literature review on research methodologies

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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 July 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research

Angela carrera-rivera.

a Faculty of Engineering, Mondragon University

William Ochoa

Felix larrinaga.

b Design Innovation Center(DBZ), Mondragon University

Associated Data

• No data was used for the research described in the article.

Performing a literature review is a critical first step in research to understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying gaps and challenges in the field. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps to methodically organize the review. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in particular early-stage researchers in the computer-science field. The contribution of the article is the following:

• • Clearly defined strategies to follow for a systematic literature review in computer science research, and
• • Algorithmic method to tackle a systematic literature review.

Graphical abstract

Specifications table

Method details

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, conference proceedings, books, dissertations) through a systematic procedure [12] . An SLR updates the reader with current literature about a subject [6] . The goal is to review critical points of current knowledge on a topic about research questions to suggest areas for further examination [5] . Defining an “Initial Idea” or interest in a subject to be studied is the first step before starting the SLR. An early search of the relevant literature can help determine whether the topic is too broad to adequately cover in the time frame and whether it is necessary to narrow the focus. Reading some articles can assist in setting the direction for a formal review., and formulating a potential research question (e.g., how is semantics involved in Industry 4.0?) can further facilitate this process. Once the focus has been established, an SLR can be undertaken to find more specific studies related to the variables in this question. Although there are multiple approaches for performing an SLR ( [5] , [26] , [27] ), this work aims to provide a step-by-step and practical guide while citing useful examples for computer-science research. The methodology presented in this paper comprises two main phases: “Planning” described in section 2, and “Conducting” described in section 3, following the depiction of the graphical abstract.

Defining the protocol is the first step of an SLR since it describes the procedures involved in the review and acts as a log of the activities to be performed. Obtaining opinions from peers while developing the protocol, is encouraged to ensure the review's consistency and validity, and helps identify when modifications are necessary [20] . One final goal of the protocol is to ensure the replicability of the review.

Define PICOC and synonyms

The PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Context) criteria break down the SLR's objectives into searchable keywords and help formulate research questions [ 27 ]. PICOC is widely used in the medical and social sciences fields to encourage researchers to consider the components of the research questions [14] . Kitchenham & Charters [6] compiled the list of PICOC elements and their corresponding terms in computer science, as presented in Table 1 , which includes keywords derived from the PICOC elements. From that point on, it is essential to think of synonyms or “alike” terms that later can be used for building queries in the selected digital libraries. For instance, the keyword “context awareness” can also be linked to “context-aware”.

Planning Step 1 “Defining PICOC keywords and synonyms”.

Formulate research questions

Clearly defined research question(s) are the key elements which set the focus for study identification and data extraction [21] . These questions are formulated based on the PICOC criteria as presented in the example in Table 2 (PICOC keywords are underlined).

Research questions examples.

Select digital library sources

The validity of a study will depend on the proper selection of a database since it must adequately cover the area under investigation [19] . The Web of Science (WoS) is an international and multidisciplinary tool for accessing literature in science, technology, biomedicine, and other disciplines. Scopus is a database that today indexes 40,562 peer-reviewed journals, compared to 24,831 for WoS. Thus, Scopus is currently the largest existing multidisciplinary database. However, it may also be necessary to include sources relevant to computer science, such as EI Compendex, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. Table 3 compares the area of expertise of a selection of databases.

Planning Step 3 “Select digital libraries”. Description of digital libraries in computer science and software engineering.

Define inclusion and exclusion criteria

Authors should define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before conducting the review to prevent bias, although these can be adjusted later, if necessary. The selection of primary studies will depend on these criteria. Articles are included or excluded in this first selection based on abstract and primary bibliographic data. When unsure, the article is skimmed to further decide the relevance for the review. Table 4 sets out some criteria types with descriptions and examples.

Planning Step 4 “Define inclusion and exclusion criteria”. Examples of criteria type.

Define the Quality Assessment (QA) checklist

Assessing the quality of an article requires an artifact which describes how to perform a detailed assessment. A typical quality assessment is a checklist that contains multiple factors to evaluate. A numerical scale is used to assess the criteria and quantify the QA [22] . Zhou et al. [25] presented a detailed description of assessment criteria in software engineering, classified into four main aspects of study quality: Reporting, Rigor, Credibility, and Relevance. Each of these criteria can be evaluated using, for instance, a Likert-type scale [17] , as shown in Table 5 . It is essential to select the same scale for all criteria established on the quality assessment.

Planning Step 5 “Define QA assessment checklist”. Examples of QA scales and questions.

Define the “Data Extraction” form

The data extraction form represents the information necessary to answer the research questions established for the review. Synthesizing the articles is a crucial step when conducting research. Ramesh et al. [15] presented a classification scheme for computer science research, based on topics, research methods, and levels of analysis that can be used to categorize the articles selected. Classification methods and fields to consider when conducting a review are presented in Table 6 .

Planning Step 6 “Define data extraction form”. Examples of fields.

The data extraction must be relevant to the research questions, and the relationship to each of the questions should be included in the form. Kitchenham & Charters [6] presented more pertinent data that can be captured, such as conclusions, recommendations, strengths, and weaknesses. Although the data extraction form can be updated if more information is needed, this should be treated with caution since it can be time-consuming. It can therefore be helpful to first have a general background in the research topic to determine better data extraction criteria.

After defining the protocol, conducting the review requires following each of the steps previously described. Using tools can help simplify the performance of this task. Standard tools such as Excel or Google sheets allow multiple researchers to work collaboratively. Another online tool specifically designed for performing SLRs is Parsif.al 1 . This tool allows researchers, especially in the context of software engineering, to define goals and objectives, import articles using BibTeX files, eliminate duplicates, define selection criteria, and generate reports.

Build digital library search strings

Search strings are built considering the PICOC elements and synonyms to execute the search in each database library. A search string should separate the synonyms with the boolean operator OR. In comparison, the PICOC elements are separated with parentheses and the boolean operator AND. An example is presented next:

(“Smart Manufacturing” OR “Digital Manufacturing” OR “Smart Factory”) AND (“Business Process Management” OR “BPEL” OR “BPM” OR “BPMN”) AND (“Semantic Web” OR “Ontology” OR “Semantic” OR “Semantic Web Service”) AND (“Framework” OR “Extension” OR “Plugin” OR “Tool”

Gather studies

Databases that feature advanced searches enable researchers to perform search queries based on titles, abstracts, and keywords, as well as for years or areas of research. Fig. 1 presents the example of an advanced search in Scopus, using titles, abstracts, and keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY). Most of the databases allow the use of logical operators (i.e., AND, OR). In the example, the search is for “BIG DATA” and “USER EXPERIENCE” or “UX” as a synonym.

Example of Advanced search on Scopus.

In general, bibliometric data of articles can be exported from the databases as a comma-separated-value file (CSV) or BibTeX file, which is helpful for data extraction and quantitative and qualitative analysis. In addition, researchers should take advantage of reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, Endnote, or Jabref, which import bibliographic information onto the software easily.

Study Selection and Refinement

The first step in this stage is to identify any duplicates that appear in the different searches in the selected databases. Some automatic procedures, tools like Excel formulas, or programming languages (i.e., Python) can be convenient here.

In the second step, articles are included or excluded according to the selection criteria, mainly by reading titles and abstracts. Finally, the quality is assessed using the predefined scale. Fig. 2 shows an example of an article QA evaluation in Parsif.al, using a simple scale. In this scenario, the scoring procedure is the following YES= 1, PARTIALLY= 0.5, and NO or UNKNOWN = 0 . A cut-off score should be defined to filter those articles that do not pass the QA. The QA will require a light review of the full text of the article.

Performing quality assessment (QA) in Parsif.al.

Data extraction

Those articles that pass the study selection are then thoroughly and critically read. Next, the researcher completes the information required using the “data extraction” form, as illustrated in Fig. 3 , in this scenario using Parsif.al tool.

Example of data extraction form using Parsif.al.

The information required (study characteristics and findings) from each included study must be acquired and documented through careful reading. Data extraction is valuable, especially if the data requires manipulation or assumptions and inferences. Thus, information can be synthesized from the extracted data for qualitative or quantitative analysis [16] . This documentation supports clarity, precise reporting, and the ability to scrutinize and replicate the examination.

Analysis and Report

The analysis phase examines the synthesized data and extracts meaningful information from the selected articles [10] . There are two main goals in this phase.

The first goal is to analyze the literature in terms of leading authors, journals, countries, and organizations. Furthermore, it helps identify correlations among topic s . Even when not mandatory, this activity can be constructive for researchers to position their work, find trends, and find collaboration opportunities. Next, data from the selected articles can be analyzed using bibliometric analysis (BA). BA summarizes large amounts of bibliometric data to present the state of intellectual structure and emerging trends in a topic or field of research [4] . Table 7 sets out some of the most common bibliometric analysis representations.

Techniques for bibliometric analysis and examples.

Several tools can perform this type of analysis, such as Excel and Google Sheets for statistical graphs or using programming languages such as Python that has available multiple  data visualization libraries (i.e. Matplotlib, Seaborn). Cluster maps based on bibliographic data(i.e keywords, authors) can be developed in VosViewer which makes it easy to identify clusters of related items [18] . In Fig. 4 , node size is representative of the number of papers related to the keyword, and lines represent the links among keyword terms.

[1] Keyword co-relationship analysis using clusterization in vos viewer.

This second and most important goal is to answer the formulated research questions, which should include a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis can make use of data categorized, labelled, or coded in the extraction form (see Section 1.6). This data can be transformed into numerical values to perform statistical analysis. One of the most widely employed method is frequency analysis, which shows the recurrence of an event, and can also represent the percental distribution of the population (i.e., percentage by technology type, frequency of use of different frameworks, etc.). Q ualitative analysis includes the narration of the results, the discussion indicating the way forward in future research work, and inferring a conclusion.

Finally, the literature review report should state the protocol to ensure others researchers can replicate the process and understand how the analysis was performed. In the protocol, it is essential to present the inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and rationality beyond these aspects.

The presentation and reporting of results will depend on the structure of the review given by the researchers conducting the SLR, there is no one answer. This structure should tie the studies together into key themes, characteristics, or subgroups [ 28 ].

SLR can be an extensive and demanding task, however the results are beneficial in providing a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on a given topic. For this reason, researchers should keep in mind that the entire process of the SLR is tailored to answer the research question(s). This article has detailed a practical guide with the essential steps to conducting an SLR in the context of computer science and software engineering while citing multiple helpful examples and tools. It is envisaged that this method will assist researchers, and particularly early-stage researchers, in following an algorithmic approach to fulfill this task. Finally, a quick checklist is presented in Appendix A as a companion of this article.

CRediT author statement

Angela Carrera-Rivera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original. William Ochoa-Agurto : Methodology, Writing-Original. Felix Larrinaga : Reviewing and Supervision Ganix Lasa: Reviewing and Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Funding : This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant No. 814078.

Carrera-Rivera, A., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). Context-awareness for the design of Smart-product service systems: Literature review. Computers in Industry, 142, 103730.

1 https://parsif.al/

Data Availability

Teaching and Research guides

Literature reviews.

• Introduction
• Plan your search
• Where to search
• Refine and update your search
• Finding grey literature
• Writing the review
• Referencing

Research methods overview

Finding literature on research methodologies, sage research methods online.

• Get material not at RMIT
• Further help

What are research methods?

Research methodology is the specific strategies, processes, or techniques utilised in the collection of information that is created and analysed.

The methodology section of a research paper, or thesis, enables the reader to critically evaluate the study’s validity and reliability by addressing how the data was collected or generated, and how it was analysed.

Types of research methods

There are three main types of research methods which use different designs for data collection.  

(1) Qualitative research

Qualitative research gathers data about lived experiences, emotions or behaviours, and the meanings individuals attach to them. It assists in enabling researchers to gain a better understanding of complex concepts, social interactions or cultural phenomena. This type of research is useful in the exploration of how or why things have occurred, interpreting events and describing actions.

Examples of qualitative research designs include:

• focus groups
• observations
• document analysis
• oral history or life stories  

(2) Quantitative research

Quantitative research gathers numerical data which can be ranked, measured or categorised through statistical analysis. It assists with uncovering patterns or relationships, and for making generalisations. This type of research is useful for finding out how many, how much, how often, or to what extent.

Examples of quantitative research designs include:

• surveys or questionnaires
• observation
• document screening
• experiments  

(3) Mixed method research

Mixed Methods research integrates both Qualitative research and Quantitative research. It provides a holistic approach combining and analysing the statistical data with deeper contextualised insights. Using Mixed Methods also enables triangulation, or verification, of the data from two or more sources.

Sometimes in your literature review, you might need to discuss and evaluate relevant research methodologies in order to justify your own choice of research methodology.

When searching for literature on research methodologies it is important to search across a range of sources. No single information source will supply all that you need. Selecting appropriate sources will depend upon your research topic.

Developing a robust search strategy will help reduce irrelevant results. It is good practice to plan a strategy before you start to search.

Search tips

(1) free text keywords.

Free text searching is the use of natural language words to conduct your search. Use selective free text keywords such as: phenomenological, "lived experience", "grounded theory", "life experiences", "focus groups", interview, quantitative, survey, validity, variance, correlation and statistical.

To locate books on your desired methodology, try LibrarySearch . Remember to use  refine  options such as books, ebooks, subject, and publication date.  

(2) Subject headings in Databases

Databases categorise their records using subject terms, or a controlled vocabulary (thesaurus). These subject headings may be useful to use, in addition to utilising free text keywords in a database search.

Subject headings will differ across databases, for example, the PubMed database uses 'Qualitative Research' whilst the CINHAL database uses 'Qualitative Studies.'  

