list five purpose of literature review

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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.

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

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 30, 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”

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
• Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
• Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
• Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
• Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

• Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Searching >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., apa format: basic guide for researchers, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers....

University Libraries

Literature review.

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

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

• 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: Jul 30, 2024 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

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
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

5 Reasons the Literature Review Is Crucial to Your Paper

• 3-minute read
• 8th November 2016

People often treat writing the literature review in an academic paper as a formality. Usually, this means simply listing various studies vaguely related to their work and leaving it at that.

But this overlooks how important the literature review is to a well-written experimental report or research paper. As such, we thought we’d take a moment to go over what a literature review should do and why you should give it the attention it deserves.

What Is a Literature Review?

Common in the social and physical sciences, but also sometimes required in the humanities, a literature review is a summary of past research in your subject area.

Sometimes this is a standalone investigation of how an idea or field of inquiry has developed over time. However, more usually it’s the part of an academic paper, thesis or dissertation that sets out the background against which a study takes place.

There are several reasons why we do this.

Reason #1: To Demonstrate Understanding

In a college paper, you can use a literature review to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter. This means identifying, summarizing and critically assessing past research that is relevant to your own work.

Reason #2: To Justify Your Research

The literature review also plays a big role in justifying your study and setting your research question . This is because examining past research allows you to identify gaps in the literature, which you can then attempt to fill or address with your own work.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Reason #3: Setting a Theoretical Framework

It can help to think of the literature review as the foundations for your study, since the rest of your work will build upon the ideas and existing research you discuss therein.

A crucial part of this is formulating a theoretical framework , which comprises the concepts and theories that your work is based upon and against which its success will be judged.

Reason #4: Developing a Methodology

Conducting a literature review before beginning research also lets you see how similar studies have been conducted in the past. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, you can thus make sure you adopt the most appropriate methods, data sources and analytical techniques for your own work.

Reason #5: To Support Your Own Findings

The significance of any results you achieve will depend to some extent on how they compare to those reported in the existing literature. When you come to write up your findings, your literature review will therefore provide a crucial point of reference.

If your results replicate past research, for instance, you can say that your work supports existing theories. If your results are different, though, you’ll need to discuss why and whether the difference is important.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

The Guide to Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• The Purpose of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Organize a Literature Review?
• Software for Literature Reviews
• Using Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews
• How to Conduct a Literature Review?
• Common Mistakes and Pitfalls in a Literature Review
• Methods for Literature Reviews
• What is a Systematic Literature Review?
• What is a Narrative Literature Review?
• What is a Descriptive Literature Review?
• What is a Scoping Literature Review?
• What is a Realist Literature Review?
• What is a Critical Literature Review?
• Meta Analysis vs. Literature Review
• What is an Umbrella Literature Review?
• Differences Between Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Literature Review vs. Theoretical Framework
• How to Write a Literature Review?
• How to Structure a Literature Review?
• How to Make a Cover Page for a Literature Review?
• How to Write an Abstract for a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Introduction?
• How to Write the Body of a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion?
• How to Make a Literature Review Bibliography?
• How to Format a Literature Review?

Introduction

What determines the length of a literature review, structure and organization, lengths in different kinds of literature reviews.

• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to Present a Literature Review?
• How to Publish a Literature Review?

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

A literature review is an essential part of many academic papers and research projects. It provides a comprehensive overview of existing research on a particular topic, allowing the researcher to identify gaps, build on previous work, and position their study within the broader academic context. The length of a literature review can vary significantly depending on the context, purpose, and research scope . In this article, we will explore the factors that influence the length of a literature review and provide guidelines to help you determine the appropriate length for your work.

The length of a literature review is influenced by multiple factors, including the type of review, the research aims, the scope of the topic, and institutional guidelines. Writing a literature review involves synthesizing existing research and providing a critical analysis, which varies depending on the depth and breadth of the subject. Additionally, a literature review involves evaluating and summarizing scholarly sources to support the research objectives. Understanding these factors is crucial for researchers to effectively plan and structure their reviews, ensuring they meet academic standards and adequately cover the relevant literature.

Context and purpose

In most literature reviews, the length largely depends on the context and purpose of your research. Here are some common scenarios to consider:

Undergraduate research papers : Typically concise, these reviews range from 1,000 to 3,000 words (4-12 pages) and provide a basic overview of the existing literature. They are usually integrated into the introduction or background section of the paper.

Master's theses : More detailed and comprehensive, literature reviews for master's theses usually span 3,000 to 10,000 words (10-40 pages). They demonstrate the student's understanding of the field and justify the research question.

Doctoral dissertations : The literature review can be extensive for postgraduate dissertations, often ranging from 8,000 to 20,000 words (30-80 pages). These reviews need to cover a wide range of studies and theories, providing a thorough background for the research and highlighting gaps the dissertation aims to address.

Journal articles : Concise and focused, literature reviews in journal articles typically range from 2,000 to 5,000 words (8-20 pages), depending on the journal's guidelines. They concentrate on recent and relevant studies that directly inform the research question.

Grant proposals : Brief and focused, literature reviews in grant proposals are usually around 1,000 to 2,000 words (4-8 pages). Their purpose is to provide a quick overview of the current state of research and justify the need for the proposed study.

Research scope

The breadth and depth of the literature you need to cover will also affect the length of your review. If your research focuses on a specific niche or well-defined topic, your literature review might be shorter, around 1,000 to 3,000 words. This is because there may be fewer studies to review, allowing you to focus on the most relevant ones. For topics that span multiple disciplines or have a vast body of literature, the review will be longer, potentially exceeding 10,000 words. A broader scope requires a more extensive review to ensure all relevant research is covered.

Guidelines and requirements

Always check the guidelines provided by your institution, advisor, or the journal to which you are submitting. These guidelines often specify the expected length and format for the literature review. Adhering to these requirements is crucial for ensuring your review meets academic standards and is accepted for publication or evaluation.

Quality literature reviews start with ATLAS.ti

From research objective to conclusion, ATLAS.ti is there for you at every step. See how with a free trial.

A well-structured literature review typically includes the following sections, which can influence its length:

Provides an overview of the topic and the review's purpose. This section usually accounts for 5-10% of the total word count. In a 3,000-word review, the introduction might be around 150-300 words.

Discusses key themes, theories, and findings in the literature. This section is the core of the review and can be divided into sub-sections based on themes, methodologies, or chronological order. It usually makes up 70-80% of the total word count. For example, in a 3,000-word review, the main body might be around 2,100-2,400 words.

Summarizes the key findings and highlights gaps or areas for future research. This section usually accounts for 10-15% of the total word count. In a 3,000-word review, the conclusion might be around 300-450 words.

Different methods of conducting literature reviews affect the length. The length of a literature review depends on several factors, including the chosen approach, institutional guidelines, and the specific requirements of the research project. Systematic reviews are usually the most extensive due to their rigorous and comprehensive nature, while narrative reviews are more flexible and shorter. Scoping reviews provide a broad overview without the detailed synthesis required by systematic reviews, placing them in the middle range of length. Umbrella reviews and realist reviews vary in length but generally provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing reviews or focus on the mechanisms of interventions.

Understanding these differences helps researchers select the appropriate approach and determine the optimal length for their literature review, ensuring it meets academic standards and contributes meaningfully to the field of study.

The length of a literature review is influenced by several factors, including the type of review, the scope of the research topic, and institutional guidelines. Most literature reviews vary in length depending on the specific requirements of the research project. The process of literature review writing is crucial for determining length, as it involves synthesizing research articles, current research, and existing scholarship to adequately cover the topic. For instance, a thesis literature review tends to be more extensive compared to a literature review for a research paper or journal article.

