpoints on awareness-raising practices, influencing factors, consequences or impacts of the practice, and suggestions for improvement

Assessing the methodological quality of the selected literature is not a required step according to Levac [ 19 ]. In this scoping review, methodological quality will not be assessed, due to the expected diversity of publications from both research and practice models. Nevertheless, the data extracted, methods used, and transferability of the practices reported will be considered critically. During the consultation phase, partners and collaborators will be invited to comment on the results.

Step 5: Report the results

The selection process will be illustrated using a diagram from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [ 26 ]. The extracted data will be analysed using the content analysis method of Miles and Huberman [ 27 ], which comprises three steps: (1) condensing the data (coding), (2) finding similarities and differences, and (3) drawing conclusions (identifying themes and subthemes). The results will be presented in narrative form, integrating results from a variety of publications, with tables and graphs to identify the specific features of each. The presentation of the results will answer the three research questions.

Step 6: Consult stakeholders

The sixth step is deemed optional by the method designers, but given the nature of our scoping review, a great deal of time will be spent consulting external parties to identify awareness-raising practices. First, project partners and collaborators will be consulted to identify additional or unpublished texts on raising youth awareness of death and dying. The list of identified references, together with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, will be shared with them so they can suggest additional references, particularly from the grey literature. When a first version of the result synthesis is produced, it will be shared with them to obtain their view, given their experience with and expertise on the subject. Specific questions will be sent to them in writing (email) or via a telephone discussion with a member of the research team. These consultations will enhance the interpretation of the results.

To the best of our knowledge, no publication exists to guide the development of awareness-raising practices on death and dying in schools. This scoping review hopes to identify promising practices along with the factors influencing youth awareness-raising and the challenges associated with such practices. This project is also in line with the recommendations of the recent report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death [ 1 ], which stresses the importance of educating the population in order to transform the social view of death and dying and to recognize these phenomenon as integral parts of the human experience. The results can then be used to guide school staff in setting up educational activities in line with children’s age and development stage. The project’s conclusions will offer concrete recommendations to decision-makers in educational environments and governments on how to incorporate these themes into the educational pathways of tomorrow’s citizens.

The limitations of this scoping review include the lack of assessment of the quality of the selected literature, which may influence the recommendations that emerge. Nevertheless, the aim of this scoping review is to consider the state of knowledge and practices in the field of awareness-raising of death and dying in school settings, which does not require an assessment of the quality of the literature reviewed. The combination of multiple sources of information and types of writings is a challenge for such a systematic review but is also a source of richness. In addition to using a systematic method and complying with the PRISMA-ScR recommendations, the strengths of this scoping review lie in the quality and diversity of the research team, which includes several researchers with cross-sectoral expertise (education, health, humanities, and social sciences) complementary to the study, as well as experience in carrying out systematic knowledge synthesis. The team works closely with a librarian and with local and international collaborators and partners carrying out awareness-raising activities among the target population.

Availability of data and materials

See OSF registration:  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EHY8T .

Hereinafter referred to as “young people” or “youth”, with the aim of being inclusive, without any judgements about age

Sallnow L, Smith R, Ahmedzai SH, Bhadelia A, Chamberlain C, Cong Y, et al. Report of the Lancet Commission on the value of death: bringing death back into life. Lancet. 2022;399(10327):837–84.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fortin S, Le Gall J. Présentation: fin de vie et mourir contemporains. Anthropol Soc. 2021;45(1–2):15–24.

Google Scholar  

Longbottom S, Slaughter V. Sources of children’s knowledge about death and dying. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;373(1754):20170267.

Article   Google Scholar  

McClement S, Stenekes S. Comment parler d’une maladie grave à un enfant ou à un adolescent. Portail Palliatif Canadien; 2023. Available from: https://www.virtualhospice.ca/fr_CA/Main+Site+Navigation/Home/Topics/Topics/Communication/Talking+with+Children+and+Youth.aspx .

Mahon MM. Death in the lives of children. In: Talwar V, Harris PL, Schleifer M, editors. Children’s understanding of death: from biological to religious conceptions. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 61–97.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hanna JR, McCaughan E, Semple CJ. Challenges and support needs of parents and children when a parent is at end of life: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2019;33(8):1017–44.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rapa E, Hanna JR, Mayland CR, Mason S, Moltrecht B, Dalton LJ. Experiences of preparing children for a death of an important adult during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e053099.

Ahmadi F, Ristiniemi J, Linblad I, Schiller L. Perceptions of death among children in Sweden. Int J Child Spirit. 2019;24(4):415–33.

Rabatel A, Florea M-L. Re-présentations de la mort dans les médias d’information. Quest Commun. 2011;19:7–28.

Le Guay D. Représentation actuelle de la mort dans nos sociétés: Les différents moyens de l’occulter. Études sur la mort. 2008;134(2):115–23.

Julier-Costes M. Le paradigme du déni social de la mort à l’épreuve des séries télévisées. Mise en scène et mise en sens de la mort. Études sur la mort. 2011;139(1):145–63.

Ernst G, Bergeron P, Laflamme D. Mort, jeux vidéo et mondes virtuels. Frontières. 2016;28(2).  https://doi.org/10.7202/1040191ar .

Graham-Wisener L, Toner P, Leonard R, Groarke JM. Validation of the Death Literacy Index and benchmarking of death literacy level in a representative UK population sample. BMC Palliative Care. Preprint.

Noonan K, Horsfall D, Leonard R, Rosenberg J. Developing death literacy. Prog Palliat Care. 2016;24(1):31–5.

Talwar V. Talking to children about death in educational settings. In: Talwar V, Harris PL, Schleifer M, editors. Children’s understanding of death: from biological to religious conceptions. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 98–115.

Hirsch S, Audet G, Turcotte M. Vivre ensemble. Aborder les sujets sensibles avec les élèves: Centre d’intervention pédagogique en contexte de diversité. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeois; 2015. Available from: https://www.cipcd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CSMB_-Guide_sujets-sensibles_final..pdf .

Martino W. Supporting transgender students and gender-expansive education in schools: investigating policy, pedagogy, and curricular implications. Teach Coll Rec. 2022;124(8):3–16.

Papazian-Zohrabian G, Mamprin C, Lemire V, Turpin-Samson A. Prendre en compte l’expérience pré-, péri- et post-migratoire des élèves réfugiés afin de favoriser leur accueil et leur expérience socioscolaire. Alterstice. 2018;8(2):101–16.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

Knowledge and practices of youth awareness on death and dying in school settings: protocol registration. Open Science Framework. 2023.  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EHY8T .

Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for evidence synthesis. Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIRM-19-01 .

Kellehear A. On dying and human suffering. Palliat Med. 2009;23(5):388–97.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chauhan S. A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Comput Educ. 2017;105:14–30.

Rahmatullah AS, Mulyasa E, Syahrani S, Pongpalilu F, Putri RE. Digital era 40: the contribution to education and student psychology. Linguist Cult Rev. 2022;6(S3):89–107.

Hashim H. Application of technology in the digital era education. Int J Res Couns Educ. 2018;2(1):1.

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.

Miles M, Huberman M, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. 3rd ed. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 2014. p. 263.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Assia Mourid, Health Sciences Librarian at the Université de Montréal, for her help in building the search strategy. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Mélanie Vachon and Geneviève Audet in drafting the project’s funding protocol.

The authors would like to thank the Réseau québécois de recherche en soins palliatifs et de fin de vie (RQSPAL) for the funding granted.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Emilie Allard, Clémence Coupat & Dimitri Létourneau

Research Center, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS NIM), Montréal, QC, Canada

Emilie Allard, Clémence Coupat, Dimitri Létourneau, Olivia Nguyen & Andréanne Côté

Centre for Research and Expertise in Social Gerontology, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux Centre-Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (CIUSSS-CCOMTL), Montréal, QC, Canada

Sabrina Lessard & Maryse Soulières

Department of Anthropology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Sabrina Lessard, Josiane Le Gall & Sylvie Fortin

Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Noémie Therrien

Division of Geriatric Medicine, McGill University Health Centre (MUHC), Montréal, QC, Canada

Claire Godard-Sebillotte

Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

MUHC Research Institute, Montréal, QC, Canada

Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Olivia Nguyen, Andréanne Côté & Serge Daneault

Palliative Care Services, CIUSSS NIM, Montréal, QC, Canada

Olivia Nguyen & Andréanne Côté

School of Social Work and Criminology, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

Gabrielle Fortin

Research Center, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

Research Center, Montreal University Institute of Geriatrics, Montréal, QC, Canada

Serge Daneault

School of Social Work, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Maryse Soulières

Research Center SHERPA, CIUSSS-CCOMTL, University Institute on Immigration, Diversity, and Health, Montréal, QC, Canada

Josiane Le Gall & Sylvie Fortin

Montreal University Centre for Ethnic Studies (CEETUM), Montréal, QC, Canada

Josiane Le Gall

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

Sylvie Fortin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors fulfil the three criteria for authorship listed in BMC. Here is the CRediT statement based on the taxonomy of Brand et al. (2015): EA, conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, writing — original draft, review and editing, project administration, supervision, and funding acquisition; CC, methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, writing — original draft, review and editing, and visualization; SL, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, resources, writing — original draft, and review and editing; NT, methodology, investigation, resources, writing — original draft, and review and editing; CG-S, conceptualization and writing — review and editing; DL, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing; ON, conceptualization and writing — review and editing; AC, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing; GF, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing; SD, conceptualization and writing — review and editing; MS, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing; JLG, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing; and SF, conceptualization, methodology, and writing — review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilie Allard .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

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

13643_2024_2635_moesm1_esm.docx.