(3) Limiting search results

Databases enable sets of results to be limited or filtered by specific fields, look for options such as Publication Type, Article Type, etc. and apply them to your search.  

(4) Browse the Library shelves

To find books on  research methods  browse the Library shelves at call number  001.42

• SAGE Research Methods Online SAGE Research Methods Online (SRMO) is a research tool supported by a newly devised taxonomy that links content and methods terms. It provides the most comprehensive picture available today of research methods (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) across the social and behavioural sciences.

SAGE Research Methods Overview  (2:07 min) by SAGE Publishing  ( YouTube ) 

• << Previous: Referencing
• Next: Get material not at RMIT >>

• Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 2:49 PM
• URL: https://rmit.libguides.com/literature-review

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Persuasive Arguments
• Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

• Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
• Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
• Read: read the articles or other sources of information
• Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
• Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
• Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

• Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
• Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
• Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclude 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 an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

• How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
• Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
• Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
• Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Research Findings – Types Examples and Writing...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded 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 to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

• DOI: 10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2019.07.039
• Corpus ID: 201321905

Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines

• Published in Journal of business research 1 November 2019

4,075 Citations

The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know, review research as scientific inquiry.

• Highly Influenced

Methodology of Writing Literature Review on Management and Business: Digest of Overseas Highly-Cited Articles

• 10 Excerpts

How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions

• 23 Excerpts

On Quality 4.0 in project-based industries

International business research on “emerging economies”: a critical review and recommendations, how to undertake an impactful literature review: understanding review approaches and guidelines for high-impact systematic literature reviews, management accounting and new product development: a systematic literature review and future research directions, introduction: the role and relevance of literature reviews and research in the asia pacific, advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’, 32 references, towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, review articles: purpose, process, and structure, analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review, a typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies., developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature, defining service innovation: a review and synthesis, the effectiveness of customer participation in new product development: a meta-analysis, the integrative review: updated methodology., identifying categories of service innovation: a review and synthesis of the literature, diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2024

The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review

• Maritta Välimäki 1 , 2 ,
• Shuang Hu 3 ,
• Tella Lantta 1 ,
• Kirsi Hipp 1 , 4 ,
• Jaakko Varpula 1 ,
• Jiarui Chen 3 ,
• Gaoming Liu 5 ,
• Yao Tang 3 ,
• Wenjun Chen 3 &
• Xianhong Li 3  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  452 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

135 Accesses

Metrics details

The central component in impactful healthcare decisions is evidence. Understanding how nurse leaders use evidence in their own managerial decision making is still limited. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes.

We included articles using any type of research design. We referred nurses, nurse managers or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context when they attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group in an organization using an evidence-based approach. Seven databases were searched until 11 November 2021. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to evaluate the Risk of bias in quasi-experimental studies, case series, mixed methods studies, respectively. The JBI approach to mixed methods systematic reviews was followed, and a parallel-results convergent approach to synthesis and integration was adopted.

Thirty-one publications were eligible for the analysis: case series ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and quasi-experimental studies ( n  = 1). All studies were included regardless of methodological quality. Leadership problems were related to the implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of nursing care and the resource availability. Organizational data was used in 27 studies to understand leadership problems, scientific evidence from literature was sought in 26 studies, and stakeholders’ views were explored in 24 studies. Perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership focused on nurses’ performance, organizational outcomes, and clinical outcomes. Economic data were not available.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe its measured and perceived effects from different sites. Although a variety of perceptions and effects were identified on nurses’ performance as well as on organizational and clinical outcomes, available knowledge concerning evidence-based leadership is currently insufficient. Therefore, more high-quality research and clinical trial designs are still needed.

Trail registration

The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624).

Peer Review reports

Global health demands have set new roles for nurse leaders [ 1 ].Nurse leaders are referred to as nurses, nurse managers, or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context who attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group based on goals that are congruent with organizational goals [ 2 ]. They are seen as professionals “armed with data and evidence, and a commitment to mentorship and education”, and as a group in which “leaders innovate, transform, and achieve quality outcomes for patients, health care professionals, organizations, and communities” [ 3 ]. Effective leadership occurs when team members critically follow leaders and are motivated by a leader’s decisions based on the organization’s requests and targets [ 4 ]. On the other hand, problems caused by poor leadership may also occur, regarding staff relations, stress, sickness, or retention [ 5 ]. Therefore, leadership requires an understanding of different problems to be solved using synthesizing evidence from research, clinical expertise, and stakeholders’ preferences [ 6 , 7 ]. If based on evidence, leadership decisions, also referred as leadership decision making [ 8 ], could ensure adequate staffing [ 7 , 9 ] and to produce sufficient and cost-effective care [ 10 ]. However, nurse leaders still rely on their decision making on their personal [ 11 ] and professional experience [ 10 ] over research evidence, which can lead to deficiencies in the quality and safety of care delivery [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. As all nurses should demonstrate leadership in their profession, their leadership competencies should be strengthened [ 15 ].

Evidence-informed decision-making, referred to as evidence appraisal and application, and evaluation of decisions [ 16 ], has been recognized as one of the core competencies for leaders [ 17 , 18 ]. The role of evidence in nurse leaders’ managerial decision making has been promoted by public authorities [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Evidence-based management, another concept related to evidence-based leadership, has been used as the potential to improve healthcare services [ 22 ]. It can guide nursing leaders, in developing working conditions, staff retention, implementation practices, strategic planning, patient care, and success of leadership [ 13 ]. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] in their systematic review and meta-analysis examined 83 studies regarding leadership development interventions. They found that leadership training can result in significant improvement in participants’ skills, especially in knowledge level, although the training effects varied across studies. Cummings et al. [ 24 ] reviewed 100 papers (93 studies) and concluded that participation in leadership interventions had a positive impact on the development of a variety of leadership styles. Clavijo-Chamorro et al. [ 25 ] in their review of 11 studies focused on leadership-related factors that facilitate evidence implementation: teamwork, organizational structures, and transformational leadership. The role of nurse managers was to facilitate evidence-based practices by transforming contexts to motivate the staff and move toward a shared vision of change.

As far as we are aware, however, only a few systematic reviews have focused on evidence-based leadership or related concepts in the healthcare context aiming to analyse how nurse leaders themselves uses evidence in the decision-making process. Young [ 26 ] targeted definitions and acceptance of evidence-based management (EBMgt) in healthcare while Hasanpoor et al. [ 22 ] identified facilitators and barriers, sources of evidence used, and the role of evidence in the process of decision making. Both these reviews concluded that EBMgt was of great importance but used limitedly in healthcare settings due to a lack of time, a lack of research management activities, and policy constraints. A review by Williams [ 27 ] showed that the usage of evidence to support management in decision making is marginal due to a shortage of relevant evidence. Fraser [ 28 ] in their review further indicated that the potential evidence-based knowledge is not used in decision making by leaders as effectively as it could be. Non-use of evidence occurs and leaders base their decisions mainly on single studies, real-world evidence, and experts’ opinions [ 29 ]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses rarely provide evidence of management-related interventions [ 30 ]. Tate et al. [ 31 ] concluded based on their systematic review and meta-analysis that the ability of nurse leaders to use and critically appraise research evidence may influence the way policy is enacted and how resources and staff are used to meet certain objectives set by policy. This can further influence staff and workforce outcomes. It is therefore important that nurse leaders have the capacity and motivation to use the strongest evidence available to effect change and guide their decision making [ 27 ].

Despite of a growing body of evidence, we found only one review focusing on the impact of evidence-based knowledge. Geert et al. [ 32 ] reviewed literature from 2007 to 2016 to understand the elements of design, delivery, and evaluation of leadership development interventions that are the most reliably linked to outcomes at the level of the individual and the organization, and that are of most benefit to patients. The authors concluded that it is possible to improve individual-level outcomes among leaders, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Some of the most effective interventions included, for example, interactive workshops, coaching, action learning, and mentoring. However, these authors found limited research evidence describing how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to support their managerial decisions in nursing and what the outcomes are.

To fill the knowledge gap and compliment to existing knowledgebase, in this mixed methods review we aimed to (1) examine what leadership problems nurse leaders solve using an evidence-based approach and (2) how they use evidence to solve these problems. We also explored (3) the measured and (4) perceived effects of the evidence-based leadership approach in healthcare settings. Both qualitative and quantitative components of the effects of evidence-based leadership were examined to provide greater insights into the available literature [ 33 ]. Together with the evidence-based leadership approach, and its impact on nursing [ 34 , 35 ], this knowledge gained in this review can be used to inform clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 33 ]. The study is registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624). The methods used in this review were specified in advance and documented in a priori in a published protocol [ 36 ]. Key terms of the review and the search terms are defined in Table  1 (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, context, other).

In this review, we used a mixed methods approach [ 37 ]. A mixed methods systematic review was selected as this approach has the potential to produce direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners [ 38 ]. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie [ 39 ] have defined mixed methods research as “the class of research in which the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” Therefore, we combined quantitative and narrative analysis to appraise and synthesize empirical evidence, and we held them as equally important in informing clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 34 ]. In this review, a comprehensive synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed first and then discussed in discussion part (parallel-results convergent design) [ 40 ]. We hoped that different type of analysis approaches could complement each other and deeper picture of the topic in line with our research questions could be gained [ 34 ].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study are described in Table  1 .

Search strategy

A three-step search strategy was utilized. First, an initial limited search with #MEDLINE was undertaken, followed by analysis of the words used in the title, abstract, and the article’s key index terms. Second, the search strategy, including identified keywords and index terms, was adapted for each included data base and a second search was undertaken on 11 November 2021. The full search strategy for each database is described in Additional file 1 . Third, the reference list of all studies included in the review were screened for additional studies. No year limits or language restrictions were used.

Information sources

The database search included the following: CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (academic database for medicine and health science and nursing), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (academic database across all scientific and technical disciplines, ranging from medicine and social sciences to arts and humanities). These databases were selected as they represent typical databases in health care context. Subject headings from each of the databases were included in the search strategies. Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used to combine the search terms. An information specialist from the University of Turku Library was consulted in the formation of the search strategies.

Study selection

All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence software (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia www.covidence.org ), and duplicates were removed by the software. Titles and abstracts were screened and assessed against the inclusion criteria independently by two reviewers out of four, and any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved in full and archived in Covidence. Access to one full-text article was lacking: the authors for one study were contacted about the missing full text, but no full text was received. All remaining hits of the included studies were retrieved and assessed independently against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers of four (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and the reasons for exclusion were recorded in Covidence. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussions with XL.

Assessment of methodological quality

Eligible studies were critically appraised by two independent reviewers (YT, SH). Standardized critical appraisal instruments based on the study design were used. First, quasi-experimental studies were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies [ 44 ]. Second, case series were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series [ 45 ]. Third, mixed methods studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [ 46 ].

To increase inter-reviewer reliability, the review agreement was calculated (SH) [ 47 ]. A kappa greater than 0.8 was considered to represent a high level of agreement (0–0.1). In our data, the agreement was 0.75. Discrepancies raised between two reviewers were resolved through discussion and modifications and confirmed by XL. As an outcome, studies that met the inclusion criteria were proceeded to critical appraisal and assessed as suitable for inclusion in the review. The scores for each item and overall critical appraisal scores were presented.

Data extraction

For data extraction, specific tables were created. First, study characteristics (author(s), year, country, design, number of participants, setting) were extracted by two authors independently (JC, MV) and reviewed by TL. Second, descriptions of the interventions were extracted by two reviewers (JV, JC) using the structure of the TIDIeR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist (brief name, the goal of the intervention, material and procedure, models of delivery and location, dose, modification, adherence and fidelity) [ 48 ]. The extractions were confirmed (MV).

Third, due to a lack of effectiveness data and a wide heterogeneity between study designs and presentation of outcomes, no attempt was made to pool the quantitative data statistically; the findings of the quantitative data were presented in narrative form only [ 44 ]. The separate data extraction tables for each research question were designed specifically for this study. For both qualitative (and a qualitative component of mixed-method studies) and quantitative studies, the data were extracted and tabulated into text format according to preplanned research questions [ 36 ]. To test the quality of the tables and the data extraction process, three authors independently extracted the data from the first five studies (in alphabetical order). After that, the authors came together to share and determine whether their approaches of the data extraction were consistent with each other’s output and whether the content of each table was in line with research question. No reason was found to modify the data extraction tables or planned process. After a consensus of the data extraction process was reached, the data were extracted in pairs by independent reviewers (WC, TY, SH, GL). Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and with a third reviewer (MV).

Data analysis

We were not able to conduct a meta-analysis due to a lack of effectiveness data based on clinical trials. Instead, we used inductive thematic analysis with constant comparison to answer the research question [ 46 , 49 ] using tabulated primary data from qualitative and quantitative studies as reported by the original authors in narrative form only [ 47 ]. In addition, the qualitizing process was used to transform quantitative data to qualitative data; this helped us to convert the whole data into themes and categories. After that we used the thematic analysis for the narrative data as follows. First, the text was carefully read, line by line, to reveal topics answering each specific review question (MV). Second, the data coding was conducted, and the themes in the data were formed by data categorization. The process of deriving the themes was inductive based on constant comparison [ 49 ]. The results of thematic analysis and data categorization was first described in narrative format and then the total number of studies was calculated where the specific category was identified (%).

Stakeholder involvement

The method of reporting stakeholders’ involvement follows the key components by [ 50 ]: (1) people involved, (2) geographical location, (3) how people were recruited, (4) format of involvement, (5) amount of involvement, (6) ethical approval, (7) financial compensation, and (8) methods for reporting involvement.