When determining how long a literature review should be, it's essential to consider the need to address current theories and provide a critical analysis of scholarly sources. Systematic reviews are typically more detailed and extensive, often requiring a substantial number of pages, while narrative reviews may only span a few pages. The length is also shaped by the research aims and the depth of coverage needed for the original research. Creating an annotated bibliography also affects the length of the review. Adhering to institutional guidelines is crucial, as they often provide specific directions on the expected length and structure of the review.

Ultimately, the length of a literature review is dictated by the comprehensive coverage required to support the research aims and the specific nature of the research project. Whether it's a thesis literature review, a journal article, or part of a larger research paper, the goal is to ensure the review is thorough, insightful, and aligned with the objectives of the current project. By understanding these factors, researchers can determine the optimal length for their literature review, ensuring it meets academic standards and effectively contributes to the field of study.

Develop powerful literature reviews with ATLAS.ti

Use our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your literature review.

Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is a Scoping Review?

A scoping review is a type of research synthesis that maps the existing literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, research gaps, and types of evidence.

This mapping exercise involves systematically searching for, identifying, and charting relevant literature to understand its characteristics, such as the volume of research, types of studies conducted, key concepts addressed, and prevalent research gaps.

Unlike systematic reviews, which aim to answer specific questions, scoping reviews are exploratory and often used to assess the extent of available evidence and inform future research directions. They involve comprehensive searches and data extraction but do not typically include a detailed synthesis of findings or a critical appraisal of study quality.

When a scoping review methodology would be appropriate:

Scoping reviews can be used as a preliminary step to a systematic review , helping to identify the types of evidence available, potential research questions, and relevant inclusion criteria.

They can save time and resources by identifying potential challenges or limitations before embarking on a full systematic review.

Scoping reviews can help clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature. If a research area has inconsistent terminology or definitions, a scoping review can map out how different concepts are used and potentially propose a unified understanding. This can help refine the focus and scope of a subsequent systematic review.

• To determine if a systematic review is feasible and worthwhile . By identifying the breadth of evidence, researchers can gauge whether there is sufficient literature to warrant a full systematic review.
• To identify gaps in the existing research . Scoping reviews can highlight areas where little or no research has been conducted, helping inform future research priorities.
• To clarify key concepts and definitions in the field . This can help refine the focus and scope of a subsequent systematic review.
• To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic . This can inform the methodology of a future systematic review
• To refine and narrow down research questions . The broad overview provided by a scoping review can help researchers develop more specific, focused questions for a systematic review.

When not to choose a scoping review methodology:

• If a systematic review already exists on the topic: A systematic review will offer a more rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the evidence if one is already available.
• Examining the range of interventions for a health condition
• Identifying types of studies conducted
• Noting populations studied
• Summarizing outcomes measured

Scoping reviews help identify areas needing further research, whereas systematic reviews aim to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness.

Methodological Guidelines

Methodological guidelines aim to improve the consistency and transparency of scoping reviews, enabling researchers to synthesize evidence effectively.

Methodological guidelines for scoping reviews have evolved over time:

• Arksey and O’Malley (2005) proposed the initial framework.
• Levac et al. (2010) refined and extended this framework, offering more detailed guidance.
• The Joanna Briggs Institute ( JBI ) further developed the methodology, introducing a more structured and transparent process.

1. Developing review objective(s) & question(s)

A well-defined objective and a set of aligned research questions are crucial for a scoping review’s coherence and direction.

They guide the subsequent steps of the review process, including determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing a search strategy, and guiding data extraction and analysis.

This stage involves a thoughtful and iterative process to ensure that the review’s aims and questions are explicitly stated and closely intertwined.

Defining Objectives:

This step outlines the overarching goals of the scoping review. It explains the rationale behind conducting the review and what the reviewers aim to achieve.

The objective statement should succinctly capture the essence of the review and provide a clear understanding of its purpose.

For instance, a scoping review’s objective might be to map the existing literature on a particular topic and identify knowledge gaps.

“Parents, in particular, greatly influence participation at school, at home and in the community. They undertake many actions to improve their children’s participation in daily life. Understanding the actions of parents and also their challenges and needs will contribute to how society can support these parents and thereby enable the participation of children with physical disabilities. Pediatric rehabilitation, aiming for optimal participation, could benefit from this understanding to improve Family-centered services (FCS)… However, it is unclear what kind of information is available in literature about what parents live through, do, and what kind of problems and needs they have in supporting their child’s participation? For these reasons, a scoping review was conducted in order to systematically map the research done in this area, as well as to identify any existing gaps in knowledge”

Piškur, B., Beurskens, A. J., Jongmans, M. J., Ketelaar, M., Norton, M., Frings, C. A., … & Smeets, R. J. (2012). Parents’ actions, challenges, and needs while enabling participation of children with a physical disability: a scoping review.  BMC pediatrics ,  12 , 1-13.

Developing Research Questions:

The research question(s) stem from the objectives and provide a focused roadmap for the review. These questions should be answerable through the scoping review process. The research question(s) should be clear, concise, and directly relevant to the overall objectives.

Using Frameworks: While not mandatory, frameworks can be helpful tools to guide the development of objectives and research questions. Frameworks like PCC (Population, Concept, Context).

• Population: Clearly define the specific group of individuals or entities that the scoping review will focus on. This could be patients, healthcare professionals, or even organizations.
• Concept: Articulate the central idea, topic, or phenomenon that the review aims to investigate. This might include interventions, diagnostic tests, or theoretical models.
• Context: Specify the setting, environment, or circumstances relevant to the research question. This could involve geographical locations, healthcare systems, or cultural contexts.

How do cultural beliefs and practices ( C -context) influence the ways in which parents ( P -parents of children with physical disabilities) perceive and address ( C -concept) their children’s physical disabilities? 

What are the barriers and facilitators ( C -concept) to mental health service utilization ( C -concept) among veterans ( P -population) experiencing homelessness ( C -context)?

This scoping review aims to summarize what is known in the African scientific literature ( C -context) among cisgender persons ( P ) about a) individual experiences of GBS within health care settings ( C -concept) and b) associations between GBS experiences and health care-related outcomes ( C -concept).

What are the main theoretical and methodological characteristics ( C -concept) of the current literature ( C -context) in the area of stigma and hearing loss and stigma and hearing aids in the elderly population ( P -older adults with acquired hearing impairment), and how should future research proceed in expanding this important field of enquiry?

2. Write A Research Protocol

A research protocol is a detailed plan that outlines the methodology to be employed throughout the review process, detailing steps like documenting results, outlining search strategy, and stating the review’s objective

The protocol should be created a priori (before starting the review) to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

While not mandatory, registering your protocol is highly recommended, e.g. FigShare and Open Science Framework (OSF).

Some journals, such as the Journal of Advanced Nursing , Systematic Reviews , BMC Medical Research Methodology , BMJ Open , and JBI Evidence Synthesis , accept scoping review protocols for publication.

It’s important to note that PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, does not currently accept scoping review protocols for registration.