Supplementary Material 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist

Supplementary Material 2: Database.

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Allard, E., Coupat, C., Lessard, S. et al. Knowledge and practices of youth awareness on death and dying in school settings: a systematic scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 220 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02635-9

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 13 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02635-9

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

• Death literacy
• Intervention
• Systematic review

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 19.8.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

This is a member publication of Open University

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media—Challenges and Mitigation Before, During, and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Literature Review

Authors of this article:

• Dhouha Kbaier 1 , PhD   ; 
• Annemarie Kane 2 , PhD   ; 
• Mark McJury 3   ; 
• Ian Kenny 1 , PhD  

1 School of Computing and Communications, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

2 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

3 School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Dhouha Kbaier, PhD

School of Computing and Communications

The Open University

Walton Hall

Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]

Background: This scoping review accompanies our research study “The Experience of Health Professionals With Misinformation and Its Impact on Their Job Practice: Qualitative Interview Study.” It surveys online health misinformation and is intended to provide an understanding of the communication context in which health professionals must operate.

Objective: Our objective was to illustrate the impact of social media in introducing additional sources of misinformation that impact health practitioners’ ability to communicate effectively with their patients. In addition, we considered how the level of knowledge of practitioners mitigated the effect of misinformation and additional stress factors associated with dealing with outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that affect communication with patients.

Methods: This study used a 5-step scoping review methodology following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology to map relevant literature published in English between January 2012 and March 2024, focusing on health misinformation on social media platforms. We defined health misinformation as a false or misleading health-related claim that is not based on valid evidence or scientific knowledge. Electronic searches were performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We included studies on the extent and impact of health misinformation in social media, mitigation strategies, and health practitioners’ experiences of confronting health misinformation. Our independent reviewers identified relevant articles for data extraction.

Results: Our review synthesized findings from 70 sources on online health misinformation. It revealed a consensus regarding the significant problem of health misinformation disseminated on social network platforms. While users seek trustworthy sources of health information, they often lack adequate health and digital literacies, which is exacerbated by social and economic inequalities. Cultural contexts influence the reception of such misinformation, and health practitioners may be vulnerable, too. The effectiveness of online mitigation strategies like user correction and automatic detection are complicated by malicious actors and politicization. The role of health practitioners in this context is a challenging one. Although they are still best placed to combat health misinformation, this review identified stressors that create barriers to their abilities to do this well. Investment in health information management at local and global levels could enhance their capacity for effective communication with patients.

Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the significance of addressing online health misinformation, particularly in the postpandemic era. It highlights the necessity for a collaborative global interdisciplinary effort to ensure equitable access to accurate health information, thereby empowering health practitioners to effectively combat the impact of online health misinformation. Academic research will need to be disseminated into the public domain in a way that is accessible to the public. Without equipping populations with health and digital literacies, the prevalence of online health misinformation will continue to pose a threat to global public health efforts.

Introduction

The global adoption of the internet has made health information more accessible, and the development of digital technology has enabled its rapid dissemination. However, the internet has also made possible the dissemination of false and misleading health misinformation and disinformation, with negative consequences, including the potential to exacerbate health inequalities. Health practitioners have found themselves at the forefront of communicating with patients who have taken on board health misinformation in the context of its proliferation on the web. This paper (associated with the study by Ismail et al [ 1 ]) surveyed the current literature concerning online health misinformation to establish the extent and scope of the problem, with special reference to the needs of health practitioners in their efforts to mitigate its impact. Several studies have established useful definitions of the terms misinformation and disinformation and distinctions between them. Misinformation has been defined as information that is not supported by evidence and contradicts the best-supported evidence available [ 2 , 3 ]. Wang et al [ 4 ] made a further distinction between online misinformation and disinformation, in particular on social media platforms. For Wang et al [ 4 ], misinformation is information that is not known to be false and is shared without malice. By contrast, disinformation involves the knowing and sharing of false information with the purpose of causing harm. This paper follows the distinctions of Wang et al [ 4 ] to use the terms misinformation and disinformation as appropriate.

It is important to acknowledge at the outset that digital technology in health and social contexts presents both risks and opportunities for equity among different information audiences [ 5 ]. However, there has recently been a change in the reception and assessment of the role of the internet, social media in particular, among researchers, even predating the COVID-19 pandemic. In the early days of social media, researchers largely identified prosocial and altruistic uses of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter by the public. However, considerable disquiet about the impact of social media and its potential for the spread of “fake news” and the amplification of conspiracy theories has displaced the more positive evaluation that was apparent when social media was in its infancy [ 6 ]. In the majority of the current research, there is a view that digital technology, particularly social media, has amplified the problem of health misinformation. The risk most frequently identified, either explicitly or implicitly, is the susceptibility of ordinary users, who may be lacking sophisticated levels of health and digital literacies, to health misinformation. Further risks noted in the literature include disinformation disseminated by organized trolling networks and bots that can be hard to distinguish from human users. The recognition of these risks underpins an emerging policy discourse about the threat of health misinformation, particularly the role of social media in its spread, in which health information and misinformation has become a politicized issue. From one policy perspective, there is an assumption that social media users are vulnerable, even passive, recipients of health misinformation rather than reflective interpreters of the available information. The corollary of this is that correcting misinformation with authoritative knowledge will solve the problem. However, a survey of the literature suggested that neither assumption fully expresses the complexity of how health misinformation is disseminated, received, and used via the internet. This may be because although there is a growing body of evidence on the extent of online health misinformation, there is much less research about what users do with health misinformation, why users consume health misinformation, and why (and which) people believe health misinformation [ 7 - 9 ].

In this scoping review, we reviewed the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of online misinformation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact that has on users’ understanding of health information. We considered this context with special reference to patients’ understanding, health practitioners’ practice in response to that, and policy makers’ concerns. The pressures and distractions that health professionals face in attempting to mitigate the impacts of online health misinformation are discussed in relation to patients’ health and digital literacies and the politicization of health information and misinformation.

Information Sources

We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify relevant studies that explored health misinformation on social media platforms. The search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.

The search terms included a combination of relevant keywords and phrases, including “health misinformation,” “social media,” “online health communities,” and “COVID-19 pandemic.” The search was not limited by publication date. Detailed search strategies are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Study Selection

Our study selection process followed a scoping approach, where we aimed to identify and include studies that provided insights into the prevalence and challenges of health misinformation on social media platforms. Initially, 2 researchers independently screened titles and abstracts of the identified articles to determine their relevance. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded at this stage.

Inclusion Criteria

Articles were included if they discussed health misinformation on social media, addressed the challenges posed by health misinformation, or were relevant to the period before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Any disagreements between the 2 researchers were resolved through discussion and consensus. Full-text articles were then retrieved for the remaining studies, and a further assessment of eligibility was conducted based on the same inclusion criteria.

Data Extraction

We gathered information on (1) study objectives, (2) research methods, (3) findings, and (4) key themes related to health misinformation. This process was performed independently by 2 researchers, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

We adopted a scoping review content analysis approach to analyze the data extracted from the selected articles. The analysis process involved identifying key themes and patterns related to health misinformation on social media. The content analysis allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges posed by health misinformation and the strategies for its mitigation, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results of Search

In our article selection process ( Figure 1 ), we initiated our search by identifying a total of 4563 articles from various databases. Following the removal of duplicates, 1295 articles were excluded, leaving us with 3268 unique articles. Subsequently, these articles underwent an initial screening, which involved evaluating their abstracts and titles, resulting in the exclusion of 2635 articles that did not align with our inclusion criteria. Further scrutiny was applied during full-text screening, which was conducted on 633 articles. Among these, 563 articles were found ineligible due to reasons such as not meeting the inclusion criteria (n=378 articles), being classified as literature reviews, editorials, or letters (n=174 articles), or the full texts being inaccessible (n=11 articles). A total of 70 articles were ultimately included in this scoping review.

Characteristics of Included Documents (n=70)

The majority (65/70, 93%) of documents were published in the last 10 years and originated predominantly in North America (42/70, 60%), Europe (19/70, 27%), and Asia (11/70, 16%). The funding sources were mainly public (61/70, 87%). The documents were classified as original research papers (38/70, 54%), subjective “opinion” articles (editorials, viewpoints, commentaries, and letters to the journal; 11/70, 16%), and knowledge syntheses or reviews (9/70, 13%) which included systematic reviews (n=6), descriptive reviews (n=2), and 1 integrated theoretic review.