In our review, stakeholder involvement targeted nurses and nurse leader in China. Nurse Directors of two hospitals recommended potential participants who received a personal invitation letter from researchers to participate in a discussion meeting. Stakeholders’ participation was based on their own free will. Due to COVID-19, one online meeting (1 h) was organized (25 May 2022). Eleven participants joined the meeting. Ethical approval was not applied and no financial compensation was offered. At the end of the meeting, experiences of stakeholders’ involvement were explored.

The meeting started with an introductory presentation with power points. The rationale, methods, and preliminary review results were shared with the participants [ 51 ].The meeting continued with general questions for the participants: (1) Are you aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership?; (2) How important is it to use evidence to support decisions among nurse leaders?; (3) How is the evidence-based approach used in hospital settings?; and (4) What type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)?

Two people took notes on the course and content of the conversation. The notes were later transcripted in verbatim, and the key points of the discussions were summarised. Although answers offered by the stakeholders were very short, the information was useful to validate the preliminary content of the results, add the rigorousness of the review, and obtain additional perspectives. A recommendation of the stakeholders was combined in the Discussion part of this review increasing the applicability of the review in the real world [ 50 ]. At the end of the discussion, the value of stakeholders’ involvement was asked. Participants shared that the experience of participating was unique and the topic of discussion was challenging. Two authors of the review group further represented stakeholders by working together with the research team throughout the review study.

Search results

From seven different electronic databases, 6053 citations were identified as being potentially relevant to the review. Then, 3133 duplicates were removed by an automation tool (Covidence: www.covidence.org ), and one was removed manually. The titles and abstracts of 3040 of citations were reviewed, and a total of 110 full texts were included (one extra citation was found on the reference list but later excluded). Based on the eligibility criteria, 31 studies (32 hits) were critically appraised and deemed suitable for inclusion in the review. The search results and selection process are presented in the PRISMA [ 52 ] flow diagram Fig.  1 . The full list of references for included studies can be find in Additional file 2 . To avoid confusion between articles of the reference list and studies included in the analysis, the studies included in the review are referred inside the article using the reference number of each study (e.g. ref 1, ref 2).

Search results and study selection and inclusion process [ 52 ]

Characteristics of included studies

The studies had multiple purposes, aiming to develop practice, implement a new approach, improve quality, or to develop a model. The 31 studies (across 32 hits) were case series studies ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and a quasi-experimental study ( n  = 1). All studies were published between the years 2004 and 2021. The highest number of papers was published in year 2020.

Table  2 describes the characteristics of included studies and Additional file 3 offers a narrative description of the studies.

Methodological quality assessment

Quasi-experimental studies.

We had one quasi-experimental study (ref 31). All questions in the critical appraisal tool were applicable. The total score of the study was 8 (out of a possible 9). Only one response of the tool was ‘no’ because no control group was used in the study (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Case series studies . A case series study is typically defined as a collection of subjects with common characteristics. The studies do not include a comparison group and are often based on prevalent cases and on a sample of convenience [ 53 ]. Munn et al. [ 45 ] further claim that case series are best described as observational studies, lacking experimental and randomized characteristics, being descriptive studies, without a control or comparator group. Out of 27 case series studies included in our review, the critical appraisal scores varied from 1 to 9. Five references were conference abstracts with empirical study results, which were scored from 1 to 3. Full reports of these studies were searched in electronic databases but not found. Critical appraisal scores for the remaining 22 studies ranged from 1 to 9 out of a possible score of 10. One question (Q3) was not applicable to 13 studies: “Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?” Only two studies had clearly reported the demographic of the participants in the study (Q6). Twenty studies met Criteria 8 (“Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported?”) and 18 studies met Criteria 7 (“Q7: Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?”) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Mixed-methods studies

Mixed-methods studies involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. This is a common design and includes convergent design, sequential explanatory design, and sequential exploratory design [ 46 ]. There were three mixed-methods studies. The critical appraisal scores for the three studies ranged from 60 to 100% out of a possible 100%. Two studies met all the criteria, while one study fulfilled 60% of the scored criteria due to a lack of information to understand the relevance of the sampling strategy well enough to address the research question (Q4.1) or to determine whether the risk of nonresponse bias was low (Q4.4) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Intervention or program components

The intervention of program components were categorized and described using the TiDier checklist: name and goal, theory or background, material, procedure, provider, models of delivery, location, dose, modification, and adherence and fidelity [ 48 ]. A description of intervention in each study is described in Additional file 5 and a narrative description in Additional file 6 .

Leadership problems

In line with the inclusion criteria, data for the leadership problems were categorized in all 31 included studies (see Additional file 7 for leadership problems). Three types of leadership problems were identified: implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of clinical care, and resources in nursing care. A narrative summary of the results is reported below.

Implementing knowledge into practice

Eleven studies (35%) aimed to solve leadership problems related to implementation of knowledge into practice. Studies showed how to support nurses in evidence-based implementation (EBP) (ref 3, ref 5), how to engage nurses in using evidence in practice (ref 4), how to convey the importance of EBP (ref 22) or how to change practice (ref 4). Other problems were how to facilitate nurses to use guideline recommendations (ref 7) and how nurses can make evidence-informed decisions (ref 8). General concerns also included the linkage between theory and practice (ref 1) as well as how to implement the EBP model in practice (ref 6). In addition, studies were motivated by the need for revisions or updates of protocols to improve clinical practice (ref 10) as well as the need to standardize nursing activities (ref 11, ref 14).

The quality of the care

Thirteen (42%) focused on solving problems related to the quality of clinical care. In these studies, a high number of catheter infections led a lack of achievement of organizational goals (ref 2, ref 9). A need to reduce patient symptoms in stem cell transplant patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (ref 24) was also one of the problems to be solved. In addition, the projects focused on how to prevent pressure ulcers (ref 26, ref 29), how to enhance the quality of cancer treatment (ref 25) and how to reduce the need for invasive constipation treatment (ref 30). Concerns about patient safety (ref 15), high fall rates (ref 16, ref 19), dissatisfaction of patients (ref 16, ref 18) and nurses (ref 16, ref 30) were also problems that had initiated the projects. Studies addressed concerns about how to promote good contingency care in residential aged care homes (ref 20) and about how to increase recognition of human trafficking problems in healthcare (ref 21).

Resources in nursing care

Nurse leaders identified problems in their resources, especially in staffing problems. These problems were identified in seven studies (23%), which involved concerns about how to prevent nurses from leaving the job (ref 31), how to ensure appropriate recruitment, staffing and retaining of nurses (ref 13) and how to decrease nurses’ burden and time spent on nursing activities (ref 12). Leadership turnover was also reported as a source of dissatisfaction (ref 17); studies addressed a lack of structured transition and training programs, which led to turnover (ref 23), as well as how to improve intershift handoff among nurses (ref 28). Optimal design for new hospitals was also examined (ref 27).

Main features of evidence-based leadership

Out of 31 studies, 17 (55%) included all four domains of an evidence-based leadership approach, and four studies (13%) included evidence of critical appraisal of the results (see Additional file 8 for the main features of evidence-based Leadership) (ref 11, ref 14, ref 23, ref 27).

Organizational evidence

Twenty-seven studies (87%) reported how organizational evidence was collected and used to solve leadership problems (ref 2). Retrospective chart reviews (ref 5), a review of the extent of specific incidents (ref 19), and chart auditing (ref 7, ref 25) were conducted. A gap between guideline recommendations and actual care was identified using organizational data (ref 7) while the percentage of nurses’ working time spent on patient care was analyzed using an electronic charting system (ref 12). Internal data (ref 22), institutional data, and programming metrics were also analyzed to understand the development of the nurse workforce (ref 13).

Surveys (ref 3, ref 25), interviews (ref 3, ref 25) and group reviews (ref 18) were used to better understand the leadership problem to be solved. Employee opinion surveys on leadership (ref 17), a nurse satisfaction survey (ref 30) and a variety of reporting templates were used for the data collection (ref 28) reported. Sometimes, leadership problems were identified by evidence facilitators or a PI’s team who worked with staff members (ref 15, ref 17). Problems in clinical practice were also identified by the Nursing Professional Council (ref 14), managers (ref 26) or nurses themselves (ref 24). Current practices were reviewed (ref 29) and a gap analysis was conducted (ref 4, ref 16, ref 23) together with SWOT analysis (ref 16). In addition, hospital mission and vision statements, research culture established and the proportion of nursing alumni with formal EBP training were analyzed (ref 5). On the other hand, it was stated that no systematic hospital-specific sources of data regarding job satisfaction or organizational commitment were used (ref 31). In addition, statements of organizational analysis were used on a general level only (ref 1).

Scientific evidence identified

Twenty-six studies (84%) reported the use of scientific evidence in their evidence-based leadership processes. A literature search was conducted (ref 21) and questions, PICO, and keywords were identified (ref 4) in collaboration with a librarian. Electronic databases, including PubMed (ref 14, ref 31), Cochrane, and EMBASE (ref 31) were searched. Galiano (ref 6) used Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library while Hoke (ref 11) conducted an electronic search using CINAHL and PubMed to retrieve articles.

Identified journals were reviewed manually (ref 31). The findings were summarized using ‘elevator speech’ (ref 4). In a study by Gifford et al. (ref 9) evidence facilitators worked with participants to access, appraise, and adapt the research evidence to the organizational context. Ostaszkiewicz (ref 20) conducted a scoping review of literature and identified and reviewed frameworks and policy documents about the topic and the quality standards. Further, a team of nursing administrators, directors, staff nurses, and a patient representative reviewed the literature and made recommendations for practice changes.

Clinical practice guidelines were also used to offer scientific evidence (ref 7, ref 19). Evidence was further retrieved from a combination of nursing policies, guidelines, journal articles, and textbooks (ref 12) as well as from published guidelines and literature (ref 13). Internal evidence, professional practice knowledge, relevant theories and models were synthesized (ref 24) while other study (ref 25) reviewed individual studies, synthesized with systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. The team reviewed the research evidence (ref 3, ref 15) or conducted a literature review (ref 22, ref 28, ref 29), a literature search (ref 27), a systematic review (ref 23), a review of the literature (ref 30) or ‘the scholarly literature was reviewed’ (ref 18). In addition, ‘an extensive literature review of evidence-based best practices was carried out’ (ref 10). However, detailed description how the review was conducted was lacking.

Views of stakeholders

A total of 24 studies (77%) reported methods for how the views of stakeholders, i.e., professionals or experts, were considered. Support to run this study was received from nursing leadership and multidisciplinary teams (ref 29). Experts and stakeholders joined the study team in some cases (ref 25, ref 30), and in other studies, their opinions were sought to facilitate project success (ref 3). Sometimes a steering committee was formed by a Chief Nursing Officer and Clinical Practice Specialists (ref 2). More specifically, stakeholders’ views were considered using interviews, workshops and follow-up teleconferences (ref 7). The literature review was discussed with colleagues (ref 11), and feedback and support from physicians as well as the consensus of staff were sought (ref 16).

A summary of the project findings and suggestions for the studies were discussed at 90-minute weekly meetings by 11 charge nurses. Nurse executive directors were consulted over a 10-week period (ref 31). An implementation team (nurse, dietician, physiotherapist, occupational therapist) was formed to support the implementation of evidence-based prevention measures (ref 26). Stakeholders volunteered to join in the pilot implementation (ref 28) or a stakeholder team met to determine the best strategy for change management, shortcomings in evidence-based criteria were discussed, and strategies to address those areas were planned (ref 5). Nursing leaders, staff members (ref 22), ‘process owners (ref 18) and program team members (ref 18, ref 19, ref 24) met regularly to discuss the problems. Critical input was sought from clinical educators, physicians, nutritionists, pharmacists, and nurse managers (ref 24). The unit director and senior nursing staff reviewed the contents of the product, and the final version of clinical pathways were reviewed and approved by the Quality Control Commission of the Nursing Department (ref 12). In addition, two co-design workshops with 18 residential aged care stakeholders were organized to explore their perspectives about factors to include in a model prototype (ref 20). Further, an agreement of stakeholders in implementing continuous quality services within an open relationship was conducted (ref 1).

Critical appraisal

In five studies (16%), a critical appraisal targeting the literature search was carried out. The appraisals were conducted by interns and teams who critiqued the evidence (ref 4). In Hoke’s study, four areas that had emerged in the literature were critically reviewed (ref 11). Other methods were to ‘critically appraise the search results’ (ref 14). Journal club team meetings (ref 23) were organized to grade the level and quality of evidence and the team ‘critically appraised relevant evidence’ (ref 27). On the other hand, the studies lacked details of how the appraisals were done in each study.

The perceived effects of evidence-based leadership

Perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance.

Eleven studies (35%) described perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in four groups: awareness and knowledge, competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, and engagement. First, regarding ‘awareness and knowledge’, different projects provided nurses with new learning opportunities (ref 3). Staff’s knowledge (ref 20, ref 28), skills, and education levels improved (ref 20), as did nurses’ knowledge comprehension (ref 21). Second, interventions and approaches focusing on management and leadership positively influenced participants’ competence level to improve the quality of services. Their confidence level (ref 1) and motivation to change practice increased, self-esteem improved, and they were more positive and enthusiastic in their work (ref 22). Third, some nurses were relieved that they had learned to better handle patients’ needs (ref 25). For example, a systematic work approach increased nurses’ awareness of the patients who were at risk of developing health problems (ref 26). And last, nurse leaders were more engaged with staff, encouraging them to adopt the new practices and recognizing their efforts to change (ref 8).