Registering a scoping review protocol is highly recommended, even if not mandatory, as it promotes transparency, reduces duplication of effort, and helps to prevent publication bias

Example Protocols:

• The nutritional care of people living with dementia at home: a protocol for a scoping study
• End-of-life care in long-term care homes: A scoping review protocol
• Delaying knee flexion following knee arthroplasty surgery: A Scoping Review Protocol

Report in the Methods Section

“Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMAP…), which was revised by the research team and members of Health Canada, and was disseminated through our programme’s Twitter account (@KT-Canada) and newsletter to solicit additional feedback. The final protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 6 September 2016 ( https://osf.io/kv9hu/ ).”

Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Lillie, E., Pham, B., & Straus, S. E. (2017). Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol.  BMJ open ,  7 (1), e013474.

“ Our protocol was developed using the scoping review methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [1] and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute [3]. The draft protocol was revised upon receiving feedback from the research team, including methodologists and healthcare providers, as well as the peer-review panel of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The final version of the protocol is available upon request from the corresponding author. ”

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., … & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.  BMC medical research methodology ,  16 , 1-10.

3. Developing eligibility criteria

This step involves developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective(s) and question(s).

By providing transparent and well-justified eligibility criteria, researchers can ensure the replicability of their scoping review and allow readers to assess the relevance and appropriateness of the included sources.

When reporting eligibility criteria, emphasize the importance of clarity, justification, and a clear link to the review’s objectives.

• Describe the eligibility criteria with a rationale for why they were selected : It’s crucial to clearly articulate the specific characteristics of sources that make them eligible for inclusion in the review. Each criterion should be accompanied by a rationale explaining why it was chosen. This rationale should be grounded in scientific arguments and clearly demonstrate how the criterion aligns with the review’s objectives.
• Identify specific restrictions and provide a rationale : Restrictions, such as date range, language, or publication status, also need clear justification. For instance, limiting the review to articles published within the past ten years might be necessary to capture the most current evidence. Similarly, restricting the review to sources in a specific language, like English, should be justified, acknowledging the potential exclusion of relevant research in other languages.

When specifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, consider the following aspects:

By using the PCC framework, researchers can systematically establish boundaries for their scoping review, ensuring that the included sources are relevant to the research question. The framework helps to ensure that the eligibility criteria are comprehensive and well-defined, enabling a more focused and meaningful synthesis of the literature

• Population : The specific characteristics of the individuals or groups being studied. For instance, a scoping review about interventions for heart failure should specify the intended patient population (e.g., adults with heart failure, elderly patients with heart failure).
• Concept : This refers to the central idea, topic, or phenomenon under investigation. In the heart failure example, the concept could be “interventions for heart failure” itself, or it could be narrowed down to a specific type of intervention, such as “exercise interventions for heart failure.”
• Context : This element considers the setting or environment in which the concept is being explored. For instance, the context of the heart failure review could be “hospital settings,” “community-based care,” or “telehealth interventions.”

It is important to note that the absence of an explicitly stated framework (e.g. PCC) does not necessarily mean that the authors did not utilize a systematic approach when developing their eligibility criteria. It is possible that they employed a framework implicitly or that their criteria development was guided by other factors.

Iterative Process

The initial set of eligibility criteria outlined in the protocol may be subject to adjustments based on the type and volume of studies identified in the initial searches.

• Initial Development : Establish preliminary inclusion and exclusion criteria at the onset of the review based on their existing knowledge of the subject area. This can be adjusted as you become more familiar with the literature and data retrieved during the search process.
• Iterative Refinement : Inclusion criteria are refined iteratively based on pilot searches and the evolving understanding of the data. This initial search is crucial as it exposes researchers to a broader range of literature, revealing additional keywords, relevant concepts, and potentially useful search terms that might not have been initially considered.

“ Studies that identified the key terms in the title, abstract, article, or MeSH heading were retained for further examination. Studies published as abstracts, conference proceedings or pilot results published in non-peer-reviewed journals were excluded. In addition, books, book chapters, comments on publications, and dissertations were also excluded. No exclusion criteria were established regarding the type of research design. Inclusion criteria were (a) older adults with progressive hearing loss being the population of interest and (b) the outcome measure was clearly focused on (or at least on some aspects of) stigma regarding hearing loss and/or hearing aids. Although given the descriptive aim of the review, no definitions of stigma and/or hearing aids were set a priori, and all articles including these terms were retrieved, the analysis of the data relied on the most common dimensions of the concept of stigma cited in the literarture: the cognitive dimension (i.e., stereotypes), the emotional dimension (i.e., prejudice) and the behavioral dime. ”

• David, D., & Werner, P. (2016). Stigma regarding hearing loss and hearing aids: A scoping review.  Stigma and Health ,  1 (2), 59.

“ An extensive search was conducted to locate peer-reviewed articles that addressed questions related to parent involvement in organized youth sport. To guide article retrieval, two inclusion criteria were used. First, articles were required to highlight some form of parent involvement in organized youth sport. In the present study, organized youth sport was operationalized as “adultorganized and controlled athletic programs for young people,” wherein “participants are formally organized [and] attend practices and scheduled competitions under the supervision of an adult leader” (Smoll & Smith, 2002, p. xi). In line with this criterion, we did not include physical activity, exercise, physical education, and free play settings, which comprise a substantial volume of research in sport and exercise psychology. We also excluded research that simply collected data on parents or from parents but did not explicitly assess their involvement in their children’s sport participation. Second, articles were required to have been published in peer-reviewed, Englishlanguage, academic journals. As such, we did not include books, chapters, reviews, conceptual papers, conference proceedings, theses and (Jones, 2004) dissertations, or organizational “white papers” in this scoping review. ”

Dorsch, T. E., Wright, E., Eckardt, V. C., Elliott, S., Thrower, S. N., & Knight, C. J. (2021). A history of parent involvement in organized youth sport: A scoping review.  Sport, Exercise, and performance psychology ,  10 (4), 536.

“…to be included in the review, papers needed to measure or focus on specific dimensions of treatment burden, developed in the conceptual framework (e.g. financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare and time/travel). Peer-reviewed journal papers were included if they were: published between the period of 2000–2016, written in English, involved human participants and described a measure for burden of treatment, e.g. including single measurements, measuring and/or incorporating one or two dimensions of burden of treatment. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies were included in order to consider different aspects of measuring treatment burden. Papers were excluded if they did not fit into the conceptual framework of the study, focused on a communicable chronic condition, for example human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) or substance abuse. Papers talking about carer burden, in addition to patient burden of treatment, were also included.”

Sav, A., Salehi, A., Mair, F. S., & McMillan, S. S. (2017). Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature.  BMC medical research methodology ,  17 , 1-14.

4. Information Sources

Scoping reviews aim to identify a broad range of relevant studies, including both published and unpublished literature, to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

The goal is to be inclusive rather than exhaustive, which differentiates scoping reviews from systematic reviews that seek to collate all empirical evidence fitting pre-specified criteria to answer specific research questions.

Information sources for scoping reviews can include a wide range of resources like scholarly databases, unpublished literature, conference papers, books, and even expert consultations.

Report who developed and executed the search strategy, such as an information specialist or librarian. Mention if the search strategy was peer-reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist.

• Electronic   Databases : Make a comprehensive list of all electronic databases you used. Common databases for health-related scoping reviews include: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text, and Web of Science: Core Collections.
• Specify date ranges : For each database, note the date range of your search. For example: “MEDLINE was searched from inception to July 30, 2024.”
• Grey Literature : In addition to databases, forensic or ‘expansive’ searches can be conducted. This includes: grey literature database searches (e.g.  OpenGrey , WorldCat ,  Ethos ),  conference proceedings, unpublished reports,  theses  ,  clinical trial databases , searches by names of authors of relevant publications.
• Citation chasing : If you manually searched specific journals or reference lists, document this. For example: “We hand-searched the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews.”
• Contacting Experts : If you contacted experts in the field for additional sources, mention this: “We contacted five experts in the field of [topic] to identify any additional relevant studies.”