Extent and Impact of Health Misinformation Disseminated Across a Range of Outlets

This section will review the literature concerning the extent and impact of the problem of health misinformation, including the spread of antivaccination discourse. In a study by Wood et al [ 10 ] among health practitioners in North Carolina, 94.2% of the respondents reported encounters with patient health misinformation within the previous year. While the sources of this misinformation were not broken down and identified by Wood et al [ 10 ], several other studies linked patient health misinformation to the prevalence of health misinformation on social media sites, identifying the latter as a significant problem [ 4 , 11 - 15 ]. There is a growing consensus among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers about the need to confront, challenge, and even prevent the online dissemination of health misinformation [ 16 ]. Since the emergence of online social networks, users have increasingly sought and shared health information on social media sites. It is estimated that around 70% of adult internet users search health matters on the web. With the emergence of social media platforms, there has been a rise in “peer-to-peer health care,” through which individuals seek and share health information, forming online health communities with others who have similar health concerns [ 3 ]. In addition, health organizations and health professionals are increasingly using social media to disseminate and promote health information and advice. The opportunities for sharing and promoting good health information via the internet are evident, and it is important to acknowledge that in online health communities, users share experiences and receive and give different kinds of support, including emotional support, to cope with specific health conditions. However, the medium has also enabled the dissemination of health misinformation, and the prosocial aspects of sharing are also likely to involve the sharing of misinformation, putting the health of users at risk [ 3 ].

Misinformation Spreads on Social Media

There is a high degree of consensus among researchers that mainly because of the increasing popularity of social media, the internet has become a space for the dissemination and amplification of “fake news,” misleading information, and rumor, including health misinformation and antivaccine conspiracy theories [ 17 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened these concerns, resulting in a proliferation of recent studies and rapid reviews focusing on the online spread of misinformation. Lee et al [ 18 ] proposed that the proliferation of health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic became a major public health issue. At the earliest signs of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, the director-general of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, speaking at the February 2020 Munich Security Conference, expressed concern about the risk of an infodemic of health misinformation disseminated via social media, identifying “vaccine hesitancy” as 1 of the top 10 global health threats [ 19 ]. Bapaye and Bapaye [ 20 ] agreed that the risks of misinformation on social networking sites constitute a global issue, referring specifically to the COVID-19 infodemic.

However, this is not in itself a new problem; longstanding concerns about “fake news” and misinformation in traditional media have been evident since the early decades of the 20th century [ 21 ], and the prevalence of misinformation on internet platforms certainly predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, because the COVID-19 pandemic has only intensified the concern regarding health misinformation, it might be more appropriate to see the pandemic as symptomatic of, and crystallizing, the challenges of countering health misinformation in the digital age, as the development of digital technology and the internet have brought about profound changes in the capacity of both misinformation and disinformation to spread globally and amplify rapidly [ 4 ].

Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez [ 16 ] undertook a review of 69 studies of health misinformation on social media to identify the main health misinformation topics and their frequency on different social media platforms. The studies surveyed used a variety of research methods, including social network analysis (28%), evaluation of content (26%), evaluation of quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez [ 16 ] concluded that the incidence of health misinformation was highest on Twitter, in particular, regarding the use of tobacco and other drugs, with some studies citing 87% of such posts containing misinformation. However, health misinformation about vaccines was also prevalent, with around 43% of posts containing misinformation, with the human papillomavirus vaccine being the most affected. This review by Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez [ 16 ] confirmed many of the findings from earlier surveys. For example, in their survey of 57 articles, Wang et al [ 4 ] found that the most frequently discussed topics were regarding vaccination and infectious diseases, including Ebola and the Zika virus. Other topics such as nutrition, cancer, water fluoridation, and smoking were also prevalent. The studies they surveyed had tended to find that a high degree of misinformation on these topics was being shared and liked on social media.

Lee et al [ 18 ] conducted a cross-sectional online survey in South Korea to examine the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation and the impact of exposure to COVID-19 misinformation on beliefs and behaviors. They found that exposure to COVID-19 misinformation was associated with misinformation belief, which then resulted in fewer preventive behaviors. Therefore, they highlighted the potential of misinformation to undermine global efforts in disease control and argued that public health strategies are needed to combat the proliferation of misinformation. Bapaye and Bapaye [ 20 ] conducted a cross-sectional online questionnaire survey of 1137 WhatsApp users in India. They noted that most research on the prevalence of misinformation in social media has focused on Twitter and Facebook and on the Global North. Measured by age, researchers found that users aged >65 years were the most vulnerable to accepting the veracity of messages containing health misinformation (K=0.38, 95% CI 0.341-0.419) Respondents aged 19 to 25 years displayed much lower vulnerability (K=0.31, 95% CI 0.301-0.319) than those aged >25 years ( P <.05). Measured by occupational category, users employed in nonprofessional occupations had the highest vulnerability (K=0.38, 95% CI 0.356-0.404); this was significantly higher than those of professionals and students ( P <.05). Notably, the vulnerability of health professionals was not significantly different from those of other occupation groups ( P >.05).

The authors concluded that in a developing country, WhatsApp users aged >65 years and those involved in nonprofessional occupations are the most vulnerable to false information disseminated via WhatsApp. Crucially, they noted that health care workers, who might be expected by laypersons to have expert knowledge, were as likely to be vulnerable to health misinformation as other occupation groups.

Antivaxxer Spread Before, During, and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic

Much of the current unease from researchers, understandably, centers on health misinformation about vaccines in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, there is concern about the growth and spread of so-called antivaxxer misinformation and beliefs. In 2019, the United States had its biggest measles outbreak in 30 years, with most cases involving people who had not been vaccinated. Hotez [ 22 ] claimed that much of the reason for the growth of antivaccine beliefs is because of a campaign of misinformation. He argued that social media sites are meeting places for the sharing of antivaccine views. To evade social media platforms’ automated moderation tools, which tend to focus on words, several antivaxxer groups, including one with around 250,000 members, began using visual codes, such as the carrot emoji, to hide antivaxxer content.

However, some of the misinformation has gained credibility because it has come from sources that laypersons would expect to be trustworthy. For example, in 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield claiming a link between the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and the onset of autism spectrum disorder. Wakefield’s paper was later rebutted, and an overwhelming body of evidence now refutes its conclusions [ 23 ]. However, despite long being discredited, Wakefield’s claims have remained a part of the antivaccine discourse. The persistence of the antivaccination narrative demonstrates the power of such discourses even in the face of evidence to challenge them.

Although strong antivaccine beliefs, and the more ambivalent attitude of vaccine hesitancy, have been around as long as there have been vaccines, until recent decades, they were on the margins. However, evidence supports the claim that they have been gaining momentum in the United States and Europe.

A survey by Skafle et al [ 24 ] aimed to synthesize the results from 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. The authors noted that the “vast majority” of studies were from industrialized Western countries. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, the studies implied that information spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. The conclusions from Skafle et al [ 24 ] were supported by data from online polling agencies. For example, a US YouGov poll from May 2020 found that only 55% of respondents would definitely take a COVID-19 vaccine if one were to become available, whereas 19% of respondents said that they would refuse and 26% were still undecided [ 25 ].

While much of the research about online vaccine discourse comes from the United States, there is also evidence that vaccine hesitancy has risen elsewhere. For example, in an Ipsos-MORI survey taken in December 2020, only 40% of respondents in France said they would take a COVID-19 vaccine, a figure symptomatic of a steep and swift decline in vaccine confidence in France [ 26 ]. However, interestingly, the same Ipsos-MORI poll indicated a rise in vaccine confidence among respondents in the United States since the earlier YouGov poll, cited earlier, by approximately 10% to 65%, and respondents in the United Kingdom expressed a still higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine at approximately 77%. It is notable that in the United States and United Kingdom, the Ipsos-MORI results came after a period of intermittent lockdowns. The contrast with the results from France is, nevertheless, striking.

Understanding the Challenges Surrounding Health Misinformation

Here, we consider the challenges created by health misinformation on the web: (1) the role played by malicious actors on social media in spreading vaccine disinformation and misinformation and (2) how contextual and cultural issues have different effects on patients’ understanding of what is considered genuine, valid, and authentic health information.

Spread of Health Misinformation on Social Media by Malicious Actors

One strand of research presents the issue of health misinformation as a contest between trolls and bots on the one hand and the voices of trustworthy public health agencies on the other [ 6 ]. This view was supported by Hotez [ 22 ] and Broniatowski et al [ 11 ]. The latter investigated the role of bots and trolls as malicious actors mobilizing vaccination discourse on the web. Their study focused specifically on vaccine-related health messaging on Twitter. Comparing the rates of vaccine-related messages, they found that sophisticated bots and Russian trolls tweeted at higher rates than “average users.” However, the respective content from bots and trolls differed. Whereas bots communicated antivaccine messages, Russian troll accounts provided a seemingly balanced discussion of both provaccination and antivaccination arguments, implying an equivalence between them. The authors argued that amplifying and normalizing a debate is done with the purpose of sowing discord and may lead to undermining public confidence in scientific consensus about the effectiveness of vaccines. Wang et al [ 4 ] acknowledged that it is a challenge to readily distinguish between misinformation and disinformation on the web. They noted that disinformation, such as antivaccine propaganda, can unknowingly be spread by users with genuine concerns [ 4 ], as individuals increasingly seek health and healthy lifestyle information via the internet.