Perceived effects on organizational outcomes

Nine studies (29%) described the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership). These were categorized into three groups: use of resources, staff commitment, and team effort. First, more appropriate use of resources was reported (ref 15, ref 20), and working time was more efficiently used (ref 16). In generally, a structured approach made implementing change more manageable (ref 1). On the other hand, in the beginning of the change process, the feedback from nurses was unfavorable, and they experienced discomfort in the new work style (ref 29). New approaches were also perceived as time consuming (ref 3). Second, nurse leaders believed that fewer nursing staff than expected left the organization over the course of the study (ref 31). Third, the project helped staff in their efforts to make changes, and it validated the importance of working as a team (ref 7). Collaboration and support between the nurses increased (ref 26). On the other hand, new work style caused challenges in teamwork (ref 3).

Perceived effects on clinical outcomes

Five studies (16%) reported the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on clinical outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: general patient outcomes and specific clinical outcomes. First, in general, the project assisted in connecting the guideline recommendations and patient outcomes (ref 7). The project was good for the patients in general, and especially to improve patient safety (ref 16). On the other hand, some nurses thought that the new working style did not work at all for patients (ref 28). Second, the new approach used assisted in optimizing patients’ clinical problems and person-centered care (ref 20). Bowel management, for example, received very good feedback (ref 30).

The measured effects of evidence-based leadership

The measured effects on nurses’ performance.

Data were obtained from 20 studies (65%) (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership) and categorized nurse performance outcomes for three groups: awareness and knowledge, engagement, and satisfaction. First, six studies (19%) measured the awareness and knowledge levels of participants. Internship for staff nurses was beneficial to help participants to understand the process for using evidence-based practice and to grow professionally, to stimulate for innovative thinking, to give knowledge needed to use evidence-based practice to answer clinical questions, and to make possible to complete an evidence-based practice project (ref 3). Regarding implementation program of evidence-based practice, those with formal EBP training showed an improvement in knowledge, attitude, confidence, awareness and application after intervention (ref 3, ref 11, ref 20, ref 23, ref 25). On the contrary, in other study, attitude towards EBP remained stable ( p  = 0.543). and those who applied EBP decreased although no significant differences over the years ( p  = 0.879) (ref 6).

Second, 10 studies (35%) described nurses’ engagement to new practices (ref 5, ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). 9 studies (29%) studies reported that there was an improvement of compliance level of participants (ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). On the contrary, in DeLeskey’s (ref 5) study, although improvement was found in post-operative nausea and vomiting’s (PONV) risk factors documented’ (2.5–63%), and ’risk factors communicated among anaesthesia and surgical staff’ (0–62%), the improvement did not achieve the goal. The reason was a limited improvement was analysed. It was noted that only those patients who had been seen by the pre-admission testing nurse had risk assessments completed. Appropriate treatment/prophylaxis increased from 69 to 77%, and from 30 to 49%; routine assessment for PONV/rescue treatment 97% and 100% was both at 100% following the project. The results were discussed with staff but further reasons for a lack of engagement in nursing care was not reported.

And third, six studies (19%) reported nurses’ satisfaction with project outcomes. The study results showed that using evidence in managerial decisions improved nurses’ satisfaction and attitudes toward their organization ( P  < 0.05) (ref 31). Nurses’ overall job satisfaction improved as well (ref 17). Nurses’ satisfaction with usability of the electronic charting system significantly improved after introduction of the intervention (ref 12). In handoff project in seven hospitals, improvement was reported in all satisfaction indicators used in the study although improvement level varied in different units (ref 28). In addition, positive changes were reported in nurses’ ability to autonomously perform their job (“How satisfied are you with the tools and resources available for you treat and prevent patient constipation?” (54%, n  = 17 vs. 92%, n  = 35, p  < 0.001) (ref 30).

The measured effects on organizational outcomes

Thirteen studies (42%) described the effects of a project on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: staff compliance, and changes in practices. First, studies reported improved organizational outcomes due to staff better compliance in care (ref 4, ref 13, ref 17, ref 23, ref 27, ref 31). Second, changes in organization practices were also described (ref 11) like changes in patient documentation (ref 12, ref 21). Van Orne (ref 30) found a statistically significant reduction in the average rate of invasive medication administration between pre-intervention and post-intervention ( p  = 0.01). Salvador (ref 24) also reported an improvement in a proactive approach to mucositis prevention with an evidence-based oral care guide. On the contrary, concerns were also raised such as not enough time for new bedside report (ref 16) or a lack of improvement of assessment of diabetic ulcer (ref 8).

The measured effects on clinical outcomes

A variety of improvements in clinical outcomes were reported (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership): improvement in patient clinical status and satisfaction level. First, a variety of improvement in patient clinical status was reported. improvement in Incidence of CAUTI decreased 27.8% between 2015 and 2019 (ref 2) while a patient-centered quality improvement project reduced CAUTI rates to 0 (ref 10). A significant decrease in transmission rate of MRSA transmission was also reported (ref 27) and in other study incidences of CLABSIs dropped following of CHG bathing (ref 14). Further, it was possible to decrease patient nausea from 18 to 5% and vomiting to 0% (ref 5) while the percentage of patients who left the hospital without being seen was below 2% after the project (ref 17). In addition, a significant reduction in the prevalence of pressure ulcers was found (ref 26, ref 29) and a significant reduction of mucositis severity/distress was achieved (ref 24). Patient falls rate decreased (ref 15, ref 16, ref 19, ref 27).

Second, patient satisfaction level after project implementation improved (ref 28). The scale assessing healthcare providers by consumers showed improvement, but the changes were not statistically significant. Improvement in an emergency department leadership model and in methods of communication with patients improved patient satisfaction scores by 600% (ref 17). In addition, new evidence-based unit improved patient experiences about the unit although not all items improved significantly (ref 18).

Stakeholder involvement in the mixed-method review

To ensure stakeholders’ involvement in the review, the real-world relevance of our research [ 53 ], achieve a higher level of meaning in our review results, and gain new perspectives on our preliminary findings [ 50 ], a meeting with 11 stakeholders was organized. First, we asked if participants were aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership. Responses revealed that participants were familiar with the concept of evidence-based practice, but the topic of evidence-based leadership was totally new. Examples of nurses and nurse leaders’ responses are as follows: “I have heard a concept of evidence-based practice but never a concept of evidence-based leadership.” Another participant described: “I have heard it [evidence-based leadership] but I do not understand what it means.”

Second, as stakeholder involvement is beneficial to the relevance and impact of health research [ 54 ], we asked how important evidence is to them in supporting decisions in health care services. One participant described as follows: “Using evidence in decisions is crucial to the wards and also to the entire hospital.” Third, we asked how the evidence-based approach is used in hospital settings. Participants expressed that literature is commonly used to solve clinical problems in patient care but not to solve leadership problems. “In [patient] medication and care, clinical guidelines are regularly used. However, I am aware only a few cases where evidence has been sought to solve leadership problems.”

And last, we asked what type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)? The participants were aware that different types of information were collected in their organization on a daily basis (e.g. patient satisfaction surveys). However, the information was seldom used to support decision making because nurse leaders did not know how to access this information. Even so, the participants agreed that the use of evidence from different sources was important in approaching any leadership or managerial problems in the organization. Participants also suggested that all nurse leaders should receive systematic training related to the topic; this could support the daily use of the evidence-based approach.

To our knowledge, this article represents the first mixed-methods systematic review to examine leadership problems, how evidence is used to solve these problems and what the perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership are on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes. This review has two key findings. First, the available research data suggests that evidence-based leadership has potential in the healthcare context, not only to improve knowledge and skills among nurses, but also to improve organizational outcomes and the quality of patient care. Second, remarkably little published research was found to explore the effects of evidence-based leadership with an efficient trial design. We validated the preliminary results with nurse stakeholders, and confirmed that nursing staff, especially nurse leaders, were not familiar with the concept of evidence-based leadership, nor were they used to implementing evidence into their leadership decisions. Our data was based on many databases, and we screened a large number of studies. We also checked existing registers and databases and found no registered or ongoing similar reviews being conducted. Therefore, our results may not change in the near future.

We found that after identifying the leadership problems, 26 (84%) studies out of 31 used organizational data, 25 (81%) studies used scientific evidence from the literature, and 21 (68%) studies considered the views of stakeholders in attempting to understand specific leadership problems more deeply. However, only four studies critically appraised any of these findings. Considering previous critical statements of nurse leaders’ use of evidence in their decision making [ 14 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 55 ], our results are still quite promising.

Our results support a previous systematic review by Geert et al. [ 32 ], which concluded that it is possible to improve leaders’ individual-level outcomes, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] particularly found that leadership training resulted in significant knowledge and skill improvements, although the effects varied widely across studies. In our study, evidence-based leadership was seen to enable changes in clinical practice, especially in patient care. On the other hand, we understand that not all efforts to changes were successful [ 56 , 57 , 58 ]. An evidence-based approach causes negative attitudes and feelings. Negative emotions in participants have also been reported due to changes, such as discomfort with a new working style [ 59 ]. Another study reported inconvenience in using a new intervention and its potential risks for patient confidentiality. Sometimes making changes is more time consuming than continuing with current practice [ 60 ]. These findings may partially explain why new interventions or program do not always fully achieve their goals. On the other hand, Dubose et al. [ 61 ] state that, if prepared with knowledge of resistance, nurse leaders could minimize the potential negative consequences and capitalize on a powerful impact of change adaptation.

We found that only six studies used a specific model or theory to understand the mechanism of change that could guide leadership practices. Participants’ reactions to new approaches may be an important factor in predicting how a new intervention will be implemented into clinical practice. Therefore, stronger effort should be put to better understanding the use of evidence, how participants’ reactions and emotions or practice changes could be predicted or supported using appropriate models or theories, and how using these models are linked with leadership outcomes. In this task, nurse leaders have an important role. At the same time, more responsibilities in developing health services have been put on the shoulders of nurse leaders who may already be suffering under pressure and increased burden at work. Working in a leadership position may also lead to role conflict. A study by Lalleman et al. [ 62 ] found that nurses were used to helping other people, often in ad hoc situations. The helping attitude of nurses combined with structured managerial role may cause dilemmas, which may lead to stress. Many nurse leaders opt to leave their positions less than 5 years [ 63 ].To better fulfill the requirements of health services in the future, the role of nurse leaders in evidence-based leadership needs to be developed further to avoid ethical and practical dilemmas in their leadership practices.

It is worth noting that the perceived and measured effects did not offer strong support to each other but rather opened a new venue to understand the evidence-based leadership. Specifically, the perceived effects did not support to measured effects (competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, use of resources, team effort, and specific clinical outcomes) while the measured effects could not support to perceived effects (nurse’s performance satisfaction, changes in practices, and clinical outcomes satisfaction). These findings may indicate that different outcomes appear if the effects of evidence-based leadership are looked at using different methodological approach. Future study is encouraged using well-designed study method including mixed-method study to examine the consistency between perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership in health care.

There is a potential in nursing to support change by demonstrating conceptual and operational commitment to research-based practices [ 64 ]. Nurse leaders are well positioned to influence and lead professional governance, quality improvement, service transformation, change and shared governance [ 65 ]. In this task, evidence-based leadership could be a key in solving deficiencies in the quality, safety of care [ 14 ] and inefficiencies in healthcare delivery [ 12 , 13 ]. As WHO has revealed, there are about 28 million nurses worldwide, and the demand of nurses will put nurse resources into the specific spotlight [ 1 ]. Indeed, evidence could be used to find solutions for how to solve economic deficits or other problems using leadership skills. This is important as, when nurses are able to show leadership and control in their own work, they are less likely to leave their jobs [ 66 ]. On the other hand, based on our discussions with stakeholders, nurse leaders are not used to using evidence in their own work. Further, evidence-based leadership is not possible if nurse leaders do not have access to a relevant, robust body of evidence, adequate funding, resources, and organizational support, and evidence-informed decision making may only offer short-term solutions [ 55 ]. We still believe that implementing evidence-based strategies into the work of nurse leaders may create opportunities to protect this critical workforce from burnout or leaving the field [ 67 ]. However, the role of the evidence-based approach for nurse leaders in solving these problems is still a key question.

Limitations

This study aimed to use a broad search strategy to ensure a comprehensive review but, nevertheless, limitations exist: we may have missed studies not included in the major international databases. To keep search results manageable, we did not use specific databases to systematically search grey literature although it is a rich source of evidence used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis [ 68 ]. We still included published conference abstract/proceedings, which appeared in our scientific databases. It has been stated that conference abstracts and proceedings with empirical study results make up a great part of studies cited in systematic reviews [ 69 ]. At the same time, a limited space reserved for published conference publications can lead to methodological issues reducing the validity of the review results [ 68 ]. We also found that the great number of studies were carried out in western countries, restricting the generalizability of the results outside of English language countries. The study interventions and outcomes were too different across studies to be meaningfully pooled using statistical methods. Thus, our narrative synthesis could hypothetically be biased. To increase transparency of the data and all decisions made, the data, its categorization and conclusions are based on original studies and presented in separate tables and can be found in Additional files. Regarding a methodological approach [ 34 ], we used a mixed methods systematic review, with the core intention of combining quantitative and qualitative data from primary studies. The aim was to create a breadth and depth of understanding that could confirm to or dispute evidence and ultimately answer the review question posed [ 34 , 70 ]. Although the method is gaining traction due to its usefulness and practicality, guidance in combining quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods systematic reviews is still limited at the theoretical stage [ 40 ]. As an outcome, it could be argued that other methodologies, for example, an integrative review, could have been used in our review to combine diverse methodologies [ 71 ]. We still believe that the results of this mixed method review may have an added value when compared with previous systematic reviews concerning leadership and an evidence-based approach.

Our mixed methods review fills the gap regarding how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to guide their leadership role and what the measured and perceived impact of evidence-based leadership is in nursing. Although the scarcity of controlled studies on this topic is concerning, the available research data suggest that evidence-based leadership intervention can improve nurse performance, organizational outcomes, and patient outcomes. Leadership problems are also well recognized in healthcare settings. More knowledge and a deeper understanding of the role of nurse leaders, and how they can use evidence in their own managerial leadership decisions, is still needed. Despite the limited number of studies, we assume that this narrative synthesis can provide a good foundation for how to develop evidence-based leadership in the future.