“To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases were searched from 2004 to June 2015: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline. The search strategies were drafted by an experienced librarian [name] and further refined through team discussion. The final search strategy for MEDLINE can be found in Additional file 3. The final search results were exported into EndNote, and duplicates were removed by a library technician. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching the Canadian Medical Protective Association website (https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en) and scanning relevant reviews.”

Cardoso, R., Zarin, W., Nincic, V., Barber, S. L., Gulmezoglu, A. M., Wilson, C., … & Tricco, A. C. (2017). Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review.  Systematic reviews ,  6 , 1-11.

5. Searching for the evidence

Scoping reviews typically start with a broader, more inclusive search strategy. The initial search is intentionally wide-ranging to capture the breadth of available literature on the topic

To balance breadth and depth in your initial search strategy for a scoping review, consider the following tips based on the gathered search results:

• Start with a broad initial search : Begin with a broad search across at least two relevant databases (e.g., MEDLINE and Scopus) to capture a wide range of literature. This helps identify the scope of available studies and key themes in the field .
• Test and refine your search strategy : After initial searches, review the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles to assess relevance. Analyze the text words and index terms used in these articles to refine your understanding of the topic and identify additional keywords, synonyms, and subject headings to include in subsequent searches .
• Multiple Databases : Search across a variety of databases to ensure a comprehensive literature capture. Each database may index different journals and articles, which can help broaden your search results .
• Boolean operators:  The use of Boolean operators (AND/OR/NEAR/NOT) helps to combine these terms effectively, ensuring that the search strategy is both sensitive and specific. For instance, using “AND” narrows the search to include only results containing both terms, while “OR” expands it to include results containing either term.
• Truncation symbols : These broaden the search by capturing variations of a keyword. They function by locating every word that begins with a specific root. For example, if a user was researching interventions for smoking, they might use a truncation symbol to search for “smok*” to retrieve records with the words “smoke,” “smoker,” “smoking,” or “smokes.” This can save time and effort by eliminating the need to input every variation of a word into a database.
• Citation chasing : Document the specific studies whose reference lists were examined. Include the titles, authors, and publication years of these studies. Note how you identified articles that cite the studies. This could be through citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
• Detailed documentation : Keep thorough records of your search strategies, including the databases searched, keywords used, and any filters applied. This documentation is crucial for transparency and reproducibility .

” The planned literature search was developed on June 23, 2022. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were further refined, along with electronic databases to identify psychological and education literature (e.g., ProQuest), programs for storing data (i.e., Covidence, n.d. accessed via https://www.covidence.org/) and key search terms (e.g., resistance and transgender). The key search terms were “transgender/trans/LGBT/gender diverse/gender expansive/nonbinary,” “resistance,” and “faith/economic status/ethnicity/gender.” Daniel Abela used terms such as nonbinary, gender diverse, LGBT, and gender expansive to capture the broad spectrum of language employed in the literature when relating to individuals whose gender identification extends beyond conventional norms associated with their assigned sex at birth. Moreover, the authors wanted a diverse sample through an intersectionality lens; therefore, terms such as faith, economic status, and ethnicity were used. These terms were selected as they were deemed by all authors to be most appropriate to evaluate this study’s research question. A complete list of the final search terms and the entire electronic search strategy for the Ovid database are presented in Table 1. ”

Abela, D., Patlamazoglou, L., & Lea, S. (2024). The resistance of transgender and gender expansive people: A scoping review.  Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity .

Ovid Search Strategy (Table 1)

• transgender.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• trans.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• LGBT.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• gender diverse.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• gender expansive.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• non-binary.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
• resistance.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• faith.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• economic status.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• ethnicity.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• gender identification.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts, original title, tests & measures, mesh word]
• 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
• limit 15 to (peer-reviewed journal and English language and “0110 peer-reviewed journal” and English and yr = “2012-Current”)

Search strategy can also be reported in the appendix. For example: Supplementary A: Search strategy for scoping review .

Citation Chasing Process

Citation chasing involves reviewing the reference lists of included studies and examining articles that cite those studies to identify additional relevant literature. This process helps ensure that you capture a comprehensive view of the research landscape.

If citation chasing leads to the identification of new keywords or concepts, document these adjustments and how they were incorporated into the overall search strategy.

• Document the rationale : Clearly state why citation chasing is being conducted. This could include the goal of identifying additional studies that may not have been captured through database searches or to explore the context and impact of key studies.
• Reference list review : Document the specific studies whose reference lists were examined. Include the titles, authors, and publication years of these studies.
• Citing articles : Note how you identified articles that cite the studies. This could be through citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science.
• Record number of additional studies identified : Keep a count of how many additional studies were found through citation chasing.
• A flowchart : Adapt the PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the stages of citation chasing, the number of sources identified at each stage, and reasons for exclusion.
• Tables : Summarize key information about the sources identified through citation chasing, such as author, year, title, and reasons for inclusion or exclusion.

6. Selecting the evidence

While articles included in a scoping review are selected systematically, it is important to acknowledge that there is no assumption that the evidence reviewed is exhaustive. This is often due to limitations in the search strategy or difficulty locating specific types of sources.

The search results are screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria to determine inclusion in the review.

The goal is to identify relevant studies, with less emphasis on methodological quality. Scoping reviews generally do not appraise the quality of included studies.

Instead, scoping reviews prioritize mapping the existing literature and identifying gaps in research, regardless of the quality of the individual studies.

Two reviewers should independently screen titles and abstracts, removing duplicates and irrelevant studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

• Initial screening of titles and abstracts:  After applying a strategy to search the literature, the next step involves screening the titles and abstracts of the identified articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. During this initial screening, reviewers aim to identify potentially relevant studies while excluding those clearly outside the scope of the review. It is crucial to prioritize over-inclusion at this stage, meaning that reviewers should err on the side of keeping studies even if there is uncertainty about their relevance. This cautious approach helps minimize the risk of inadvertently excluding potentially valuable studies.
• Retrieving and assessing full texts:  For studies which a definitive decision cannot be made based on the title and abstract alone, reviewers need to obtain the full text of the articles for a comprehensive assessment against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This stage involves meticulously reviewing the full text of each potentially relevant study to determine its eligibility definitively.
• Resolution of disagreements : In cases of disagreement between reviewers regarding a study’s eligibility, a predefined strategy involving consensus-building discussions or arbitration by a third reviewer should be in place to reach a final decision. This collaborative approach ensures a fair and impartial selection process, further strengthening the review’s reliability.

“To increase consistency among reviewers, all reviewers screened the same 50 publications, discussed the results and amended the screening and data extraction manual before beginning screening for this review. Nine reviewers working in pairs sequentially evaluated the titles, abstracts and then full text of all publications identified by our searches for potentially relevant publications. . . . We resolved disagreements on study selection and data extraction by consensus and discussion with other reviewers if needed.”

Duffett, M., Choong, K., Hartling, L., Menon, K., Thabane, L., & Cook, D. J. (2013). Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review.  Critical care ,  17 , 1-9.

7. Extracting the evidence

Charting, also known as data extraction, is a crucial stage in conducting a scoping review.