Contextual Factors Influencing the Reception of and Responses to Misinformation: Politicization of the Problem of Health Misinformation

The identification of online trolls, bots, and orchestrated networks as major contributors to the spread of health disinformation and misinformation is now part of mainstream political discourse in the United States. On July 16, 2021, a quarrel broke out between the president of the United States, Joe Biden, and Facebook over the spread of health misinformation on the company’s social media platforms. Speaking to journalists, Biden blamed social media companies for a rise in the number of deaths from COVID-19 among the unvaccinated in the United States. Referring explicitly to Facebook, the president claimed that by allowing the proliferation of health misinformation on its platforms, the company was “killing people” [ 27 ]. Discursive interventions from politicians are never neutral; nevertheless, Biden’s claim about the impact of health misinformation on social media is backed up by many of the studies surveyed for this paper. Facebook immediately rebutted Biden’s accusation by citing their rules, introduced in February 2021, which banned posts that make identifiably false claims about vaccines. Furthermore, Facebook challenged Biden’s claim by asserting that not only has Facebook provided more authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines than any other internet site, reaching 2 billion people with such posts, but also that the platform’s vaccine finder tool had been used by more than 3 million Americans.

These figures suggest that although antivaxxer groups find ways to evade detection, their reach may be countered by that of information grounded in current science. A spokesperson for the company said that, far from killing people, “The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives. Period” [ 27 ]. The argument between Biden and Facebook may indeed signal more lay awareness of the problem and echo the concerns of the recent academic research about the dissemination of health misinformation by organized bot and troll networks. Framed as it is, in terms of apportioning the blame for the spread of health misinformation, Biden’s intervention mirrors much of the academic discourse in the United States on the subject. However, it is also symptomatic of the politicization of health misinformation, arguably accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which may thwart evidence-based decision-making. This point was emphasized strongly by Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ]. They framed the problem of pervasive misinformation and disinformation in terms of prime movers and beneficiaries who use it to advance sociopolitical agendas and entrench asymmetrical power, especially in times of uncertainty and threat, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] identified government failures to adopt evidence-informed decision-making. They noted that such failures have costs that not only are economic but, crucially, result in poorer health outcomes. They cited as an example the United Kingdom government’s initial prevaccine herd immunity strategy. The intention of this strategy was to allow SARS-CoV-2 to indiscriminately spread to a critical mass to build up population immunity. The authors noted that this was “a particularly concerning example of evidence framing by a government.” Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] argued that public acceptance of health risk messages and adoption of health-protecting behaviors is highly contingent on the degree to which governments engage in evidence-informed decision-making and communicate this basis effectively. The authors cited several instances of government actors failing to recognize misinformation, disseminating inconsistent or inaccurate information, and not using evidence- and information-based decision-making processes. In recent years, the public policy discourse in the United Kingdom has been veering away from evidence- and information-based decision-making, as politicians have denounced “experts” and their “influence” on policy [ 28 , 29 ].

Finally, Gruzd et al [ 30 ] reported on the impact of coordinated link-sharing behavior to spread and amplify conspiracy-related misinformation. They found a coalition of Facebook accounts that engaged in coordinated link sharing behavior to promote COVID-19 related misinformation. This coalition included US-based pro-Trump, QAnon, and antivaccination accounts.

Contextual Factors Influencing the Reception of and Responses to Misinformation: Health Literacies and Inequality

While the approach of Broniatowski et al [ 11 ], for example, provided a persuasive account of ways in which online health misinformation can be disseminated, there are limitations to this approach, as it did not provide an account of how users respond to the misinformation they encounter. The responses of ordinary users were assumed rather than investigated. Research by Vosoughi et al [ 31 ] provided a caveat to the claim that it is bots that accelerate the spread of misinformation. Their work supported that of Broniatowski et al [ 11 ] in suggesting that bots spread accurate and false information at the same rate. However, Vosoughi et al [ 31 ] also explained that misinformation spreads more rapidly than accurate information because humans, rather than bots, are more likely to spread misinformation [ 31 ]. This claim was further supported by Wang [ 32 ], who suggested that in democracies, where ideas compete for attention in a marketplace, accurate scientific information, which, for the layperson, may be boring or difficult to understand, is easily crowded out by information that is more easily grasped or sensational. Mokhtari and Mirzaei [ 12 ] located this problem specifically in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. They considered that high mortality from COVID-19, its complexity, and its unknown features resulted in fear, anxiety, and mental pressure among people worldwide. To allay anxiety, people needed health information literacy, defined by the American Library Association as a set of abilities individuals require to recognize when information is needed and to locate, evaluate, and use it effectively [ 33 ]. In addition, Wang [ 32 ] noted that individuals are differentially vulnerable to health misinformation depending on their level of health literacy and that models need to account for this. Mokhtari and Mirzaei [ 12 ] argued that not only information and health literacies but also media literacy are needed. However, studies in the field of health literacy suggest that significant inequalities in health and digital literacies exist.

Researchers have argued that “vastly undervalued and unrecognized” health literacy ought to be considered the best “social vaccine” for preventing COVID-19 in populations [ 5 ]. However, inequalities in health literacy persist. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] defined health literacy as encompassing cognitive and social skills that determine individuals’ motivation and ability to access, understand, and use information, including quantitative health risk information, in ways that promote and maintain good health across the life course. They asserted that health literacy is an essential self-management skill and community resource for health, noting that health literacy is positively associated with patients’ involvement in clinical decision-making, willingness to express health concerns, and compliance with clinical guidance. However, despite research demonstrating the importance of health literacy, evidence, even from high-income countries, suggested relatively low levels of health literacy.

Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] drew a link between health literacy and digital literacy. They suggested that the latter can be understood as health literacy in digital information and technology spaces. They argued that inequalities in health outcomes are exacerbated by a widening digital divide. While digital technology in health and social contexts presents both new risks and opportunities for equity in different information audiences, the ways in which power and privilege operated in the COVID-19 misinformation discourse have not been sufficiently examined. Although socially and economically disadvantaged groups were at a greater risk of exposure to COVID-19, their voices and experiences were often marginalized. In addition, inequalities in access to accurate information are not only related to issues of digital access and literacy but are also situational. For example, disadvantaged individuals may have fewer social connections, and low pay may necessitate longer working hours, militating against individuals having the resources of time and energy to seek out accurate health information and enhance their level of health literacy.

The experiences of specific groups may also go unreported. Quraishi [ 34 ] addressed the impact of misinformation on South Asian students—a fast-growing group in the United States, but one that often receives little media attention. Quraishi [ 34 ] concluded that there is a relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and students’ academic performance and mental health, as well as an increase in the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19 public safety guidelines.

Older adults can be a vulnerable group in relation to their comparatively poor digital literacy. Zhou et al [ 35 ] reported on the accuracy of older adults in judging health information credibility. They found that on average, participants only successfully judged 41.38% of health articles. Attractive headlines increased participant credibility judgments on the content, and of the articles shared with others, 62.5% contained falsehoods.

Contextual Factors Influencing the Reception of and Responses to Misinformation: Cultures and Values

Larson and Broniatowski [ 19 ] argued that developing the kinds of literacy advocated by Mokhtari and Mirzaei [ 12 ] and Tully et al [ 2 ] will not address the deep-seated problems they identified. The work by Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] supported this, and noted that the infodemic crisis is not merely a health and digital literacy issue. Some demographics may be more vulnerable to persuasive communication from broader sociocultural forces. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] argued that in considering the social determinants of health, attention must be paid not only to digital and health literacies but also to the ways in which these literacies coexist and interact with other influences. Larson and Broniatowski [ 19 ] suggested that one of the strongest determinants of vaccine confidence or vaccine hesitancy is the level of trust or distrust in the institutions that produce vaccines. A higher level of trust encourages the willingness to accept a high level of risk for a greater benefit. A lower level of trust militates against the acceptance of even a low level of perceived risk. For Larson and Broniatowski [ 19 ], it is not simply the presence of misinformation on social media networks but the social and cultural context of users’ reception of that information that influences responses. Health information operates in a complex and contentious social world. Individuals and communities respond to new information in terms of already developed political, cultural, and social values that influence whether they trust or distrust authority. Populations may be characterized by trust or mistrust of scientific institutions and government. Trust has been eroded through the exposure of fraud, research scandals, and misconduct by major multinational pharmaceutical companies, for example. Communities may be predisposed to distrust the government and its agents depending on their own status or identity. According to Goldenberg [ 36 ], these contexts can make misinformation and health conspiracy theories compelling.

Strategies to Correct Online Misinformation

We address the additional pressures on health professionals in communicating accurate information to mitigate the effects of misinformation, particularly with regard to the additional requirements imposed as a result of the precautions being taken during the pandemic. One area of disagreement in the literature concerns the usefulness of user correction response.