Implications

Based on our review results, several implications can be recommended. First, the future of nursing success depends on knowledgeable, capable, and strong leaders. Therefore, nurse leaders worldwide need to be educated about the best ways to manage challenging situations in healthcare contexts using an evidence-based approach in their decisions. This recommendation was also proposed by nurses and nurse leaders during our discussion meeting with stakeholders.

Second, curriculums in educational organizations and on-the-job training for nurse leaders should be updated to support general understanding how to use evidence in leadership decisions. And third, patients and family members should be more involved in the evidence-based approach. It is therefore important that nurse leaders learn how patients’ and family members’ views as stakeholders are better considered as part of the evidence-based leadership approach.

Future studies should be prioritized as follows: establishment of clear parameters for what constitutes and measures evidence-based leadership; use of theories or models in research to inform mechanisms how to effectively change the practice; conducting robust effectiveness studies using trial designs to evaluate the impact of evidence-based leadership; studying the role of patient and family members in improving the quality of clinical care; and investigating the financial impact of the use of evidence-based leadership approach within respective healthcare systems.

Data availability

The authors obtained all data for this review from published manuscripts.

World Health Organization. State of the world’s nursing 2020: investing in education, jobs and leadership. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hersey P, Campbell R. Leadership: a behavioral science approach. The Center for; 2004.

Cline D, Crenshaw JT, Woods S. Nurse leader: a definition for the 21st century. Nurse Lead. 2022;20(4):381–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2021.12.017 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen SS. Leadership styles and organization structural configurations. J Hum Resource Adult Learn. 2006;2(2):39–46.

Google Scholar  

McKibben L. Conflict management: importance and implications. Br J Nurs. 2017;26(2):100–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haghgoshayie E, Hasanpoor E. Evidence-based nursing management: basing Organizational practices on the best available evidence. Creat Nurs. 2021;27(2):94–7. https://doi.org/10.1891/CRNR-D-19-00080 .

Majers JS, Warshawsky N. Evidence-based decision-making for nurse leaders. Nurse Lead. 2020;18(5):471–5.

Tichy NM, Bennis WG. Making judgment calls. Harvard Business Rev. 2007;85(10):94.

Sousa MJ, Pesqueira AM, Lemos C, Sousa M, Rocha Á. Decision-making based on big data analytics for people management in healthcare organizations. J Med Syst. 2019;43(9):1–10.

Guo R, Berkshire SD, Fulton LV, Hermanson PM. %J L in HS. Use of evidence-based management in healthcare administration decision-making. 2017;30(3): 330–42.

Liang Z, Howard P, Rasa J. Evidence-informed managerial decision-making: what evidence counts?(part one). Asia Pac J Health Manage. 2011;6(1):23–9.

Hasanpoor E, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Haghgoshayie E. Using the evidence-based medicine and evidence-based management to minimise overuse and maximise quality in healthcare: a hybrid perspective. BMJ evidence-based Med. 2020;25(1):3–5.

Shingler NA, Gonzalez JZ. Ebm: a pathway to evidence-based nursing management. Nurs 2022. 2017;47(2):43–6.

Farokhzadian J, Nayeri ND, Borhani F, Zare MR. Nurse leaders’ attitudes, self-efficacy and training needs for implementing evidence-based practice: is it time for a change toward safe care? Br J Med Med Res. 2015;7(8):662.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

American Nurses Association. ANA leadership competency model. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.

Royal College of Nursing. Leadership skills. 2022. https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/your-career/nurse/leadership-skills . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Kakemam E, Liang Z, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Mohaghegh B, Gholizadeh M. Leadership and management competencies for hospital managers: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis. J Healthc Leadersh. 2020;12:59.

Liang Z, Howard PF, Leggat S, Bartram T. Development and validation of health service management competencies. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32(2):157–75.

World Health Organization. Global Strategic Directions for Nursing and Midwifery. 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/344562/9789240033863-eng.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

NHS Leadership Academy. The nine leadership dimensions. 2022. https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/resources/healthcare-leadership-model/nine-leadership-dimensions/ . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Canadian Nurses Association. Evidence-informed decision-making and nursing practice: Position statement. 2018. https://hl-prod-ca-oc-download.s3-ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CNA/2f975e7e-4a40-45ca-863c-5ebf0a138d5e/UploadedImages/documents/Evidence_informed_Decision_making_and_Nursing_Practice_position_statement_Dec_2018.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hasanpoor E, Hajebrahimi S, Janati A, Abedini Z, Haghgoshayie E. Barriers, facilitators, process and sources of evidence for evidence-based management among health care managers: a qualitative systematic review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018;28(5):665–80.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Collins DB, Holton EF III. The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: a meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Hum Res Dev Q. 2004;15(2):217–48.

Cummings GG, Lee S, Tate K, Penconek T, Micaroni SP, Paananen T, et al. The essentials of nursing leadership: a systematic review of factors and educational interventions influencing nursing leadership. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;115:103842.

Clavijo-Chamorro MZ, Romero-Zarallo G, Gómez-Luque A, López-Espuela F, Sanz-Martos S, López-Medina IM. Leadership as a facilitator of evidence implementation by nurse managers: a metasynthesis. West J Nurs Res. 2022;44(6):567–81.

Young SK. Evidence-based management: a literature review. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2002;10(3):145–51.

Williams LL. What goes around comes around: evidence-based management. Nurs Adm Q. 2006;30(3):243–51.

Fraser I. Organizational research with impact: working backwards. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1:S52–9.

Roshanghalb A, Lettieri E, Aloini D, Cannavacciuolo L, Gitto S, Visintin F. What evidence on evidence-based management in healthcare? Manag Decis. 2018;56(10):2069–84.

Jaana M, Vartak S, Ward MM. Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers? Eval Health Prof. 2014;37(3):314–34.

Tate K, Hewko S, McLane P, Baxter P, Perry K, Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Learning to lead: a review and synthesis of literature examining health care managers’ use of knowledge. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24(1):57–70.

Geerts JM, Goodall AH, Agius S, %J SS. Medicine. Evidence-based leadership development for physicians: a systematic literature review. 2020;246: 112709.

Barends E, Rousseau DM, Briner RB. Evidence-based management: The basic principles. Amsterdam; 2014. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42141986/complete+dissertation.pdf#page=203 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2108–18. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169 .

Lancet T. 2020: unleashing the full potential of nursing. Lancet (London, England). 2019. p. 1879.

Välimäki MA, Lantta T, Hipp K, Varpula J, Liu G, Tang Y, et al. Measured and perceived impacts of evidence-based leadership in nursing: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e055356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055356 .

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. Joanna Briggs Inst. 2014; 88–91.

Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):121–31.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004;33(7):14–26.

Hong, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Reviews. 2017;6(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 .

Ramis MA, Chang A, Conway A, Lim D, Munday J, Nissen L. Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1996. pp. 71–2.

Goodman JS, Gary MS, Wood RE. Bibliographic search training for evidence-based management education: a review of relevant literatures. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2014;13(3):322–53.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020; https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. 2020;18(10): 2127–33.

Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018: user guide. Montreal: McGill University; 2018.

McKenna J, Jeske D. Ethical leadership and decision authority effects on nurses’ engagement, exhaustion, and turnover intention. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(1):198–206.

Maxwell M, Hibberd C, Aitchison P, Calveley E, Pratt R, Dougall N, et al. The TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist. The patient Centred Assessment Method for improving nurse-led biopsychosocial assessment of patients with long-term conditions: a feasibility RCT. NIHR Journals Library; 2018.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Reviews. 2018;7:1–26.

Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evid Policy. 2005;1(2):173–93.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2021;10(1):1–11.

Porta M. Pilot investigation, study. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press Oxford; 2014. p. 215.

Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.

Joseph ML, Nelson-Brantley HV, Caramanica L, Lyman B, Frank B, Hand MW, et al. Building the science to guide nursing administration and leadership decision making. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(1):19–26.

Gifford W, Davies BL, Graham ID, Tourangeau A, Woodend AK, Lefebre N. Developing Leadership Capacity for Guideline Use: a pilot cluster Randomized Control Trial: Leadership Pilot Study. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2013;10(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x .

Hsieh HY, Henker R, Ren D, Chien WY, Chang JP, Chen L, et al. Improving effectiveness and satisfaction of an electronic charting system in Taiwan. Clin Nurse Specialist. 2016;30(6):E1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000250 .

McAllen E, Stephens K, Swanson-Biearman B, Kerr K, Whiteman K. Moving Shift Report to the Bedside: an evidence-based Quality Improvement Project. OJIN: Online J Issues Nurs. 2018;23(2). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02PPT22 .

Thomas M, Autencio K, Cesario K. Positive outcomes of an evidence-based pressure injury prevention program. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2020;47:S24.

Cullen L, Titler MG. Promoting evidence-based practice: an internship for Staff nurses. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1(4):215–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04027.x .

DuBose BM, Mayo AM. Resistance to change: a concept analysis. Nursing forum. Wiley Online Library; 2020. pp. 631–6.

Lalleman PCB, Smid GAC, Lagerwey MD, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Schuurmans MJ. Curbing the urge to care: a bourdieusian analysis of the effect of the caring disposition on nurse middle managers’ clinical leadership in patient safety practices. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;63:179–88.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martin E, Warshawsky N. Guiding principles for creating value and meaning for the next generation of nurse leaders. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(9):418–20.

Griffiths P, Recio-Saucedo A, Dall’Ora C, Briggs J, Maruotti A, Meredith P, et al. The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(7):1474–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13564 .

Lúanaigh PÓ, Hughes F. The nurse executive role in quality and high performing health services. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2016;24(1):132–6.

de Kok E, Weggelaar-Jansen AM, Schoonhoven L, Lalleman P. A scoping review of rebel nurse leadership: descriptions, competences and stimulating/hindering factors. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(17–18):2563–83.

Warshawsky NE. Building nurse manager well-being by reducing healthcare system demands. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(4):189–91.

Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evidence-Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.

McAuley L, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1228–31.

Sarah S. Introduction to mixed methods systematic reviews. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4689215/8.1+Introduction+to+mixed+methods+systematic+reviews . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the funding bodies, the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme, the Department of Nursing Science at the University of Turku, and Xiangya School of Nursing at the Central South University. We also would like to thank the nurses and nurse leaders for their valuable opinions on the topic.

The work was supported by the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme (grant number 26/270/2020) and the University of Turku (internal fund 26003424). The funders had no role in the study design and will not have any role during its execution, analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp & Jaakko Varpula

School of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki

Xiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China

Shuang Hu, Jiarui Chen, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen & Xianhong Li

School of Health and Social Services, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland

Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410008, China

Gaoming Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: MV, XL. Literature search and study selection: MV, KH, TL, WC, XL. Quality assessment: YT, SH, XL. Data extraction: JC, MV, JV, WC, YT, SH, GL. Analysis and interpretation: MV, SH. Manuscript writing: MV. Critical revisions for important intellectual content: MV, XL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xianhong Li .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethical approval was required for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Differences between the original protocol

We modified criteria for the included studies: we included published conference abstracts/proceedings, which form a relatively broad knowledge base in scientific knowledge. We originally planned to conduct a survey with open-ended questions followed by a face-to-face meeting to discuss the preliminary results of the review. However, to avoid extra burden in nurses due to COVID-19, we decided to limit the validation process to the online discussion only.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, supplementary material 6, supplementary material 7, supplementary material 8, supplementary material 9, supplementary material 10, 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.

Välimäki, M., Hu, S., Lantta, T. et al. The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review. BMC Nurs 23 , 452 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

Download citation

Received : 28 April 2023

Accepted : 13 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based leadership
• Health services administration
• Organizational development
• Quality in healthcare

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Powering the future: an integrated framework for clean renewable energy transition.

1. Introduction

2. background, 2.1. clean renewable energy community transition dynamics, 2.2. role of dimensions, indicators, and metrics in energy transition, 3. methodology, 3.1. literature review, 3.2. conceptual framework, 3.2.1. efficient built environment, 3.2.2. reliable energy system, 3.2.3. accessible energy system, 4. review of renewable energy transition metrics, 4.1. environmental dimension metrics, 4.2. technical dimension metrics, 4.3. social dimension metrics, 4.4. economic dimension metrics, 4.5. political and institutional dimension metrics, 5. discussion, 5.1. challenges associated with metrics identification, 5.2. evaluating metrics for clean renewable energy communities transition.

• High and Easy are assigned a value of 3, reflecting optimal conditions or the highest degree of relevance or ease of application.
• Medium or Moderate levels are given a value of 2, indicating an intermediate state.
• Hard and Data Availability Varies are scored as 1, denoting challenging conditions or inconsistent data availability.