This process involves systematically collecting relevant information from the sources included in the review using a structured form. It is considered best practice to have at least two reviewers independently extract data from each source

Data charting in scoping reviews differs from data extraction in systematic reviews. While systematic reviews aim to synthesize the results and assess the quality of individual studies, scoping reviews focus on mapping the existing literature and identifying key concepts, themes, and gaps in the research.

Therefore, the data charting process in scoping reviews is typically broader in scope and may involve collecting a wider range of data items compared to the more focused data extraction process used in systematic reviews.

This process goes beyond simply extracting data; it involves characterizing and summarizing research evidence, which ultimately helps identify research gaps.

• Develop a Standardized Form: Creating a structured form helps to standardize the selection of sources. The form should incorporate clear questions that align with the eligibility criteria defined in the review protocol. The specific software used to create and manage the form should be specified in the review, with options such as Covidence , EndNote , or JBI SUMARI .
• Year of publication
• Origin/country of origin (where the study was published or conducted)
• Aims/purpose
• Study population and sample size (if applicable)
• Methodology/methods
• Outcomes and details of these (e.g. how measures) (if applicable)
• Key findings that relate to the scoping review question/s.
• Testing the Form: All reviewers involved in the selection process should participate in testing the standardized form. Screen the titles and abstracts of the identified articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 
• Sample Size: A random sample of 5–10 citations can be used for the initial calibration of title and abstract screening.
• Resolving Inconsistencies: After independent screening, discrepancies between reviewers are identified and discussed. A roundtable discussion involving the review team is an effective method to address these inconsistencies and clarify any ambiguities in the form or eligibility criteria.
• Form Refinement: Based on the calibration exercise, the standardized form and its accompanying explanation should be revised and refined as needed to enhance clarity and consistency. A second calibration exercise might be necessary if the desired agreement level, typically 70%–80%, is not achieved or if reviewers require further training.
• Number of Reviewers: A minimum of two independent reviewers should be engaged in the screening process.
• Duplicate Screening: The review process should clearly state how duplicates were managed, ideally removing them before proceeding to the screening stage.
• Verification: The sources describe different approaches to verification, including independent screening by two reviewers followed by comparison of their results or a single reviewer screening followed by verification from another reviewer. The chosen approach and its rationale should be explicitly stated in the scoping review.
• Resolving Disagreements: Any disagreements arising during the screening process should be documented and resolved, ideally through discussion and consensus among the reviewers. If consensus cannot be reached, involving a third reviewer to provide an independent assessment can help in making the final decision.
• The number of reviewers involved at each stage
• How duplicates were addressed
• The software used to manage the screening process
• How disagreements were resolved
• The number of sources excluded at each stage, along with a clear rationale for their exclusion

“Search results for all databases were merged. Duplicates and nonrelated papers were excluded. Titles and abstracts of the remaining papers were assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria independently by both authors. The resulting papers were pooled and disagreements were resolved through discussion based on the full text article. Following this stage, a standardized form was used to summarize the information in each article. The variables extracted were: reference/ country, aim of the study, study design, year of publication, and main finding/results.”

“A data-charting form was jointly developed by two reviewers to determine which variables to extract. The two reviewers independently charted the data, discussed the results and continuously updated the data-charting form in an iterative process.”

Lenzen, S. A., Daniëls, R., van Bokhoven, M. A., van der Weijden, T., & Beurskens, A. (2017). Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: A scoping review.  PloS one ,  12 (11), e0188822.

If an article was eligible for inclusion in this study, data related to the patient-centered care framework or model presented in the article was extracted by the lead author and reviewed by a second author (JCM). Data extracted from the reviewed patient-centered care frameworks and models was entered into data extraction records and synthesized in summary format. Data were systematically charted using the data charting form developed in Microsoft Excel. Information on authorship, article type, population, and patientcentered care approach were recorded on this form. A second data charting form was developed to chart data on the communication systematic reviews identified. Information on clinical context, patient-centered care focus, number of studies reviewed and key findings were recorded on this form.

Constand, M. K., MacDermid, J. C., Dal Bello-Haas, V., & Law, M. (2014). Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare.  BMC health services research ,  14 , 1-9.

The final charting form, which clearly defines each item, should be included in the scoping review as an appendix or supplementary file, if possible.

• Author: This information is essential for referencing and should be consistent throughout the scoping review document.
• Year of Publication: Noting the publication year of each source helps analyze trends and changes in research over time. This variable can highlight areas where research has progressed or where further investigation is necessary.
• Country: This variable involves noting the country of the study and the bibliographic details of each source. The country of origin provides context and helps assess the generalizability of findings to other settings.
• Objective(s): The objectives of each included source of evidence should be clearly stated. This variable helps understand the aim of each study and how it contributes to the overall scoping review question.
• Participants (characteristics/total number): This variable involves describing the defining characteristics of the participants in the included sources of evidence. Details like diagnostic criteria, age, ethnicity, and the total number of participants are crucial elements of this variable. This information provides context to the scoping review findings.
• Concept: This variable pertains to extracting and mapping data related to the core concept being investigated in the scoping review. The specific data extracted will depend on the nature of the concept, which should be clearly defined in the scoping review.
• Intervention Type: If applicable to the scoping review question, the type of intervention used in each source should be recorded. This might include details like the specific intervention method, the comparator used, and the duration of the intervention. This information helps compare and contrast different interventions explored in the included studies.
• Methodology: Describing the methodology employed by each source is essential to understand how the research was conducted. This variable provides insights into the study design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques used. Categorizing study designs is essential to compare and contrast different research approaches and their potential implications for the scoping review’s conclusions.
• Outcome Measures: This variable focuses on the tools or methods used to assess the effects of an intervention or phenomenon. It’s essential to describe the specific outcome measures used in each study, including details on how they were measured. This information helps compare findings across studies using similar outcome assessment tools.
• Main Finding: This variable focuses on extracting the primary findings or results of each study that are relevant to the scoping review’s research question. These findings form the core evidence base and are crucial for addressing the scoping review objectives.

“We abstracted data on article characteristics (e.g., country of origin, funder), engagement characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., type of knowledge user, country income level, type of engagement activity, frequency and intensity of engagement, use of a framework to inform the intervention), barriers and facilitators to engagement, and results of any formal assessment of engagement (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, benefits, unintended consequences).”

Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M., … & Langlois, E. V. (2018). Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.  Implementation Science ,  13 , 1-19.

8. Analyzing the evidence

The key element of a scoping review is the synthesis: that is the process that brings together the findings from the set of included studies in order to draw conclusions based on the body of evidence.

Data synthesis in a scoping review involves collating, combining, and summarizing findings from the included studies.

This process aims to provide a reliable and comprehensive answer to the review question by considering the strength of the evidence, examining the consistency of observed effects, and investigating any inconsistencies.

The data synthesis will be presented in the results section of the scoping review.

• Develop a clear text narrative that explains the key findings
• Use a logical heading structure to guide readers through your results synthesis
• Use tables to summarise findings (can be same table as data extraction)

Scoping reviews often use a more descriptive approach to synthesis, summarizing the types of evidence available, key findings, and research gaps.