Research Into User Correction Strategies

There is some disagreement as to whether engagement with misinformation by users spreads and reinforces it or even whether extended debates over health misinformation cause users to doubt the possibility of knowable facts. For example, Broniatowski et al [ 11 ] argued that when ordinary users directly confront vaccine-skeptic messages from bots, it only serves to legitimize the “debate.” By contrast, Tully et al [ 2 ] argued that social media users have a role to play in either spreading or stopping the spread of misinformation across platforms. Their research aimed to uncover what factors influenced users’ responses. Tully et al [ 2 ] acknowledged that a range of factors can influence the spread or prevention of misinformation, including the behavior of malicious actors such as bots and trolls; the platform’s terms of service; and content moderation policies. As already noted, while most users are not creators of misinformation, they may spread and amplify it by liking, sharing, or replying. In opposition to the work of Broniatowski et al [ 11 ], Tully et al [ 2 ] argued that the content of engagement is particularly important, as their research suggested that multiple corrections by social media users may be required to reduce misperceptions. However, they claimed that most people simply ignore misinformation when they see it on social media.

Tully et al [ 2 ] noted the promise in mobilizing users to engage in such correction, given the vast numbers of users on these sites, in comparison with professional fact-checkers and health authorities.

They considered whether the tone of a correction would influence perceptions of the credibility of the message. However, despite some mixed evidence, they concluded that overall, the tone was not a significant factor and that neutral, affirmative, and uncivil corrections were all effective at reducing misperceptions. They found that participants were generally unlikely to reply to the misinformation tweet. However, their content analysis of hypothetical replies suggested that when users did reply, they mainly provided correct information, particularly after seeing other corrections. Tully et al [ 2 ] concluded that user corrections offer “untapped potential” in responding to misinformation on social media, but further work is needed to consider how users can be mobilized to provide corrections, given their overall unwillingness to reply. However, a limitation of the experimental approach of Tully et al [ 2 ], acknowledged by the researchers, is that in asking individuals what they would hypothetically do, this may not reflect what they actually do in a real social media setting, especially in relation to an issue they care more strongly about. Although the experiment gauged attitudes, it did not delve into how strongly these attitudes were held. It is also not clear to what degree corrections were effective at reducing misperceptions and how reductions were measured.

By contrast, the results of experimental studies by Ittefaq [ 37 ] and Mourali and Drake [ 38 ] suggested that correcting misinformation is by no means a straightforward proposition. They noted the previous research on rebuttal, which suggested that properly designed corrections can mitigate the effects of misinformation. However, such studies have tended to compare responses to misinformation followed by correction with responses of a control group that receives no correction or receives an alternative correction. Mourali and Drake [ 38 ] argued that this static approach misses the dynamic nature of social media debate. They noted that the correction of misinformation is generally followed up with a rebuke by the original poster, inciting further correction and prolonged back-and-forth debate. Mourali and Drake [ 38 ] cited previous studies showing that exposure to conflicting information about health topics, including mammography, nutrition, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, may increase confusion and negative attitudes toward that particular health topic. The researchers found that initial exposure to misinformation had a negative impact on attitudes and intentions toward masking, consistent with previous studies that concluded that exposure to misinformation negatively impacts attitudes and intentions toward behaviors favored by science. Also consistent with previous research, they found that the first correction of the false claim improved attitudes and intentions toward masking. The authors suggested that this effect is partially explained by a decrease in the perceived strength of the argument underlying the false claim. However, this initial improvement diminished on further exposure to false claims and refutation attempts. This finding confirmed their hypothesis that extended exposure to false claims and refutation attempts appears to weaken belief in the possibility of objective knowledge, leading to less positive reactions toward masking as a science-based behavior. They concluded that the level of exposure to contradictory information needs to reach a certain threshold before it affects perceived truth objectivity. However, although people are more likely to share misinformation when its content is consistent with their existing beliefs or when its message is simple, direct, or sensational, correcting misinformation does reduce its likelihood of being shared on social media, an effect that persists even after multiple exposures.

Mourali and Drake [ 38 ] noted that each social media platform exhibits particular interaction norms, which may impact how users interpret the conversation. As their study was limited to a single platform, Reddit, and the debate was restricted to 4 exchanges between only 2 protagonists, the researchers acknowledged that these aspects limit the generalizability of the results. They suggested that future research could attempt to replicate their findings on different social media platforms, and to include more than 2 protagonists and more than 4 exchanges. They noted further that although extended debates are common on social media, it is not known how frequently they occur, echoing the comments by Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez [ 16 ] that the extent of misinformation is not clear.

In contrast to the fairly sanguine view of Tully et al [ 2 ] about the potential of users to spread corrective information, Mourali and Drake [ 38 ] problematized the position, pointing to the potential for more complex and uncertain outcomes, whereas Larson and Broniatowski [ 19 ] argued that although the importance of correcting misinformation, item by item, should not be diminished, only if underlying issues driving misinformation are addressed can, for example, long-term vaccine confidence in populations be sustained. They argue that simply responding to misinformation with factual corrections is not likely to reverse the dissent that has been evident among antivaxxers or to necessarily persuade the more ambivalent vaccine-hesitant individuals. They identified deeper social and cultural issues at play, which have been discussed in this paper in the previous sections.

Research Into Effective Models to Accomplish the Automatic Detection of Health Misinformation in Online Health Communities

Here, we consider examples of research into the automatic detection of health misinformation in online health communities. Zhao et al [ 3 ] began from the premise that there is a vast amount of health misinformation, creating a challenge for health communities in identifying misinformation. Rather than relying on users’ ability to correct misinformation, they proposed that there is a need for an effective model to achieve automatic detection of health misinformation in online health communities. This view was also put forward by Weinzierl and Harabagiu [ 39 ]. Focusing specifically on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, they argued that automatic detection of misinformation on social media is an essential first step in delivering interventions designed to address vaccine hesitancy.

Zhao et al [ 3 ] identified much of the existing analysis as concentrating on the linguistic features of communications only. They wanted to examine the underresearched area of whether integrating user behavioral features with linguistic features, sentiment features, and topic features could effectively distinguish misinformation from accurate information in online health communities. Their study combined the aforementioned features to build a detection model targeting misinformation in online health communities’ contexts. The behavioral features targeted were discussion initiation, interaction engagement, influential scope, relational mediation, and informational independence. Descriptions of these behavioral features are reproduced in Table 1 .

The authors tested their detection model on a data set collected from a real online health community, selecting as their data source Zibizheng Ba, an autism forum on the Baidu Tieba online health community site hosted by the Chinese web service Baidu. Baidu Tieba claims to be one of the largest interest-based discussion platforms in China. Users can generate topic-based discussion forums on the platform, share information, and make friends with other users. Posts on Baidu Tieba are indexed by Baidu, China’s most popular search engine, so users can readily find misinformation when searching for health-related information through the search engine. The authors developed a python-based web crawler to collect data from the forum. To train the health misinformation detection model, 5000 records were sampled from the whole data set by stratification according to 3 types of records (ie, thread, reply, and reply to reply) using stratified sampling methods. Therefore, the constituent types of the records (ie, thread, reply, and reply to reply) in the sample data set were consistent with the composition of the whole data set.

The researchers applied the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). The model, originally developed by Petty and Cacioppo [ 40 ] to explain attitude change, has been used extensively in advertising to try to influence consumers.

Overall, 4 types of misinformation were identified through their coding analysis, and the model correctly detected about 85% of the health misinformation. Their results also indicated that behavioral features were more informative than linguistic features in detecting misinformation. The authors concluded that their results not only demonstrated the efficacy of behavioral features in health misinformation detection but also offered both methodological and theoretical contributions to misinformation detection by integrating the features of messages as well as the features of message creators. Others have also highlighted the problems posed by misleading visual information [ 41 ].

It is worth noting that during the pandemic, the UK National Health Service (NHS) began using Twitter to promote provaccine messaging, which closely follows a combination of the features suggested by Zhao et al [ 3 ]. When users searched for the term “vaccine” or related terms, the top post was a message prominently displaying the NHS logo, identifying it as reputable and trustworthy. The tweets contained links to NHS websites providing information about vaccines and COVID-19. The posts differed in linguistic content and visual design. For example, one featured only written text on a white background and stated in bold, “Know the facts.” Another featured a large image of a happy minority ethnic family, washing dishes together, with the message that the COVID-19 vaccine decreases household transmission by up to half. The contrasting designs suggest that the message was targeted specifically to users’ timelines. It was also apparent that elements of ELM were being applied, combining the features identified by Zhao et al [ 3 ] in different ways.

Weinzierl and Harabagiu [ 39 ] adopted a different method than Zhao et al [ 3 ], reversing the more commonly used classification approach. The authors of each study claimed strong results in identifying health misinformation on social media platforms. However, Nabożny et al [ 42 ] argued that the current automatic systems for assessing the credibility of health information are not sufficiently precise to be used without supervision by human medical expert annotators.

Barve and Saini [ 43 ] have reported on their use of automated fact-checking using a coded content similarity measure (CSM). In this approach, the CSM showed improved accuracy (91.06%) compared to the accuracy of the Jaccard similarity measure (74.26%). Further, the algorithmic approach outperformed the feature-based method.