5.3. Classification of Metrics Based on Clean Renewable Energy Communities Transition Objectives

6. future research and limitations, 7. conclusions, supplementary materials, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Minx, J.W. Comprehensive. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2021 , 13 , 5213–5252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogdanov, D.G. Full Energy Sector Transition towards 100% Renewable Energy Supply: Integrating Power, Heat, Transport and Industry Sectors Including Desalination. Appl. Energy 2021 , 283 , 116273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhattarai, U.; Maraseni, T.; Apan, A. Assay of Renewable Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 33 , 155159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adedoyin, F.; Bekun, F.; Alola, A. Growth Impact of Transition from Non-Renewable to Renewable Energy in the EU: The Role of Research and Development Expenditure. Renew. Energy 2020 , 159 , 1139–1145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shandiz, S.F. Resilience Framework and Metrics for Energy Master Planning of Communities. Energy 2020 , 203 , 117856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, P.; Gregory, P.J.; Van Vuuren, D.; Obersteiner, M.; Havlík, P.; Rounsevell, M.; Woods, J.; Stehfest, E.; Bellarby, J. Competition for Land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2010 , 365 , 2941–2957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results 2022 ; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, J.; Kaza, N. Tale of Two Sprawls: Energy Planning and Challenges for Smart Growth. In Handbook on Smart Growth Promise, Principles, and Prospects for Planning ; Knaap, G.J., Lewis, R., Chakraborty, A., June-Friesen, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 291–306. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horner, R.; Clark, C. Characterizing Variability and Reducing Uncertainty in Estimates of Solar Land Use Energy Intensity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 23 , 129–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Omri, E.; Nouri Chtourou, N.; Bazin, D. Technological, Economic, Institutional, and Psychosocial Aspects of the Transition to Renewable Energies: A Critical Literature Review of a Multidimensional Process. Renew. Energy Focus 2022 , 43 , 37–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosen, M. Energy Sustainability: A Pragmatic Approach and Illustrations. Sustainability 2009 , 1 , 50–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kime, S. Evaluating Equity and Justice in Low-Carbon Energy Transitions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023 , 18 , 123003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mar, A.; Pereira, P.; Martins, J. Resilience Metrics Applied to Renewable Energy Communities. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 17th International Conference on Compatibility, Power Electronics and Power Engineering (CPE-POWERENG), Tallinn, Estonia, 14–16 June 2023; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akella, A.K.; Saini, R.; Sharma, M. Social, Economical and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Systems. Renew. Energy 2009 , 34 , 390–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kabeyi, M.; Olanrewaju, O. Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid Electricity Generation and Supply. Front. Energy Res. 2022 , 9 , 743114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrews, J. Energy Conversion Goes Local: Implications for Planners. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2008 , 74 , 231–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holechek, J.; Geli, H. A Global Assessment: Can Renewable Energy Replace Fossil Fuels by 2050? Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kirkman, R. At Home in the Seamless Web: Agency, Obduracy, and the Ethics of Metropolitan Growth. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2009 , 34 , 234–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fulcher, J.; Scott, J. Sociology ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher, L. Community” as a Reference for American Minority Groups: A Theory of Unintended Negative Consequences. Open J. Soc. 2017 , 5 , 224–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moroni, S. Energy Communities in Distributed-Energy Scenario: Four Different Kinds of Community Arragements. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR ; Bisello, D.V.A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 429–437. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spasova, D.; Braungardt, S. The EU Policy Framework for Energy Communities. Energy Communities: Customer-Centered, Market-Driven, Welfare-Enhancing? In Energy Power ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 25–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean? Energy Policy 2008 , 36 , 497–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable. Energy Transit. 2012 , 30 , 381–400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schoor, T.; Scholtens, B. Power to the People: Local Community Initiatives and the Transition to Sustainable Energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 43 , 666–675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henderson, J.; Sen, A. The Energy Transition: Key Challenges for Incumbent and New Players in the Global Energy System ; The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies: Oxford, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saraji, M.; Streimikiene, D. Challenges to the Low Carbon Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023 , 49 , 101163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iddrisu, I.; Bhattacharyya, S. Sustainable Energy Development Index: A Multi-Dimensional Indicator for Measuring Sustainable Energy Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 50 , 513–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meadows, D.H. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development ; Balaton Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, J.; Zuo, W.; Rhode-Barbarigos, L.; Lu, X.; Wang, J.; Lin, Y. Literature Review on Modeling and Simulation of Energy Infrastructures from a Resilience Perspective. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2019 , 183 , 360–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Afzal, S.; Mokhlis, H. State-of-the-Art Review on Power System Resilience and Assessment Techniques. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2021 , 14 , 6107–6121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panteli, M.M. Metrics and Quantification of Operational and Infrastructure Resilience in Power Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017 , 32 , 4732–4742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panteli, M.; Mancarella, P. Modeling and Evaluating the Resilience of Critical Electrical Power Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events. IEEE Spectr. J. 2017 , 11 , 1733–1742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gui, E.; MacGil, I. Typology of Future Clean Energy Communities: An Exploratory Structure, Opportunities, and Challenges. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018 , 35 , 94–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiehbadroudinezhad, M. The Role of Energy Security and Resilience in the Sustainability of Green Microgrids: Paving the Way to Sustainable and Clean Production. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess 2023 , 60 , 103485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. Principles and Criteria for Assessing Urban Energy Resilience: A Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 , 60 , 1654–1677. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linkov, I.B. Changing the Resilience Paradigm. Nat. Clim. Change 2014 , 4 , 407–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhowmik, C.; Bhowmik, S.; Ray, A. Optimal Green Energy Source Selection: An Eclectic Decision. Energy Environ. 2020 , 31 , 842–859. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Köhler, J. An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019 , 31 , 1–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lv, Y. Transitioning to Sustainable Energy: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Potential of Blockchain Technology. Front. Energy Res. 2023 , 11 , 1258044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, W.; Li, B.; Xue, R.; Wang, C.; Cao, W. A Systematic Bibliometric Review of Clean Energy Transition: Implications for Low-Carbon Development. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , 0261091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bridge, G. Geographies of Energy Transition: Space, Place and the Low-Carbon Economy. Energy Policy 2013 , 53 , 331–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cagle, A.; Shephers, M. Standardized Metrics to Quantify Solar Energy-Land Relationships: A Global Systematic Review. Front. Sustain. 2023 , 3 , 1035705. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romero-Castro, N.; Miramontes-Viña, V.; López-Cabarcos, M.Á. Understanding the Antecedents of Entrepreneurship and Renewable Energies to Promote the Development of Community Renewable Energy in Rural Areas. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tennant, J. Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge. Eur. Sci. Ed. 2020 , 46 , e51987. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alvarez-Melgarejo, M.; Torres-Barreto, M.L. Resources and Capabilities from Their Very Outset: A Bibliometric Comparison Between Scopus and the Web of Science. Rev. Eur. Stud. 2018 , 10 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison. Scientometrics 2018 , 116 , 2175–2188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, C.-Y.; Hu, M.-C. The Development Trajectory and Technological Innovation Capabilities in the Global Renewable Energy Industry. In Proceedings of the 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2015; pp. 2574–2580. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malmedal, K.; Kroposki, B.; Sen, P.K. Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Its Impact on Renewable Energy Applications in USA. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Tampa, FL, USA, 24–28 June 2007; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen, M. Sustainability: Concepts, Definitions, and Applications. In Building Sustainable Cities ; Alvarez-Risco, A.R.-A.-A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 15–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabeyi, M.; Olanrewaju, O. Managing Sustainability in Electricity Generation ; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thrän, D.G. Energy Landscapes of Today and Tomorrow. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2020 , 10 , 43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lovering, J.; Swain, M.; Blomqvist, L.; Hernandez, R.R. Land-Use Intensity of Electricity Production and Tomorrow’s Energy Landscape. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , 0270155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hachem-Vermette, C. Mixed-Use Solar Neighborhoods. In Solar Buildings and Neighborhoods ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 229–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boer, C.H. Local Power and Land Use: Spatial Implications for Local Energy Development. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2015 , 5 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Si, S.; Sun, W.; Wang, Y. A Decentralized Dispatch Model for Multiple Micro Energy Grids System Considering Renewable Energy Uncertainties and Energy Interactions. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2024 , 16 , 015301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Della Valle, N.; Bertoldi, P. Promoting Energy Efficiency: Barriers, Societal Needs and Policies. Front. Energy Res. 2022 , 9 , 804091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, M.; Leal, V.; Oliveria, V.; Horta, I. A Scenario-Based Approach for Assessing the Energy Performance of Urban Development Pathways. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018 , 40 , 372–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trepci, E.; Maghelal, P.; Azar, E. Effect of Densification and Compactness on Urban Building Energy Consumption: Case of a Transit-Oriented Development in Dallas, TX. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 56 , 101987. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, W.; Kennedy, C.A. The Relationship between Net Energy Use and the Urban Density of Solar Building. Environ. Plan. 2010 , 37 , 1002–1021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amini, F.G. Electrical Energy Systems Resilience: A Comprehensive Review on Definitions, Challenges, Enhancements and Future Proceedings. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2023 , 17 , 1835–1858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Aghaei, S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Kiehbadroudinezhad, M.; Gupta, V.K.; Mohammadi, P. Biodiesel Plants: Real-World Sustainability Analysis Using Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessment. In Sustainable Biodiesel ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 301–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, S.; Ru, J. Accessibility, Affordability, and Efficiency of Clean Energy: A Review and Research Agenda. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 , 29 , 18333–18347. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffacker, M.K.; Hernandez, R.R. Local Energy: Spatial Proximity of Energy Providers to Their Power Resources. Front. Sustain. 2020 , 1 , 585110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anvari-Moghaddam, A.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Asadi, S.; Guldstrand Larsen, K.; Shahidehpour, M. Sustainable Energy Systems Planning, Integration, and Management. Appl. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 4451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson, K. Integrating the Value of Electricity Resilience in Energy Planning and Operations Decisions. IEEE Syst. J. 2021 , 15 , 204–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tryndina, N.; An, J.; Varyash, I.; Litvishko, O.; Khomyakova, L.; Barykin, S.; Kalinina, O. Renewable Energy Incentives on the Road to Sustainable Development during Climate Change: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022 , 10 , 1016803. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Şengül, Ü.; Eren, M.; Eslamian Shiraz, S.; Gezder, V.; Şengül, A.B. Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Ranking Renewable Energy Supply Systems in Turkey. Renew. Energy 2015 , 75 , 617–625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Turney, A.; Fthenakis, V. Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of Large-Scale Solar Power Plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011 , 15 , 3261–3270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C. Comparing the Energy Transitions in Germany and China: Synergies and Recommendations. Energy Rep. 2019 , 5 , 1249–1260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mehedi, T.; Gemechu, E.; Kumar, A. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Footprints of Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems. Appl. Energy 2022 , 314 , 118918. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kapila, S.; Oni, A.O.; Gemechu, E.D.; Kumar, A. Development of Net Energy Ratios and Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Large-Scale Mechanical Energy Storage Systems. Energy 2019 , 170 , 592–603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, T.; Egermann, M. Land-Use Implications of Energy Transition Pathways towards Decarbonisation—Comparing the Footprints of Vietnam, New Zealand and Finland. Energy Policy 2022 , 166 , 112951. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rej, S.; Nag, B. Land and Clean Energy Trade-off:Estimating India’s Future Land Requirement to Fulfil INDC Commitment. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2021 , 15 , 1104–1121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammond, G.; Howard, H.; Hanumant, R. Environmental and Resource Burdens Associated with Low Carbon, More Electric Transition Pathways to 2050: Footprint Components from Carbon Emissions and Land Use to Waste Arisings and Water Consumption. Glob. Transit. 2019 , 1 , 28–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davidsson, S.; Höök, M.; Wall, G. A Review of Life Cycle Assessments on Wind Energy Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012 , 17 , 729–742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wen, Y.; Bin Cai, B.; Xinxin Yang, X.; Yusheng Xue, Y. Quantitative Analysis of China’s Low-Carbon Energy Transition. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020 , 119 , 105854. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gul, E.; Baldinelli, G.; Bartocci, P. Energy Transition: Renewable Energy-Based Combined Heat and Power Optimization Model for Distributed Communities. Energies 2022 , 15 , 6740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saarinen, L.; Tokimatsi, K. Flexibility Metrics for Analysis of Power System Transition—A Case Study of Japan and Sweden. Renew. Energy 2021 , 170 , 764–772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olowosejeje, S. A Practical Approach for Increased Electrification, Lower Emissions and Lower Energy Costs in Africa. Sustain. Futur. 2020 , 2 , 100022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Z. Power system flexibility quantitative evaluation based on improved universal generating function method: A case study of Zhangjiakou. Energy 2020 , 205 , 117963. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lannoye, E.; Flynn, D.; O’Malley, M. Evaluation of Power System Flexibility. IEEE 2012 , 27 , 922–931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraan, O. The Influence of the Energy Transition on the Significance of Key Energy Metrics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019 , 111 , 215–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elkadeem, M.R.; Younes, A.; Sharshir, S.W.; Campana, P.E.; Wang, S. Sustainable Siting and Design Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy. Appl. Energy 2021 , 295 , 117071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heylen, E.; Deconinck, G.; Hertem, D. Review and Classification of Reliability Indicators for Power Systems with a High Share of Renewable Energy Sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 97 , 554–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kontokosta, C.E.; Reina, V.J.; Bonczak, B. Energy Cost Burdens for Low-Income and Minority Households: Evidence From Energy Benchmarking and Audit Data in Five U.S. Cities J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2019 , 86 , 89–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lennon, B.; Dunphy, N.; Sanvicente, E. Community Acceptability and the Energy Transition: A Citizens’ Perspective. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019 , 9 , 35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• González, A.M.; Sandoval, H.; Acosta, P.; Henao, F. On the Acceptance and Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects—A Systems Thinking Perspective. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 1171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gulagi, A. Current Energy Policies and Possible Transition Scenarios Adopting Renewable Energy: A Case Study for Bangladesh. Renew. Energy 2020 , 155 , 899–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdin, Z.; Mérida, W. Hybrid Energy Systems for Off-Grid Power Supply and Hydrogen Production Based on Renewable Energy: A Techno-Economic Analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019 , 196 , 1068–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simpson, J.; Loth, E.; Dykes, K. Cost of Valued Energy for Design of Renewable Energy Systems. Renew. Energy 2020 , 153 , 290–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Somoye, O.; Ozdeser, H.; Seraj, M. Modeling the Determinants of Renewable Energy Consumption in Nigeria: Evidence from Autoregressive Distributed Lagged in Error Correction Approach. Renew. Energy 2022 , 190 , 606–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lui, G. Examining and Prioritizing the Effect of Sustainable Energy on the Job Market to Advance China’s Green Workforce. Heliyon 2023 , 9 , e22710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capellan-Perez, I.; Castro, C.; Gonzalez, L. Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and Material Requirements in Scenarios of Global Transition to Renewable Energies. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019 , 26 , 100399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsai, C.; Beza, T.M.; Molla, E.M.; Kuo, C. Analysis and Sizing of Mini-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System for Islands. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 70013–70029. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring the Economics ; International Renewable Energy Agency: Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Breetz, H.; Mildenberger, M.; Stokes, L. The Political Logics of Clean Energy Transitions. Bus. Politics 2018 , 20 , 492–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laurentis, C.; Pearson, P.J.G. Policy-Relevant Insights for Regional Renewable Energy Deployment. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021 , 11 , 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bauwens, T. Explaining the Diversity of Motivations behind Community Renewable Energy. Energy Policy 2016 , 93 , 278–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahi, P.; Searcy, C.; Jaber, M. Energy-Related Performance Measures Employed in Sustainable Supply Chains: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016 , 7 , 2352–5509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Engel-Cox, J.; Chapman, A. Accomplishments and Challenges of Metrics for Sustainable Energy, Population, and Economics as Illustrated through Three Countries. Front. Sustain. Energy Policy 2023 , 2 , 1203520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buytaert, V. Owards Integrated Sustainability Assessment for Energetic Use of Biomass: A State of the Art Evaluation of Assessment Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011 , 15 , 3918–3933. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jumare, I.A.; Bhandari, R.; Zerga, A. Assessment of a Decentralized Gridconnected Photovoltaic (PV)/Wind/Biogas Hybrid Power System in Northern Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2020 , 10 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barlow, J.; Tapio, R.; Tarekegne, B. Advancing the State of Energy Equity Metrics. Electr. J. 2022 , 35 , 107208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, M.; Xu, N.Z.; Kong, X.; Ngin, H.T.; Ge, Y.Y.; Liu, J.S.; Liu, Y.T. Reliability Importance of Renewable Energy Sources to Overall Generating Systems. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 20450–20459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmudi, S. The Financial Metrics and Risk Management Tools in Supporting Renewable Energy Investment. International. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 238–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, E.; Goldstein, A.P.; Azevedo, I.M. A Perspective on Equity Implications of Net Zero Energy Systems. Energy Clim. Change 2021 , 2 , 100047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goyal, N.; Taeihagh, A.; Howlett, M. Whither Policy Innovation? Mapping Conceptual Engagement with Public Policy in Energy Transitions Research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022 , 89 , 102632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gatto, A.; Drago, C. When Renewable Energy, Empowerment, and Entrepreneurship Connect: Measuring Energy Policy Effectiveness in 230 Countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021 , 78 , 101977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curran, M. Assessing Environmental Impacts of Biofuels Using Lifecycle-based Approaches. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2013 , 24 , 34–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Wehbi, H. Powering the Future: An Integrated Framework for Clean Renewable Energy Transition. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135594