• Research design (e.g., experimental, observational, qualitative)
• Population characteristics
• Intervention types
• Outcome measures
• Theoretical frameworks
• Geographic regions
• Time periods
• The predominant study designs used in the field
• The range of methodologies employed
• The diversity (or lack thereof) in research approaches
• Primary outcomes
• Major conclusions drawn by the authors
• Any notable or unexpected findings
• Recurring themes in the literature
• Evolving research focuses over time
• Commonly used methodologies or theoretical frameworks
• Consistency (or inconsistency) in findings across different studies
• Identifying areas that have been extensively studied
• Noting topics that have received less attention
• Highlighting any shifts in research focus over time
• Populations that have been understudied
• Methodologies that haven’t been widely applied
• Questions that remain unanswered or inadequately addressed
• Contradictions in the literature that need further investigation
• Summarizing key concepts: Identify and describe the central ideas, theories, or constructs that emerge from the literature. This helps to provide a conceptual overview of the field.
• Tables summarizing study characteristics
• Charts showing the distribution of studies across categories
• Concept maps illustrating relationships between key ideas

Remember, the goal in a scoping review is not to critically appraise the quality of individual studies or to provide a definitive answer to a narrow research question.

Instead, the synthesis aims to provide a broad overview of the field, mapping out the existing literature and identifying areas for further research.

This descriptive approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the landscape of a particular research area.

“We grouped the studies by the types of behavior they analyzed, and summarized the type of settings, populations and study designs for each group, along with the measures used and broad findings. Where we identified a systematic review, we counted the number of studies included in the review that potentially met our inclusion criteria and noted how many studies had been missed by our search.”

Hutchinson, J., Prady, S. L., Smith, M. A., White, P. C., & Graham, H. M. (2015). A scoping review of observational studies examining relationships between environmental behaviors and health behaviors.  International journal of environmental research and public health ,  12 (5), 4833-4858.

9. Presenting the results

The findings should be presented in a clear and logical way that answers the research question(s). This section might include tables, figures, or narrative summaries to illustrate the data.

Narrative Summaries

Write a clear, concise narrative that brings together all of these elements. This should provide readers with a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in the field, highlighting both what is known and what remains to be explored.

The primary goal of a narrative summary is to weave together the information extracted from multiple sources into a cohesive and understandable narrative. This story should focus on why a specific action is necessary, should be discontinued, or lacks sufficient evidence to determine its efficacy

A well-crafted narrative summary often utilizes headings and subheadings to organize the synthesized information logically.

This approach makes it easier for readers to follow the thought process and understand the relationships between different pieces of evidence.

Strategies on how to be sensitive to patient needs were primarily discussed in the qualitative research articles included in this review. Such strategies included acknowledging and adapting to unique patient identifiers [19,24,25]. For example, clinicians are urged to observe and reflect on fluctuating levels of patient alertness, patient comfort levels in the presence or absence of family members, and different communication barriers such as hearing loss, in order to facilitate clinical interactions [15,19,22]. Of the articles reviewed, 58% identified that careful observation of unique patient characteristics is necessary to providing care that will lead to optimal patient receptiveness and positive health outcomes.

While narrative summaries primarily use text, incorporating tables, charts, or diagrams can enhance clarity, particularly when presenting complex data patterns.

However, always accompany these visual aids with a clear textual explanation to ensure comprehensive understanding.

PRISMA Flowchart

Using a PRISMA flowchart in a scoping review is considered good practice. It promotes transparency and allows for a clear understanding of how sources were selected.

The flowchart illustrates the step-by-step process of screening, filtering, and selecting studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The flowchart visually depicts the following stages:

• Identification:  The initial number of titles and abstracts identified through database searches.
• Screening:  The screening process, based on titles and abstracts.
• Eligibility:  Full-text copies of the remaining records are retrieved and assessed for eligibility.
• Inclusion:  Applying the predefined inclusion criteria resulted in the inclusion of publications that met all the criteria for the review.
• Exclusion:  The flowchart details the reasons for excluding the remaining records.

Petersen, B., Koshy-Chenthittayil, S., DeArmond, M., & Caromile, L. A. (2023). Assessment of diversity-based approaches used by American Universities to increase recruitment and retention of biomedical sciences research faculty members: A scoping review protocol.  Plos one ,  18 (6), e0276089.

10. Discussion Section And Conclusion

Summarizing the evidence in relation to the purpose of the review, making conclusions and noting any implications of the findings.

It is also essential to remember that scoping reviews, unlike systematic reviews, do not aim to provide concrete recommendations for practice or policy.

Their primary function is to map the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify concepts, rather than synthesize results for direct application in clinical or policy settings

Summarizing the Evidence

• Summarize key findings in relation to your research questions
• Highlight main themes or patterns across studies
• Explain the nuances and complexities in the evidence
• Tailor overall findings of the scoping review to the relevant knowledge users such as policymakers, health care providers and patients or consumers
• Discuss the consistency of the evidence
• This provides a clear takeaway message for readers

“In this scoping review we identified 88 primary studies addressing dissemination and implementation research across various settings of dementia care published between 1998 and 2015. Our findings indicate a paucity of research focusing specifically on dissemination of knowledge within dementia care and a limited number of studies on implementation in this area. We also found that training and educating professionals, developing stakeholder interrelationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies are frequently employed to introduce and promote change in practice. However, although important and feasible, these strategies only partly address what is repeatedly highlighted in the evidence base: that organisational factors are reported as the main barrier to implementation of knowledge within dementia care. Moreover, included studies clearly support an increased effort to improve the quality of dementia care provided in residential settings in the last decade.”

Lourida, I., Abbott, R. A., Rogers, M., Lang, I. A., Stein, K., Kent, B., & Thompson Coon, J. (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.  BMC geriatrics ,  17 , 1-12.

Limitations

When considering the limitations of a review process, particularly scoping reviews, it’s essential to acknowledge that the goal is breadth, not depth, of information.

This means that unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews generally don’t involve a formal appraisal of the methodological quality of included studies, unless specifically required by the review’s aim.

• One significant limitation frequently encountered in reviews is the restriction to English-language sources. This decision, often made for feasibility, can inadvertently introduce bias by excluding valuable research from non-English speaking communities and potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
• For instance, if a scoping review protocol initially excludes gray literature but later incorporates it due to the emergence of relevant findings during the review process, this change needs to be explicitly stated and justified in the final report.

“Our scoping review has some limitations. To make our review more feasible, we were only able to include a random sample of rapid reviews from websites of rapid review producers. Further adding to this issue is that many rapid reviews contain proprietary information and are not publicly available. As such, our results are only likely generalizable to rapid reviews that are publicly available. Furthermore, this scoping review was an enormous undertaking and our results are only up to date as of May 2013.”

Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., … & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods.  BMC medicine ,  13 , 1-15.

Conclusions

Discuss implications:.

• Note that recommendations for practice and policy will not be relevant for most scoping reviews as the goal is to provide a preliminary map of the evidence without appraising the quality and validity of the results.
• Consider both positive and negative implications.
• This helps translate your findings into real-world applications.

Identify gaps and future research:

• Point out areas where evidence is lacking or inconsistent.
• Suggest specific research questions or study designs to address these gaps.
• Recommendations for future research are often a key element, particularly suggestions for more focused systematic reviews based on the scoping review’s findings.
• For instance, a scoping review might reveal a need for research linking specific features of expertise to mental and physical health outcomes. Similarly, there might be methodological gaps regarding the validation of certain measures or understanding experiences across diverse contexts and populations.

“The lack of evidence to support physiotherapy interventions for this population appears to pose a challenge to physiotherapists. The aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature which may guide a future systematic review. However, the lack of evidence found means that undertaking a systematic review is not appropriate or necessary […]. This advocates high quality research being needed to determine what physiotherapy techniques may be of benefit for this population and to help guide physiotherapists as how to deliver this.”