Neither Zhao et al [ 3 ] nor Weinzierl and Harabagiu [ 39 ] recorded what happens when misinformation is detected. Research from Broniatowksi et al [ 44 ] suggested that once detected, steps taken by social media platforms such as content removal or deplatforming may not be effective in stemming the spread of misinformation and may even be counterproductive. Social media platforms use a combination of “hard” and “soft” content remedies to reduce the spread of health misinformation. Soft remedies include warning labels attached to content and downranking of some content in web searches, whereas hard remedies include content removal and deplatforming of accounts. Hard remedies are controversial and have given rise to accusations of censorship. For the authors, short-term evidence for the effectiveness of hard remedies is in any case mixed, and long-term evidence is yet to be examined. Their study focused on Facebook and found that while hard remedies did reduce the number of antivaccine posts, they also produced unintended consequences. Provaccine content was removed, and engagement with the remaining antivaccine content repeatedly recovered to prepolicy levels. Worryingly, this content became more misinformative, more politically polarized, and more likely to be seen in users’ news feeds. The authors explain these results as a product of Facebook’s architecture, which is designed to promote community formation. Members of communities dedicated to vaccine refusal seek out misinformation. To meet this demand, and to circumvent content moderation efforts, antivaccine content producers post links to external sources of misinformative content, such as Bitchute, Rumble, Gab, and Telegram, in lieu of more mainstream platforms that had implemented similar content removal policies (eg, YouTube and Twitter). Broniatowski et al [ 44 ] argued that Facebook’s policy reduced the number of posts in antivaccine venues but was not successful in inducing a sustained reduction in engagement with antivaccine content, including misinformation. The authors noted that alternative platforms often host politically extreme right-wing content. Therefore, they argued that Facebook’s content removal policies may have the unintended consequence of radicalizing their audiences, and their findings suggested the need to address how social media platform architecture enables community formation and mobilization around misinformative topics when managing the spread of online content.

These studies advocate for the automatic detection of health misinformation. However, work that calls into question the ability of automatic detection to operate without human intervention has also been discussed. In addition, there are questions raised in the literature about what should be done when misinformation is detected and concerns about whether content removal or deplatforming of accounts are the most effective ways to reduce the spread of health misinformation or may even be counterproductive.

The Roles of Health Practitioners

The discussion so far has highlighted the complex and multifaceted dimensions of the context of online health misinformation in which health practitioners must operate. As noted in our introduction, a study of health practitioners in North Carolina found that nearly 95% had encountered patient health misinformation within the previous year [ 10 ]. There is very little research on the amount or effectiveness of training received by health professionals to prepare them for engaging with patients about health misinformation. Wood et al [ 10 ] found that most respondents had not received relevant training despite overwhelmingly reporting encountering health misinformation.

Nevertheless, within the literature, there is no shortage of advice from researchers and health professionals addressed to health practitioners on how to approach and correct health misinformation. This advice stems from both original research studies and reviews of best practices featured in peer-reviewed medical and health journals. Such advice centers on the need for health practitioners to understand misinformation and how to address it. Health practitioners are advised of the need to be aware of health myths and urged to dismantle them in providing accurate health guidance [ 45 , 46 ]. Practitioners are further advised that misinformation and pseudoscience are appealing to those seeking certainty because they present information in absolutes, whereas medical science is often ambiguous and contingent. Health practitioners are also encouraged to learn how to message more clearly and to mimic the strategies of misinformation [ 45 ]. One study recommends that “practitioners familiarize themselves with the tools of scientific enquiry and consider the pros and cons of various conspiracy evaluation guidelines” [ 47 ]. Thompson [ 48 ] reports on the activity of health professional influencers and pedagogues in combating misinformation. However, the effectiveness of such social media influencers who are also health professionals remains unclear. At the same time, there is some acknowledgment in this body of literature that misinformation cannot simply be offset with facts, confirming the challenges, discussed earlier, of simply engaging in online refutation. Addressing misinformation also depends on meeting patients’ emotional needs [ 45 , 49 ].

In this context, the one-to-one patient-provider relationship in the practice setting is perceived as paramount [ 45 ]. As suggested by much of the research, source credibility, or trust, is understood to be the strongest driver of effective correction strategies [ 50 ]. It is argued that health care practitioners have the unique opportunity to guide patients toward high-quality, evidence-based medical information [ 10 ]. However, it is also noted that practitioners will need patience in their efforts to persuade patients to abandon strongly held self-beliefs, however harmful. Doing so may mean patients relinquishing membership of online communities that have become integral in their lives and even their identities. As noted earlier, belief in misinformation is often persistent in the face of evidence. Success is more likely when individuals are encouraged to reexamine their information sources, alongside new information providing additional context, rather than simply characterizing the individual’s beliefs as wrong [ 51 ]. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] commented that good health communication needs to be tailored to the underlying cause of the misinformation problem, and efforts should be made to take on board inequalities within populations to create accurate, low-barrier, targeted health risk messaging. Skafle et al [ 24 ] contended that to challenge misconceptions, false claims need to be openly addressed and discussed with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Guidance for practitioners noted that while responding to patient questions about alternative or unproven therapies may become laborious, a strong bond of trust between health practitioner and patient gives a patient a feeling of being supported and increases their adherence to treatment [ 52 ]. Rather than waiting for patients to raise misinformation issues, health care practitioners are advised to anticipate and proactively address potential misinformation and myths with patients. For example, the mortality rate for pediatric cancer has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic because of delayed access to medical care, but misinformation related to COVID-19 may also be a contributing factor [ 53 ]. The literature highlights the challenge of navigating the information and misinformation and the need for health practitioners to communicate with their patients more effectively. However, such efforts are not always successful. Some of the factors that may prevent effective communication of good health information have already been raised in this paper. They are revisited and discussed in the next section, along with other stressors for health practitioners.

Stressors for Health Practitioners

Challenges for health practitioners include time pressures and the additional burdens placed on them during the COVID-19 pandemic. These additional pressures add to the issues health practitioners face in trying to mitigate the impact of misinformation. The following is a brief overview of these issues.

On the one hand, administrative burdens placed on practitioners frequently deny them time for dialogue with their patients [ 52 ]. On the other, in different contexts, practitioners may be coping with a lack of proper facilities; poor infrastructure for patient care; insufficient or ineffective personal protective equipment; lack of awareness among the general population; poor compliance with preventive methods; and the fear of being infected with the virus, as they too are exposed to misinformation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health practitioners were considered more vulnerable than other workers to developing psychological problems and other stress-related disorders, as they treated patients confirmed with COVID-19 while also dealing with misinformation [ 54 ].

As noted above, practitioners are recommended to invest in developing high levels of patient trust and to proactively correct health misinformation. However, recommendations presuppose that health practitioners necessarily have the resources to do these things well. Some of the materials produced to educate patients are not always reliable or evidence based, resulting ultimately in a loss of trust on the part of patients [ 52 ]. In addition, as noted previously, health practitioners themselves are not necessarily immune from accepting health misinformation as credible. Evidence about the level of knowledge and understanding of COVID-19 among practitioners reveals its unevenness. A study of dentists and oral health practitioners’ knowledge about COVID-19 suggested that their knowledge was at a relatively high level [ 55 ]. By contrast, a study of 310 eye care professionals in Nepal revealed some knowledge but also some acceptance of misinformation. Symptoms of COVID-19 were known to 94% of participants, but only 49% of participants were aware of how the disease is transmitted. More significantly, 41% of participants believed that the consumption of hot drinks helps to destroy the virus, in contradiction to World Health Organization information. The mean overall “knowledge” performance score, as measured by the benchmarks set by the researchers, was 69.65% [ 56 ].

A qualitative study to investigate primary health care practitioners’ perceptions and understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The study collected data from 15 participants at 2 different clinics situated in rural KwaZulu-Natal. Participants comprised nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, community caregivers, social workers, and clinical associates. Data were collected through individual, in-depth face-to-face interviews using a semistructured interview guide. The participants reported prepandemic and pandemic experiences of fear or denial. There was a perception of poor preparation for the COVID-19 outbreak. The findings also revealed participants’ misperceptions regarding the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers concluded that respondents’ misunderstandings regarding the pandemic were primarily a result of misinformation found on social media [ 57 ].

The discussion in this section so far has highlighted the significant potential of health practitioners in mitigating the impact of online health misinformation. However, it has also underlined factors that may militate against health practitioners’ ability to do so effectively. Not least of these is the issue of health practitioners’ own knowledge, which coexists with other stressors for health practitioners in combating misinformation. The discussion will now consider health information management (HIM) as a tool for supporting health practitioners’ knowledge base as one element in a multifaceted strategy for combating misinformation on the web.