Wehbi H. Powering the Future: An Integrated Framework for Clean Renewable Energy Transition. Sustainability . 2024; 16(13):5594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135594

Wehbi, Hanan. 2024. "Powering the Future: An Integrated Framework for Clean Renewable Energy Transition" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135594

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 248 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Integration of Participant for Design Performance in Construction Project: A Review of Research Methods and Content

• Conference paper
• First Online: 06 July 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Diajeng Sekar Shaliha   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-6360-9504 11 ,
• Sulfiah Dwi Astarini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9566-6272 11 ,
• Christiono Utomo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5721-7938 11 &
• Cahyono Bintang Nurcahyo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3453-8063 11  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 466))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering Conference :

Integration of participants in the design process is essential to achieve optimal architectural and building design performance. The lack of awareness of integration between the disciplines involved, especially involvement with designer groups, causes projects to tend to be fragmented, making it challenging to resolve design conflicts. Multi-stakeholder integration has emerged as an essential approach to handling complex and various design aspects. This study aimed to investigate research methods and content papers regarding factor integration of participant designs, using a literature review of 25 relevant papers published between 2014 and 2023. Each study uses a different approach to collect data, qualitative and quantitative. Data sources are divided into primary and secondary data sources. Communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing are often discussed as integration factors from participant design. From the analysis of this study, collaboration was identified as the most researched stakeholder integration factor. However, research on these factors is often analyzed separately so that it becomes an opportunity in the future to examine these three factors simultaneously. Analysis from the quadrant mapping techniques reveals that primary quantitative is the dominant method, with survey technique. Consequently, these findings will provide valuable guidance for driving future research on improving design performance through factor integration of design participants.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ataman C, Dino İG (2022) Performative design processes in architectural practices in Turkey: architects’ perception. Archit Eng Des Manag 18(5):690–704

Google Scholar  

Kalantari S, Shepley MM, Rybkowski ZK, Bryant J (2017) Designing for operational efficiency: facility managers’ perspectives on how their knowledge can be better incorporated during design. Archit Eng Des Manag 13(6):457–478

Heravi A, Coffey V, Trigunarsyah B (2015) Evaluating the level of stakeholder involvement during the project planning processes of building projects. Int J Proj Manage 33(5):985–997

Article   Google Scholar  

Astarini SD, Utomo C, Rohman MA (2022) Integration factors of design participants in performance-based building design of commercial property. Designs 6:111

Ren Z, Anumba CJ, Yang F (2013) Development of CDPM matrix for the measurement of collaborative design performance in construction. Autom Constr 32:14–23

Nguyen M, Mougenot C (2022) A systematic review of empirical studies on multidisciplinary design collaboration: findings, methods, and challenges. Des Stud 81:1–42

Maier AM, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2021) Factors influencing communication in collaborative design. J Eng Des 32(12):671–702

Cárcamo JG, Trefftz H, Acosta DA, Botero LF (2017) Collaborative design model review in the AEC industry. Int J Interact Des Manuf 11(4):931–947

Ding Z, Ng F, Li J (2014) A parallel multiple mediator model of knowledge sharing in architectural design project teams. Int J Proj Manage 32(1):54–65

Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Mixed methods procedures

Zhang L, Cheng J (2015) Effect of knowledge leadership on knowledge sharing in engineering project design teams: the role of social capital. Proj Manag J 39(5):28–42

Azari R, Kim Y-W (2016) Integration evaluation framework for integrated design teams of green buildings: development and validation. J Manag Eng 32(3):1–14

Tran DQ, Nguyen LD, Faught A (2017) Examination of communication processes in design-build project delivery in building construction. Eng Constr Archit Manag 24(6):1319–1336

Demirkesen S, Ozorhon B (2017) Impact of integration management on construction project management performance. Int J Proj Manage 35(8):1639–1654

Chulvi V, Mulet E, Felip F, García-García C (2017) The effect of information and communication technologies on creativity in collaborative design. Res Eng Des 28(1):7–23

Savolainen JM, Saari A, Männistö A, Kähkonen K (2018) Indicators of collaborative design management in construction projects. J Eng Des Technol 16(4):674–691

Khoury KB (2019) Effective communication processes for building design, construction, and management. Buildings 9(5):112

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Brown NC (2020) Design performance and designer preference in an interactive, data-driven conceptual building design scenario. Des Stud 68:1–33

Leon M, Laing R (2022) A concept design stages protocol to support collaborative processes in architecture, engineering and construction projects. J Eng Des Technol 20(3):777–799

Senescu RR, Haymaker JR, Meža S, Fischer MA (2014) Design process communication methodology: improving the effectiveness and efficiency of collaboration, sharing, and understanding. J Archit Eng 20(1):1–14

Boon J, Yap H, Abdul-Rahman H, Chen W (2017) Collaborative model: managing design changes with reusable project experiences through project learning and effective communication. Int J Proj Manage 35(7):1253–1271

Lundström A, Savolainen J, Kostiainen E (2016) Case study: developing campus spaces through co-creation. Archit Eng Des Manag 12(6):409–426

Engebø A, Klakegg OJ, Lohne J, Lædre O (2020) A collaborative project delivery method for design of a high-performance building. Int J Manag Proj Bus 13(6):1141–1165

Lee J, Jeong Y, Oh M, Hong SW (2014) A filter-mediated communication model for design collaboration in building construction. Sci World J 2014

Luck R (2015) Organising design in the wild: locating multidisciplinarity as a way of working. Archit Eng Des Manag 11(2):149–162

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Utomo C, Astarini SD, Mertha DMSW, Rahmawati Y, Aqsha, Nurcahyo CB, Nahdiyah M (2022) Decision factors of stakeholder integration in connected construction for circular economics. Sustainability 14:16200

Daget YT, Zhang H (2023) Influence of collaborative relationships on the performance of design-construction efficiency of industrialized construction. J Civ Eng Manag 29(5):418–438

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the acknowledgment and recognition received, which come in the shape of a research grant from Penelitian Dasar Kompetitif Nasional Nomor 1191/PKS/ITS/2023 and Penelitian Disertasi Doktor Nomor 1215/PKS/ITS/2023.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia

Diajeng Sekar Shaliha, Sulfiah Dwi Astarini, Christiono Utomo & Cahyono Bintang Nurcahyo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christiono Utomo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Architecture and Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Elham Maghsoudi Nia

Institute of Transport Infrastructure, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskander, Perak, Malaysia

Mokhtar Awang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Shaliha, D.S., Astarini, S.D., Utomo, C., Nurcahyo, C.B. (2024). Integration of Participant for Design Performance in Construction Project: A Review of Research Methods and Content. In: Nia, E.M., Awang, M. (eds) Advances in Civil Engineering Materials. ICACE 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 466. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0751-5_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0751-5_12

Published : 06 July 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-0750-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-0751-5

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 04 July 2024

Harnessing EHR data for health research

• Alice S. Tang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4745-0714 1 ,
• Sarah R. Woldemariam 1 ,
• Silvia Miramontes 1 ,
• Beau Norgeot   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2629-701X 2 ,
• Tomiko T. Oskotsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7393-5120 1 &
• Marina Sirota   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7246-6083 1 , 3  

Nature Medicine ( 2024 ) Cite this article

86 Accesses

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computational biology and bioinformatics
• Machine learning

With the increasing availability of rich, longitudinal, real-world clinical data recorded in electronic health records (EHRs) for millions of patients, there is a growing interest in leveraging these records to improve the understanding of human health and disease and translate these insights into clinical applications. However, there is also a need to consider the limitations of these data due to various biases and to understand the impact of missing information. Recognizing and addressing these limitations can inform the design and interpretation of EHR-based informatics studies that avoid confusing or incorrect conclusions, particularly when applied to population or precision medicine. Here we discuss key considerations in the design, implementation and interpretation of EHR-based informatics studies, drawing from examples in the literature across hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing and machine learning applications. We outline the growing opportunities for EHR-based informatics studies, including association studies and predictive modeling, enabled by evolving AI capabilities—while addressing limitations and potential pitfalls to avoid.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Gillum, R. F. From papyrus to the electronic tablet: a brief history of the clinical medical record with lessons for the digital age. Am. J. Med. 126 , 853–857 (2013).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

US Food and Drug Administration. Real-World Evidence. FDA https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/real-world-evidence/ (5 February 2023).

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. National Trends in Hospital and Physician Adoption of Electronic Health Records. HealthIT.gov https://www.healthit.gov/data/quickstats/national-trends-hospital-and-physician-adoption-electronic-health-records/ (2021).

Liu, F. & Panagiotakos, D. Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 22 , 287 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cowie, M. R. et al. Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 106 , 1–9 (2017).

Kierkegaard, P. Electronic health record: wiring Europe’s healthcare. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 27 , 503–515 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Wen, H. -C., Chang, W. -P., Hsu, M. -H., Ho, C. -H. & Chu, C. -M. An assessment of the interoperability of electronic health record exchanges among hospitals and clinics in Taiwan. JMIR Med. Inform. 7 , e12630 (2019).

Johnson, A. E. W. et al. MIMIC-IV, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset. Sci. Data 10 , 1 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

All of Us Research Program Investigators. The ‘All of Us’ Research Program. N. Engl. J. Med . 381 , 668–676 (2019).

Sudlow, C. et al. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12 , e1001779 (2015).

Sinha, P., Sunder, G., Bendale, P., Mantri, M. & Dande, A. Electronic Health Record: Standards, Coding Systems, Frameworks, and Infrastructures (Wiley, 2012); https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118479612

Overhage, J. M., Ryan, P. B., Reich, C. G., Hartzema, A. G. & Stang, P. E. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 19 , 54–60 (2012).

Murugadoss, K. et al. Building a best-in-class automated de-identification tool for electronic health records through ensemble learning. Patterns 2 , 100255 (2021).

Yogarajan, V., Pfahringer, B. & Mayo, M. A review of automatic end-to-end de-identification: is high accuracy the only metric? Appl. Artif. Intell. 34 , 251–269 (2020).

Mandl, K. D. & Perakslis, E. D. HIPAA and the leak of ‘deidentified’ EHR data. N. Engl. J. Med. 384 , 2171–2173 (2021).

Norgeot, B. et al. Protected Health Information filter (Philter): accurately and securely de-identifying free-text clinical notes. NPJ Digit. Med. 3 , 57 (2020).

Steurer, M. A. et al. Cohort study of respiratory hospital admissions, air quality and sociodemographic factors in preterm infants born in California. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 34 , 130–138 (2020).