Hall, A. J., Lang, I. A., Endacott, R., Hall, A., & Goodwin, V. A. (2017). Physiotherapy interventions for people with dementia and a hip fracture—a scoping review of the literature.  Physiotherapy ,  103 (4), 361-368.

Potential Challenges

• Balancing breadth and depth: Scoping reviews necessitate a careful balance between covering a wide range of literature (breadth) and providing sufficient depth of analysis. A scope that is too broad can become unmanageable and result in superficial treatment of the topic. Conversely, excessive focus on depth might compromise the comprehensiveness of the review. This balance requires careful consideration during the planning stages, particularly when defining the review question and inclusion criteria.
• Lack of standardized terminology and methods: While frameworks for scoping reviews exist, there is still a lack of consensus on terminology and methods, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how they are conducted and reported. This variability can make it challenging to assess the quality and reliability of scoping review findings.
• Difficulty in analyzing and presenting findings: Scoping reviews often involve synthesizing information from a large and diverse body of literature. Analyzing and presenting this information in a meaningful and concise way can be demanding, requiring a high level of analytical skill and clarity of presentation. The absence of standardized analysis methods further exacerbates this challenge, leading to potential inconsistencies in how data is extracted, analyzed, and presented.
• Limited resources and time constraints: Scoping reviews, although sometimes perceived as a quicker alternative to systematic reviews, can still be resource-intensive. They require meticulous planning, comprehensive searching, and rigorous analysis.

Reading List

• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework .  International journal of social research methodology ,  8 (1), 19-32.
• Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology .  Implementation science ,  5 , 1-9.
• Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.  BMC medical research methodology ,  18 , 1-7.
• Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., & Lockwood, C. (2005). The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare.  JBI Evidence Implementation ,  3 (8), 207-215.
• Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Scoping reviews .  JBI manual for evidence synthesis ,  10 .
• Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. In  The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers manual 2015  (pp. 3-24). Joanna Briggs Institute.
• Pollock, D., Davies, E. L., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., … & Munn, Z. (2021). Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics .  Journal of advanced nursing ,  77 (4), 2102-2113.
• Pollock, D., Peters, M. D., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., … & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.  JBI evidence synthesis ,  21 (3), 520-532.
• Scott, H., Sweet, L., Strauch, L., & Muller, A. (2019). Expressed breastmilk handling and storage guidelines available to mothers in the community: A scoping review. Women and Birth, 33 (5), 426–432.
• Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O’Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Peters, MD, Horsley, T, Weeks, L, Hempel, S et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018,169(7):467-473.

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

Published on 29.7.2024 in Vol 10 (2024)

This is a member publication of University College London (Jisc)

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Authors of this article:

• Yiting Huang 1, 2 * , MPH   ; 
• Shuaixin Feng 3 * , MPH   ; 
• Yuyan Zhao 1 * , BMed   ; 
• Haode Wang 4 , PhD   ; 
• Hongbo Jiang 1, 5 , PhD  

1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China

2 Department of Medical Statistics, School of Basic Medicine and Public Health, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

3 Outpatient department of Baogang, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China

4 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

5 Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Hongbo Jiang, PhD

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health

Guangdong Pharmaceutical University

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health Guangdong Pharmaceutical University

No. 283 Jianghai Road, Haizhu District

Guangzhou, 510310

Phone: 86 0 203 405 5355

Fax:86 0 203 405 5355

Email: [email protected]

Background: Vaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.

Objective: We aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments , COVID-19 , and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.

Results: The search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.

Conclusions: Our review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7

Introduction

Although the World Health Organization has declared the end of COVID-19 as a public health emergency [ 1 ], the persistence of this disease as a global threat should not be overlooked or underestimated [ 2 ]. Vaccination has been regarded as one of the most effective strategies against COVID-19 and reduced global COVID-19 mortality, severe disease, symptomatic cases, and COVID-19 infections [ 2 , 3 ]. Furthermore, studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccine also had a preventive effect against post–COVID-19 condition [ 4 - 6 ].

Despite significant progress made with vaccination efforts, achieving high vaccination coverage remains a challenge due to disparities in vaccine distribution and vaccine hesitancy [ 7 - 9 ]. Disparities in vaccine distribution have been observed between different countries, with vaccination rates varying markedly between high- and low-income countries [ 10 ]. In addition, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been reported across countries [ 11 ], and booster hesitancy has also become a growing concern for public health officials [ 12 ]. Vaccine hesitancy can change over time and in response to different circumstances. Notably, vaccine hesitancy tends to increase when population-level side-effect studies are released after emergency approvals [ 13 ]. These challenges underline the need for well-designed vaccination programs to ensure equitable access and high uptake.

Designing a successful vaccination program, including vaccine selection, rollout, and accessibility, is crucial [ 14 , 15 ]. A thorough understanding of individual needs and preferences will allow us to better tailor vaccination programs, which will facilitate the appeal and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines [ 16 , 17 ]. One approach increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs is the discrete choice experiment (DCE) [ 18 , 19 ]. DCEs are scientific research methods that assess preferences by presenting respondents with a series of hypothetical scenarios. In these scenarios, individuals choose among different alternatives which are characterized by specific attributes. By analyzing these choices, researchers can identify the relative importance of each attribute and estimate utility functions [ 20 , 21 ]. DCEs provide valuable insights into decision-making processes and allow for objective evaluation of attribute-based benefits [ 22 - 24 ]. Published studies have been conducted to identify and review choice-based experiments that assess vaccine preferences [ 18 , 19 ]. However, it is important to note that the nature of various vaccines is different, and the preference for vaccines of COVID-19 was not specifically included in these studies.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed under emergency conditions where there were no peer-reviewed systematic reviews of DCEs on COVID-19 vaccine preference data to inform global decision-making. The diversity in COVID-19 vaccine preferences may be attributed to disparities in vaccine development and production, vaccination scheduling and management, public trust and uptake, as well as vaccine prioritization strategies across various countries and regions [ 25 ]. Moreover, new mutant variants are more likely to infect new individuals, highlighting the need for more effective booster vaccines [ 26 , 27 ]. This study provides empirical evidence on the development, implementation, and follow-up of the COVID-19 vaccine and provides references for vaccine decision-making of other infectious diseases.

We conducted our review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ) [ 28 ]. This study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023422720).

Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments , COVID-19 , and vaccines and related synonyms. Further details are provided in Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed in Textbox 1 .

Inclusion criteria

• Study focus: Focused on preferences for COVID-19 vaccine (product, service and distribution, policy intervention, etc)
• Article or study type: First-hand discrete choice experiment (DCE) data analysis research

Exclusion criteria

• Study focus: No preferences for COVID-19 vaccine reported
• Article or study type: Not DCE research; nonoriginal research (including secondary reports, systematic reviews, conference abstracts and presentations, correspondence, editorials, and commentaries); theoretical articles; protocols; book chapters; and duplicates

Data Screening and Extraction

Two reviewers (YH and SF) independently performed a 2-stage screening process to identify eligible studies. In the first stage, titles and abstracts were screened to exclude irrelevant studies using the web-based tool Rayyan (Rayyan Systems, Inc [ 29 ]). In the second stage, full-text versions of selected papers were assessed to ensure that the inclusion criteria were met. Both reviewers compared the selected papers at each stage to ensure agreement. Any discrepancy or uncertainty between the reviewers was addressed through discussion until a consensus was reached. If not, a third (senior) reviewer (HJ) was consulted to resolve the disagreement.

