Searching the Literature

LECTURE OBJECTIVES

• Conduct a literature review in health studies.
• Explain different approaches to conducting literature reviews.
• Identify the purposes for conducting different literature reviews.
• Understand the limitations to conducting a literature review.

DEFINING LITERATURE REVIEW

• Summarizes and evaluates scholarly writings about a specific topic.
• Provides an overview of current knowledge, identifying relevant theories, methods, and research gaps.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD LITERATURE REVIEW

• Comprehensiveness: Must cover the broad spectrum of literature on a topic.
• Up-to-date References: Include the most recent studies unless conducting a historical review.
• Reproduced and Unbiased: Should be free from bias and reproducible.
• Accurate Referencing: Must provide accurate citations for all sources.
• Summarization of Key Issues: Highlighting significant findings, debates, and gaps.

GENERAL PURPOSES OF A LITERATURE REVIEW

• Sets the context for further research (e.g., dissertations, academic papers).
• Provides rationale for the research question based on existing literature.
• Helps identify what has been done previously to avoid duplication.
• Familiarizes researchers with relevant theories and methods.

PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW IN HEALTH RESEARCH

• Assesses existing knowledge on the efficacy of interventions.
• Informs professionals and stakeholders about the best available evidence.
• Influences policy decisions and identifies future research needs.

TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEWS

• Traditional or Narrative Review: Summarizes and critiquess existing literature within a field.
• Systematic Review: Follows rigorous protocols to evaluate studies comprehensively.
• Scoping Review: Maps the available evidence in a field to identify key concepts.
• Rapid Review: Streamlined systematic review to provide insights quickly.
• Realist Review: Examines how interventions work by focusing on context and mechanisms.
• Meta-analysis: Combines results from various studies to derive quantitative conclusions.

TRADITIONAL OR NARRATIVE REVIEW

• Most common style; assesses concepts, theories, and methods in a field.
• Influenced by the author's discipline; often takes the form of a dissertation chapter or proposal section.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Involves a well-defined method to critically appraise relevant studies with inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Aims to answer specific research questions and assess the quality of evidence available.

SCOPING REVIEW

• Focuses on mapping key concepts and gaps in research related to a specific field.
• No critical appraisal of included studies; largely qualitative analysis.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCOPING AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

• Scoping reviews address broad questions and do not assess the quality of studies, while systematic reviews focus on specific questions and include quality assessments.

OTHER TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS

• Rapid Reviews: Accelerated methods to obtain evidence for urgent health policy decisions.
• Meta-analysis: Quantitative approach to combine results from similar studies.
• Meta-synthesis: Qualitative analysis that combines multiple qualitative studies.

SOURCES OF LITERATURE REVIEW

• Primary Sources: Original research articles.
• Secondary Sources: Reviews or articles that analyze primary research.
• Include various formats: journals, books, conference proceedings, reports.

LITERATURE SEARCH

• Conducted electronically or in print; electronic is more effective and time-consuming.
• Utilize databases like CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane for health-related searches.

STAGES OF A GENERAL LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Annotations: Critical synopsis of selected articles.
2. Thematic Organization: Group literature under common themes.
3. Further Reading: Explore additional relevant articles while refining focus.
4. Writing Sections: Discuss themes and coherence of the literature.
5. Integration: Combine sections with a unified conclusion.

CONCLUSION

• A literature review should provide an assessment of existing studies, noting gaps and suggesting future research directions.