Costello, J. M., Steurer, M. A., Baer, R. J., Witte, J. S. & Jelliffe‐Pawlowski, L. L. Residential particulate matter, proximity to major roads, traffic density and traffic volume as risk factors for preterm birth in California. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 36 , 70–79 (2022).

Yan, C. et al. Differences in health professionals’ engagement with electronic health records based on inpatient race and ethnicity. JAMA Netw. Open 6 , e2336383 (2023).

Lotfata, A., Moosazadeh, M., Helbich, M. & Hoseini, B. Socioeconomic and environmental determinants of asthma prevalence: a cross-sectional study at the U.S. county level using geographically weighted random forests. Int. J. Health Geogr. 22 , 18 (2023).

Li, L. et al. Identification of type 2 diabetes subgroups through topological analysis of patient similarity. Sci. Transl. Med. 7 , 311ra174 (2015).

De Freitas, J. K. et al. Phe2vec: automated disease phenotyping based on unsupervised embeddings from electronic health records. Patterns 2 , 100337 (2021).

Tang, A. S. et al. Deep phenotyping of Alzheimer’s disease leveraging electronic medical records identifies sex-specific clinical associations. Nat. Commun. 13 , 675 (2022).

Su, C. et al. Clinical subphenotypes in COVID-19: derivation, validation, prediction, temporal patterns, and interaction with social determinants of health. NPJ Digit. Med. 4 , 110 (2021).

Glicksberg, B. S. et al. PatientExploreR: an extensible application for dynamic visualization of patient clinical history from electronic health records in the OMOP common data model. Bioinformatics 35 , 4515–4518 (2019).

Huang, Z., Dong, W., Bath, P., Ji, L. & Duan, H. On mining latent treatment patterns from electronic medical records. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 29 , 914–949 (2015).

Zaballa, O., Pérez, A., Gómez Inhiesto, E., Acaiturri Ayesta, T. & Lozano, J. A. Identifying common treatments from electronic health records with missing information. An application to breast cancer. PLoS ONE 15 , e0244004 (2020).

Lou, S. S., Liu, H., Harford, D., Lu, C. & Kannampallil, T. Characterizing the macrostructure of electronic health record work using raw audit logs: an unsupervised action embeddings approach. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 30 , 539–544 (2023).

Glicksberg, B. S. et al. Comparative analyses of population-scale phenomic data in electronic medical records reveal race-specific disease networks. Bioinformatics 32 , i101–i110 (2016).

Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C. & Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366 , 447–453 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Smith, M. A. et al. Insights into measuring health disparities using electronic health records from a statewide network of health systems: a case study. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7 , e54 (2023).

Swerdel, J. N., Hripcsak, G. & Ryan, P. B. PheValuator: development and evaluation of a phenotype algorithm evaluator. J. Biomed. Inform. 97 , 103258 (2019).

Denny, J. C. et al. PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene-disease associations. Bioinformatics 26 , 1205–1210 (2010).

Chen, C., Ding, S. & Wang, J. Digital health for aging populations. Nat. Med. 29 , 1623–1630 (2023).

Woldemariam, S. R., Tang, A. S., Oskotsky, T. T., Yaffe, K. & Sirota, M. Similarities and differences in Alzheimer’s dementia comorbidities in racialized populations identified from electronic medical records. Commun. Med. 3 , 50 (2023).

Austin, P. C. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav. Res. 46 , 399–424 (2011).

Karlin, L. et al. Use of the propensity score matching method to reduce recruitment bias in observational studies: application to the estimation of survival benefit of non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after a first autologous transplantation. Blood 112 , 1133 (2008).

Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J. Stat. Softw. 42 , 8 (2011).

Zhang, Z., Kim, H. J., Lonjon, G. & Zhu, Y. Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching. Ann. Transl. Med. 7 , 16 (2019).

Landi, I. et al. Deep representation learning of electronic health records to unlock patient stratification at scale. NPJ Digit. Med. 3 , 96 (2020).

Bai, W. et al. A population-based phenome-wide association study of cardiac and aortic structure and function. Nat. Med . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1009-y (2020).

Engels, E. A. et al. Comprehensive evaluation of medical conditions associated with risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma using medicare claims (‘MedWAS’). Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 25 , 1105–1113 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bastarache, L., Denny, J. C. & Roden, D. M. Phenome-wide association studies. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 327 , 75–76 (2022).

Yazdany, J. et al. Rheumatology informatics system for effectiveness: a national informatics‐enabled registry for quality improvement. Arthritis Care Res. 68 , 1866–1873 (2016).

Nelson, C. A., Bove, R., Butte, A. J. & Baranzini, S. E. Embedding electronic health records onto a knowledge network recognizes prodromal features of multiple sclerosis and predicts diagnosis. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 29 , 424–434 (2022).

Tang, A. S. et al. Leveraging electronic health records and knowledge networks for Alzheimer’s disease prediction and sex-specific biological insights. Nat. Aging 4 , 379–395 (2024).

Mullainathan, S. & Obermeyer, Z. Diagnosing physician error: a machine learning approach to low-value health care. Q. J. Econ. 137 , 679–727 (2022).

Makin, T. R. & Orban De Xivry, J. -J. Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript. eLife 8 , e48175 (2019).

Carrigan, G. et al. External comparator groups derived from real-world data used in support of regulatory decision making: use cases and challenges. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 9 , 326–337 (2022).

Hersh, W. R. et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med. Care 51 , S30–S37 (2013).

Rudrapatna, V. A. & Butte, A. J. Opportunities and challenges in using real-world data for health care. J. Clin. Invest. 130 , 565–574 (2020).

Belthangady, C. et al. Causal deep learning reveals the comparative effectiveness of antihyperglycemic treatments in poorly controlled diabetes. Nat. Commun. 13 , 6921 (2022).

Roger, J. et al. Leveraging electronic health records to identify risk factors for recurrent pregnancy loss across two medical centers: a case–control study. Preprint at Res. Sq. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2631220/v2 (2023).

Gervasi, S. S. et al. The potential for bias in machine learning and opportunities for health insurers to address it: article examines the potential for bias in machine learning and opportunities for health insurers to address it. Health Aff. 41 , 212–218 (2022).

Sai, S. et al. Generative AI for transformative healthcare: a comprehensive study of emerging models, applications, case studies, and limitations. IEEE Access 12 , 31078–31106 (2024).

Wang, M. et al. A systematic review of automatic text summarization for biomedical literature and EHRs. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 28 , 2287–2297 (2021).

Katsoulakis, E. et al. Digital twins for health: a scoping review. NPJ Digit. Med. 7 , 77 (2024).

Thirunavukarasu, A. J. et al. Large language models in medicine. Nat. Med. 29 , 1930–1940 (2023).

Meskó, B. & Topol, E. J. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digit. Med. 6 , 120 (2023).

Hastings, J. Preventing harm from non-conscious bias in medical generative AI. Lancet Digit. Health 6 , e2–e3 (2024).

Lett, E., Asabor, E., Beltrán, S., Cannon, A. M. & Arah, O. A. Conceptualizing, contextualizing, and operationalizing race in quantitative health sciences research. Ann. Fam. Med. 20 , 157–163 (2022).

Belonwu, S. A. et al. Sex-stratified single-cell RNA-seq analysis identifies sex-specific and cell type-specific transcriptional responses in Alzheimer’s disease across two brain regions. Mol. Neurobiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-021-02591-8 (2021).

Krumholz, A. Driving and epilepsy: a review and reappraisal. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 265 , 622–626 (1991).

Xu, J. et al. Data-driven discovery of probable Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia subphenotypes using electronic health records. Learn. Health Syst. 4 , e10246 (2020).

Vyas, D. A., Eisenstein, L. G. & Jones, D. S. Hidden in plain sight—reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms. N. Engl. J. Med. 383 , 874–882 (2020).

Dagdelen, J. et al. Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models. Nat. Commun. 15 , 1418 (2024).

Hu, Y. et al. Improving large language models for clinical named entity recognition via prompt engineering. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 27 , ocad259 (2024).

Microsoft. microsoft/FHIR-Converter (2024).

Torfi, A., Fox, E. A. & Reddy, C. K. Differentially private synthetic medical data generation using convolutional GANs. Inf. Sci. 586 , 485–500 (2022).

Yoon, J., Jordon, J. & van der Schaar, M. GAIN: missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02920v1 (2018).

Shi, J., Wang, D., Tesei, G. & Norgeot, B. Generating high-fidelity privacy-conscious synthetic patient data for causal effect estimation with multiple treatments. Front. Artif. Intell. 5 , 918813 (2022).

Stuart, E. A. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25 , 1–21 (2010).

Murali, L., Gopakumar, G., Viswanathan, D. M. & Nedungadi, P. Towards electronic health record-based medical knowledge graph construction, completion, and applications: a literature study. J. Biomed. Inform. 143 , 104403 (2023).

Li, Y. et al. BEHRT: transformer for electronic health records. Sci. Rep. 10 , 7155 (2020).

Guo, L. L. et al. EHR foundation models improve robustness in the presence of temporal distribution shift. Sci. Rep. 13 , 3767 (2023).

Zhu, R. et al. Clinical pharmacology applications of real‐world data and real‐world evidence in drug development and approval—an industry perspective. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 114 , 751–767 (2023).

Voss, E. A. et al. Accuracy of an automated knowledge base for identifying drug adverse reactions. J. Biomed. Inform. 66 , 72–81 (2017).

Taubes, A. et al. Experimental and real-world evidence supporting the computational repurposing of bumetanide for APOE4-related Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Aging 1 , 932–947 (2021).

Gold, R. et al. Using electronic health record-based clinical decision support to provide social risk-informed care in community health centers: protocol for the design and assessment of a clinical decision support tool. JMIR Res. Protoc. 10 , e31733 (2021).

Varga, A. N. et al. Dealing with confounding in observational studies: a scoping review of methods evaluated in simulation studies with single‐point exposure. Stat. Med. 42 , 487–516 (2023).

Carrigan, G. et al. Using electronic health records to derive control arms for early phase single‐arm lung cancer trials: proof‐of‐concept in randomized controlled trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107 , 369–377 (2020).

Infante-Rivard, C. & Cusson, A. Reflection on modern methods: selection bias—a review of recent developments. Int. J. Epidemiol. 47 , 1714–1722 (2018).

Degtiar, I. & Rose, S. A review of generalizability and transportability. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 10 , 501–524 (2023).

Badhwar, A. et al. A multiomics approach to heterogeneity in Alzheimer’s disease: focused review and roadmap. Brain 143 , 1315–1331 (2020).

Stuart, E. A. & Rubin, D. B. Matching with multiple control groups with adjustment for group differences. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 33 , 279–306 (2008).

Hernan, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Causal Inference: What If (Taylor and Francis, 2024).

Hernan, M. A. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am. J. Epidemiol. 155 , 176–184 (2002).

Dang, L. E. et al. A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7 , e212 (2023).

Hernán, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183 , 758–764 (2016).

Oskotsky, T. et al. Mortality risk among patients with COVID-19 prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. JAMA Netw. Open 4 , e2133090 (2021).

Sperry, M. M. et al. Target-agnostic drug prediction integrated with medical record analysis uncovers differential associations of statins with increased survival in COVID-19 patients. PLoS Comput. Biol. 19 , e1011050 (2023).

Amit, G. et al. Antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth – a cohort study. NPJ Womens Health 2 , 5 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1038/s44294-024-00008-0

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Alice S. Tang, Sarah R. Woldemariam, Silvia Miramontes, Tomiko T. Oskotsky & Marina Sirota

Qualified Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Beau Norgeot

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Marina Sirota

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Sirota .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

B.N. is an employee at Qualified Health. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Wenbo Wu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Karen O’Leary, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tang, A.S., Woldemariam, S.R., Miramontes, S. et al. Harnessing EHR data for health research. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03074-8

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2024

Accepted : 17 May 2024

Published : 04 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03074-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Now Published: Systematic literature review on religious leader well-being, burnout, and trauma

Our second publication from the Helping the Helpers project is a systematic literature review of 82 empirical studies that look at burnout, trauma impacts, and/or well-being among religious leaders. We were able to highlight relational, systemic/organizational, and diversity issues that are crucial for gaining a more holistic understanding of these issues. The citation and abstract are below.

Hydinger, K. R., Wu, X., Captari, L. E., & Sandage, S. (2024). Burnout, Trauma Impacts, and Well-Being Among Clergy and Chaplains: A Systematic Review and Recommendations to Guide Best Practice. Pastoral Psychology . Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01150-x

Religious leaders (i.e., clergy and chaplains) face unique, ongoing stressors that can increase risks for psychosocial and vocational vulnerabilities. Emerging evidence indicates concerning prevalence rates of distress and attrition among these professionals, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, most empirical work has focused on compromised functioning among religious leaders. Utilizing a more holistic approach, this systematic review explores individual, relational, and organizational factors associated with diverse outcomes. Following the PRISMA methodology, we identified 82 empirical articles investigating (a) risk and protective factors related to burnout, trauma impacts, spiritual distress, and other occupational hazards and/or (b) factors associated with well-being and flourishing, over and above distress reduction. We summarize the state of the available evidence, distinguishing between  risk increasers ,  protective factors , and  well-being enhancers . Attention is given to three domains:  individual  (e.g., demographics, personality factors, virtue development, coping and formation practices),  relational  (e.g., peer, family, and collegial supports; navigation of conflicts and polarized issues in one’s community of care), and  institutional  (e.g., role ambiguity or clarity, resource availability, systemic expectations and demands). We identify notable gaps to be addressed in future research; for example, most studies are cross-sectional, lack diversity in religion, gender, and geography, and operationalize well-being as the absence of symptoms rather than the presence of positive states and functioning. Considering the available evidence, we present best practices to guide psychological practitioners, denominational bodies, and others involved in religious leaders’ formation.