HIM as a Mitigation Strategy

We have seen there is a need for health practitioners to be supported with evidence-based knowledge that they can share with patients. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that in an infectious health crisis, the gathering of accurate and reliable data to assist with the public health response is essential. They highlighted the importance of HIM professionals in supporting contact tracing and syndromic surveillance, as well as in mapping and forecasting health data. They noted that the generation of health information supports the continuum of care and the setting of targets and indicators and aids the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of health programs locally and globally. The health information produced also underpins the development of equitable, efficient, and accessible health care systems, contributing to improving public health initiatives and outcomes. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] emphasized the importance of an area of HIM, currently in its early stages, that deals with gathering and identifying evidence about the structural inequalities that underlie the disparities in vulnerability to health misinformation discussed in this paper. The collection of rich, high-quality information, including patient-reported experience, outcome measures, and culturally appropriate identity data, can enable health practitioners and public health advisers serving the most disadvantaged and underrepresented communities to use more tools of advocacy for patients.

The authors noted that advances in technology, including artificial intelligence, have the potential to relieve some of the pressures and constraints on health practitioners working on the front line during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing more time for one-to-one engagement with patients. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] advocated for the content expertise of health information managers to serve health practitioners by delivering patient-facing information triaging services; constructing user-friendly knowledge representations, such as data visualizations; and developing information interpretation tools, such as decision aids, plain language summaries, and supplementary explanatory information and metadata. Kyabaggu et al [ 5 ] identified the interdisciplinary underpinnings of HIM as essential in contributing to the educational, informational, and decision-making support for addressing current and future infodemic management crises.

Summary of Results

Within the literature, there is a consensus that there exists a significant problem of online health misinformation disseminated via the internet on social network platforms, often by online health communities. It is apparent that while users seek trustworthy sources of health information, they are unequally equipped to assess its credibility. This is partly because some groups lack sufficient levels of health and digital literacies, which may be exacerbated by concomitant social and economic inequalities. Reception of, and response to, online health misinformation is also shaped by users’ cultural contexts, values, and experiences, which may hinder trust in scientific institutions and governments. Evidence suggests that some demographics are more vulnerable to accepting health misinformation as credible and that health practitioners are unevenly prepared in the context of new global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the evidence of disparities in positive and negative attitudes toward vaccination highlights a need to pay specific attention to regional and national settings, even in the current global context. Preexisting levels of local trust in vaccine providers may be a significant factor to consider. While the validity and reliability of YouGov polls are limited, nevertheless, the data from an admittedly narrow range of sources suggests that vaccine confidence may have become more fluctuating and potentially vulnerable to destabilization in the digital era.

While online mitigation strategies such as user correction and automatic detection may have their uses, their effectiveness is contested, and some studies suggest they may even be counterproductive. Our analysis of the available literature indicates that the effectiveness of these strategies varies and needs further evaluation [ 42 , 58 ]. The issue of online health misinformation is further complicated by the operation of malicious actors and politicization of the issue, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, militating against the equitable and trusted dissemination of evidence-based knowledge. The role of health practitioners in this context is a challenging one. Research suggests that on the one hand, they are still best placed, at the front line of care, to combat health misinformation with science-based knowledge and advice. On the other hand, the stressors identified in this review create barriers to their abilities to do this well. Constraints of time and lack of supporting infrastructure add to the knowledge deficit noted earlier. Our review underlines the complexity of the environment in which health practitioners operate and calls for greater support and resources to enable effective mitigation of health misinformation [ 59 ]. Investment in HIM at local and global levels could address all 3 deficits, creating the potential for health practitioners to enhance their capacity to build trust via knowledgeable one-to-one communication with patients.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are the following: First, the constraints of time and space have necessarily limited the scale and scope of the survey. Second, the study of online health misinformation is a growing field, and inevitably, the nature of the issue means that new evidence is emerging at a rapid rate. In particular, new knowledge and further reflection in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to shed new light on the subject. Our study acknowledges these limitations and emphasizes the dynamic nature of the field.

Conclusions

Our survey of the literature on online health misinformation has revealed a complex and multifaceted context in which health practitioners must operate. As the world renormalizes following the pandemic, a collaborative global interdisciplinary effort to provide equitable access to timely, accurate, and complete health information will be needed to support health practitioners in combating the impact of online health misinformation. Academic research will need to be disseminated into the public domain in a way that is accessible to the public to counter misinformation and educate populations concerning how science is carried out. Our conclusions drawn from this review stress the urgency of effective strategies and collaborative efforts to mitigate the prevalence and impact of health misinformation on a global scale. Without strategies for equipping populations with the health and digital literacies required to interpret and use information appropriately, the prevalence of online health misinformation will continue to pose a threat to global public health efforts, disproportionately affecting vulnerable and resource-limited populations. Although social media platforms have a responsibility to correct misinformation, governments will need to engage in evidence-informed decision-making and invest in HIM to support frontline health practitioners in their work, enhance population health literacy, and strengthen evidence-informed decision-making at all levels.

Several issues for further investigation arise from the findings of this review. These include the following:

• The long-term impact of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy
• Whether the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified or diminished information literacy, and the related question of whether the pandemic will incentivize health information literacy
• The effects of social and cultural differences on the long-term traction of future health misinformation
• Whether social and economic inequalities will become less or more pronounced in the face of a global pandemic
• The comparative effectiveness of strategies to enhance populations’ media and digital literacies to facilitate the mitigation of health misinformation and its effects
• The influence of state actors on the propagation of health misinformation on the web
• The extent to which academic research has been disseminated into the public domain in a way that is accessible to the public, and the effectiveness of strategies to do so to counter misinformation and educate populations concerning how science is carried out

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the School of Computing and Communications at the Open University. It allowed researchers across several faculties to collaborate and build a research team that focused on the experience of health practitioners with misinformation and its impact on their job practice. The authors would also like to thank Tracie Farrell and Nashwa Ismail for their invaluable suggestions and recommendations, as well as their assistance in the article screening process.

Data Availability

The data analyzed in this study are derived from published articles available on Google Scholar. All articles included in the review are cited in the reference list. No additional data or code were collected or generated as part of this study.

Authors' Contributions

The study was conceptualized by DK; funding acquisition was managed by DK; data were curated by DK, AK, MM, and IK; formal analysis was conducted by DK and MM; the investigation was carried out by AK and MM; the methodology was designed by DK and MM; project administration was overseen by DK; resources were provided by DK; supervision was carried out by DK; validation was conducted by DK, AK, MM, and IK; visualization was handled by DK and MM; writing (original draft preparation) was done by DK; and writing (review and editing) was carried out by DK, AK, and MM. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Detailed search strategy.

• Ismail N, Kbaier D, Farrell T, Kane A. The experience of health professionals with misinformation and its impact on their job practice: qualitative interview study. JMIR Form Res. Nov 02, 2022;6(11):e38794. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tully M, Bode L, Vraga EK. Mobilizing users: does exposure to misinformation and its correction affect users’ responses to a health misinformation post? Soc Media Soc. Dec 10, 2020;6(4):205630512097837. [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao Y, Da J, Yan J. Detecting health misinformation in online health communities: Incorporating behavioral features into machine learning based approaches. Inf Process Manage. Jan 2021;58(1):102390. [ CrossRef ]
• Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. Nov 2019;240:112552. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kyabaggu R, Marshall D, Ebuwei P, Ikenyei U. Health literacy, equity, and communication in the COVID-19 era of misinformation: emergence of health information professionals in infodemic management. JMIR Infodemiology. 2022;2(1):e35014. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sutton J. Health communication trolls and bots versus public health agencies' trusted voices. Am J Public Health. Oct 2018;108(10):1281-1282. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim S, Capasso A, Ali SH, Headley T, DiClemente RJ, Tozan Y. What predicts people's belief in COVID-19 misinformation? A retrospective study using a nationwide online survey among adults residing in the United States. BMC Public Health. Nov 18, 2022;22(1):2114. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Morgan JC, Cappella JN. The effect of repetition on the perceived truth of tobacco-related health misinformation among U.S. adults. J Health Commun. Mar 04, 2023;28(3):182-189. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nan X, Wang Y, Thier K. Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation. Soc Sci Med. Dec 2022;314:115398. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wood JL, Lee GY, Stinnett SS, Southwell BG. A pilot study of medical misinformation perceptions and training among practitioners in North Carolina (USA). Inquiry. 2021;58:469580211035742. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Broniatowski DA, Jamison AM, Qi S, AlKulaib L, Chen T, Benton A, et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am J Public Health. Oct 2018;108(10):1378-1384. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mokhtari H, Mirzaei A. The tsunami of misinformation on COVID-19 challenged the health information literacy of the general public and the readability of educational material: a commentary. Public Health. Oct 2020;187:109-110. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schmid P, Altay S, Scherer LD. The psychological impacts and message features of health misinformation - a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur Psychol. Jul 2023;28(3):162-172. [ CrossRef ]
• Southwell BG, Otero Machuca J, Cherry ST, Burnside M, Barrett NJ. Health misinformation exposure and health disparities: observations and opportunities. Annu Rev Public Health. Apr 03, 2023;44(1):113-130. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Westberry C, Palmer XL, Potter L. Social media and health misinformation: a literature review. In: Arai K, editor. Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2023, Volume 3. FTC 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 815. Cham, Switzerland. Springer; 2023.
• Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Jan 20, 2021;23(1):e17187. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Borges do Nascimento IJ, Pizarro AB, Almeida J, Azzopardi-Muscat N, Gonçalves MA, Björklund M, et al. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ. Sep 01, 2022;100(9):544-561. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lee JJ, Kang K, Wang MP, Zhao SZ, Wong JYH, O'Connor S, et al. Associations between COVID-19 misinformation exposure and belief with COVID-19 knowledge and preventive behaviors: cross-sectional online study. J Med Internet Res. Nov 13, 2020;22(11):e22205. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Larson HJ, Broniatowski DA. Why debunking misinformation is not enough to change people's minds about vaccines. Am J Public Health. Jun 2021;111(6):1058-1060. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bapaye JA, Bapaye HA. Demographic factors influencing the impact of coronavirus-related misinformation on WhatsApp: cross-sectional questionnaire study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Jan 30, 2021;7(1):e19858. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McKernon E. Fake news and the public. Harper's. Oct 1925. URL: https://harpers.org/archive/1925/10/fake-news-and-the-public/ [accessed 2024-07-30]
• Hotez P. The physician-scientist: defending vaccines and combating antiscience. J Clin Invest. Apr 29, 2019;129(6):2169-2171. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dyer C. Lancet retracts Wakefield's MMR paper. BMJ. Mar 02, 2010;340:c696. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Skafle I, Nordahl-Hansen A, Quintana DS, Wynn R, Gabarron E. Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media: rapid review. J Med Internet Res. Aug 04, 2022;24(8):e37367. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• New Yahoo News/YouGov coronavirus poll: almost 1 in 5 say they won't get vaccinated. Yahoo News. URL: https:/​/www.​yahoo.com/​news/​new-yahoo-news-you-gov-coronavirus-poll-almost-one-in-five-say-they-wont-get-vaccinated-143852222.​html [accessed 2024-08-06]
• Peretti-Watel P, Verger P, Raude J, Constant A, Gautier A, Jestin C, et al. Dramatic change in public attitudes towards vaccination during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic in France. Euro Surveill. Oct 31, 2013;18(44):20623. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Reuters. ‘They’re killing people’: Biden slams Facebook for Covid disinformation. The Guardian. Jul 21, 2021. URL: https:/​/www.​theguardian.com/​media/​2021/​jul/​17/​theyre-killing-people-biden-slams-facebook-for-covid-misinformation [accessed 2024-07-30]
• Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove. Financial Times. URL: https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c [accessed 2024-07-30]
• US news roundup: 19-25 August. Research Professional News. Aug 25, 2022. URL: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-usa-2022-8-us-news-roundup-19-25-august/ [accessed 2024-07-30]
• Gruzd A, Mai P, Soares FB. How coordinated link sharing behavior and partisans' narrative framing fan the spread of COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories. Soc Netw Anal Min. 2022;12(1):118. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science. Mar 09, 2018;359(6380):1146-1151. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang Y. Systematic review on the social mechanism of health misinformation dissemination in the internet era. Eur J Public Health. Nov 2018;28(suppl_4):cky213.194. [ CrossRef ]
• Framework for information literacy for higher education. American Library Association. 2016. URL: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf [accessed 2024-07-30]
• Quraishi Z. Addressing mental health, misinformation, and religious tensions among South Asian students across California higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative research study. Heliyon. Jun 2023;9(6):e16396. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhou J, Xiang H, Xie B. Better safe than sorry: a study on older adults' credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation. Univers Access Inf Soc. Aug 04, 2022;22(3):1-10. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Goldenberg MJ. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh, PA. University of Pittsburgh Press; 2021.
• Ittefaq M. "It frustrates me beyond words that I can't fix that": health misinformation correction on Facebook during COVID-19. Health Commun. Nov 12, 2023;12:1-11. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mourali M, Drake C. The challenge of debunking health misinformation in dynamic social media conversations: online randomized study of public masking during COVID-19. J Med Internet Res. Mar 02, 2022;24(3):e34831. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Weinzierl MA, Harabagiu SM. Automatic detection of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation with graph link prediction. J Biomed Inform. Dec 2021;124:103955. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Communication and Persuasion. Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York, NY. Springer; 1986.
• Cowles K, Miller R, Suppok R. When seeing isn't believing: navigating visual health misinformation through library instruction. Med Ref Serv Q. 2024;43(1):44-58. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nabożny A, Balcerzak B, Morzy M, Wierzbicki A, Savov P, Warpechowski K. Improving medical experts' efficiency of misinformation detection: an exploratory study. World Wide Web. 2023;26(2):773-798. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Barve Y, Saini JR. Detecting and classifying online health misinformation with 'Content Similarity Measure (CSM)' algorithm: an automated fact-checking-based approach. J Supercomput. 2023;79(8):9127-9156. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Broniatowski D, Gu J, Jamison AM, Simons JR. Facebook's architecture undermines vaccine misinformation removal efforts. arXiv. Preprint posted online Feb 4, 2022. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Russell N. Misinformation during COVID: how should nurse practitioners respond? J Nurse Pract. Jun 2021;17(6):763-764. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wilner T, Holton A. Breast cancer prevention and treatment: misinformation on Pinterest, 2018. Am J Public Health. Oct 2020;110(S3):S300-S304. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• MacFarlane D, Hurlstone MJ, Ecker UK. Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments. Soc Sci Med. Aug 2020;259:112790. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Thompson JD. Public health pedagogy and digital misinformation: health professional influencers and the politics of expertise. J Sociol. Sep 28, 2022;59(3):646-663. [ CrossRef ]
• Gunter J. Medical misinformation and the internet: a call to arms. Lancet. Jun 08, 2019;393(10188):2294-2295. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sui Y, Zhang B. Determinants of the perceived credibility of rebuttals concerning health misinformation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 02, 2021;18(3):1345. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Collier R. Containing health myths in the age of viral misinformation. CMAJ. May 14, 2018;190(19):E578. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Peterson JS, Swire-Thompson B, Johnson SB. What is the alternative? Responding strategically to cancer misinformation. Future Oncol. Sep 2020;16(25):1883-1888. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guidry JP, Miller CA, Ksinan AJ, Rohan JM, Winter MA, Carlyle KE, et al. COVID-19-related misinformation among parents of patients with pediatric cancer. Emerg Infect Dis. Mar 2021;27(2):650-652. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ali S, Khalid A, Zahid E. Is COVID-19 immune to misinformation? A brief overview. Asian Bioeth Rev. Jun 2021;13(2):255-277. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jafari A, Mohammadpour M, Ghanbarzadegan A, Rossi-Fedele G, Bastani P. Oral health practitioners' knowledge, attitude, and awareness about coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:39. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sanyam SD, Sah SK, Chaudhary P, Burton MJ, Hoffman JJ. Knowledge and awareness-based survey of COVID-19 within the eye care profession in Nepal: Misinformation is hiding the truth. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0254761. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nxumalo CT, Mchunu GG. A qualitative study to explore primary health care practitioners' perceptions and understanding regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. Nov 26, 2021;13(1):e1-e11. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abbasi K. Where now in the danse macabre of COVID-19 and misinformation? BMJ. Aug 17, 2023;382:1884. [ CrossRef ]
• Pesko MF, Cummings KM, Douglas CE, Foulds J, Miller T, Rigotti NA, et al. United States public health officials need to correct e-cigarette health misinformation. Addiction. May 2023;118(5):785-788. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by G Eysenbach, T Leung; submitted 15.04.22; peer-reviewed by G Nneji, S-F Tsao; comments to author 07.06.22; revised version received 29.09.22; accepted 12.07.24; published 19.08.24.

©Dhouha Kbaier, Annemarie Kane, Mark McJury, Ian Kenny. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 19.08.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Qualitative Research on Mindfulness Interventions for Staff Nurses

A review of the literature.

Lemke, Johanna MA, BSN, RN, NEA-BC; Evanson, Tracy A. PhD, RN, PHNA-BC

Author Affiliations: Regional Director of Nursing (Lemke), Advocate Health, Charlotte, North Carolina; Professor (Dr Evanson), University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Correspondence: Lemke, Northern Plains Center for Behavioral Research, Room 380H, Stop 9025, College of Nursing & Professional Disciplines, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202 ( [email protected] ).

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site ( www.jonajournal.com ).

Complexity, workforce shortages, and escalating stressors in the healthcare setting have led to increased turnover and burnout of nursing staff. Mindfulness has been demonstrated to offer a variety of benefits to nurses. This article summarizes the qualitative research on the experience of mindfulness training and practice with the goal of providing evidence-based recommendations for nurse leaders on how to design and implement effective and well-adopted mindfulness programs.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Individual subscribers.

Institutional Users

Not a subscriber.

You can read the full text of this article if you:

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

The effect of nursing moral distress on intent to leave employment, supportive workplace wellness cultures and mattering are associated with less..., transforming advanced practice rn compensation: strategies for equity in total..., thrive: a theory-based program to support hospital nursing assistants, factors that influence millennial generation nurses' intention to stay: an....