The extracted data were recorded and managed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp) software. Full texts were extracted and reviewed independently by 2 authors (YH and YZ), and any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (HJ). Data extraction was performed for 3 specific aspects, focusing on their relevance and importance for the analysis of the DCE: (1) study information (author, publication year, study period, country, population, and sample size); (2) information on the DCE methodology (survey administration, attribute and level selection, pilot-tested, experimental study design, choice sets per respondent, options per choice set, inclusion of an opt-out option, and statistical models); and (3) information on the DCE results (number of attributes, included attributes classified into 4 categories [outcome, process, cost, and other], and the most important attribute).

Choice-based experiments use different definitions for similar attributes [ 19 ]. To address this issue, the attributes were initially grouped into 4 main categories: outcomes, process, cost, and other. The outcomes category encompassed the outcomes or consequences of vaccine administration, such as safety and effectiveness. The process category included activities related to the delivery and administration of vaccines, such as service delivery, dosing, and visits. The cost category focused on the financial aspects of vaccines. Any attributes that did not fit into these 3 categories were classified as other , such as disease risk, incentives or penalties for vaccination, vaccine advice or support, and so on. The classification of outcome, process, cost, and other attributes depended on the aim and design of the studies. It should be noted that vaccine effectiveness and safety were phrased differently in different studies. To facilitate a comparison between studies, efficacy [ 11 , 30 - 41 ], protection rate [ 42 , 43 ], and decreased deaths [ 44 ] were summarized as vaccine effectiveness, whereas side effects [ 11 , 26 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 - 61 ], rare but serious risks [ 62 ], and the likelihood of having a flare [ 62 ] were summarized as vaccine safety ( Multimedia Appendix 3 [ 11 , 26 , 30 - 74 ]).

High-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were classified according to the World Bank [ 75 ]. LMICs encompass low-income, lower-middle–income, and upper-middle–income countries. On the basis of previous literatures [ 63 , 76 , 77 ], we hypothesized that individuals’ preferences for vaccines may vary depending on the status of the pandemic. Therefore, we sought to explore how COVID-19 vaccine preferences differed during different study periods. To do this, we used data from the surveillance website [ 78 ] to define the pandemic periods based on daily COVID-19 cases. The first group, before the pandemic wave , referred to the period before the outbreak of the pandemic, when the number of incident cases was low. The second group, during the pandemic wave , represented the peak of the pandemic or was characterized by a rapid increase in the number of incident cases. The third group, after the pandemic wave , was when the number of incident cases decreased and remained low ( Multimedia Appendix 4 [ 11 , 26 , 30 - 74 ]).

Quality Appraisal

The 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) checklist, developed by Joy et al [ 79 ], is widely accepted and used to assess the reporting quality of preference studies [ 18 , 80 - 84 ]. It evaluates studies based on criteria such as the study’s purpose, respondent sampling, explanation of assessment methods, inclusion of complete response sets in the findings, and use of significance testing.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

This review used a combination of text and summary tables to effectively convey information about the characteristics and results of the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. The findings were synthesized in a narrative format, providing an overview of the included studies, highlighting the key features of the study designs, and presenting the main findings of the COVID-19 vaccine preference studies. Subgroup analyses were performed by independent factors such as HICs or LMICs and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave).

Study Selection

The search yielded a total of 623 records. After title and abstract screening, 513 (82.3%) records were excluded. An additional 63 (10.1%) studies were excluded after full-text assessment. Finally, 47 (7.5%) studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review ( Figure 1 ).

Study and Sample Characteristics

We included 47 studies from 29 countries. Among them, 5 (11%) studies were conducted in multiple countries, with 4 studies conducted in both HICs and LMICs and 1 study conducted in >1 HICs. In addition, 22 (47%) studies were conducted in HICs, while 21 (45%) studies were conducted in LMICs. China stood out with the highest number of preference-based DCEs for COVID-19 vaccines, with 19 (40%) studies. The United States followed closely with 9 (19%) studies, followed by France (n=5, 11%), the United Kingdom (n=4, 9%), Germany (n=4, 9%), and Spain (n=3, 6%). Australia, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and South Africa had 2 (4%) studies each. All other countries had only 1 (2%) study ( Figure 2 ). The studies were published between the years 2020 and 2023, with sample sizes ranging from 194 to 13,128 participants. The median number of participants per study was 1456 (IQR 872-2109).

Most participants were adults, although the specific focus varied. Most studies (36/47, 77%) involved general population samples, whereas some studies (11/47, 23%) included specific groups of participants. These included 5 studies conducted in universities using web-based tools, including 3 studies with university students and 2 studies with both students and staff. In addition, 3 studies involved health care workers (Chinese intensive care unit clinicians, health care workers, and health care and welfare workers); 2 studies involved parents with children aged <18 years, and 1 study involved people with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases ( Table 1 ).

a ICU: intensive care unit.

b NR: not reported.

The Implementation of DCEs

Among these 47 studies, researchers commonly used a multifaceted approach to identify and select attributes and levels. Among the studies reviewed, 23 (49%) studies reported a literature review with qualitative assessments such as expert interviews and public surveys. A total of 25 (53%) studies reported a pilot DCE survey. In terms of survey administration, most studies (40/47, 85%) reported that the DCE was conducted through web-based surveys ( Table 2 ).

a NR: not reported.

b CDC: Center for disease control and prevention.

c UKZN: the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Attributes in DCE Studies

Of the 286 attributes identified in the 47 studies, 126 (44.1%) were categorized as outcome attributes, followed by 82 (28.7%) as process attributes, and 22 (7.7%) as cost attributes. The remaining 55 (19.2%) attributes were categorized as other attributes ( Table 3 and Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

a Attribute is significant ( P <.05).

b Not available.

c The corresponding coefficients and P values are not provided.

The Most Important Attribute Reported in DCE Studies

In total, 2 of the 5 multicountry studies did not report preferences for each country and were therefore excluded from the synthesis of the most important attribute. A total of 53 data points on COVID-19 vaccine preferences were collected from the study population of the corresponding country. In the outcome category, among the 30 attributes examined, effectiveness emerged as the most prominent, accounting for 40% (21/53) of the studies [ 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 - 42 , 48 , 50 - 52 , 57 , 58 , 60 - 62 , 64 - 67 ]. Safety was addressed in 13% (7/53) of the studies [ 33 , 43 , 47 , 56 , 59 , 68 , 69 ], while protection duration was mentioned in 4% (2/53) [ 11 , 50 ]. In the process category, 13 attributes were identified. Brand (1/53, 2%) [ 32 ], region of vaccine manufacturer (1/53, 2%) [ 34 ], and halal content (1/53, 2%) [ 53 ] were associated with vaccine production. In addition, waiting time for COVID-19 vaccination (1/53, 2%) [ 70 ] and vaccine frequency (1/53, 2%) [ 71 ] were considered. Furthermore, 3 (6%) studies on vaccine distribution prioritized vaccination for the medical risk group (1/53, 2%) [ 72 ], those who had a higher COVID-19 mortality risk (6/53, 11%) [ 63 ], and those who had the potential capacity to spread the virus (1/53, 2%) [ 72 ]. In the cost category, personal vaccination cost accounted for 6% (3/53) [ 31 , 37 , 41 ]. Among the other attributes (7/53, 13%), disease risk threat was of particular importance, including possible trends of the epidemic (1/53, 2%) [ 30 ] and COVID-19 mortality rate (1/53, 2%) [ 55 ]. In addition, incentives and penalties for vaccination were identified, including quarantine-free travel (1/53, 2%) [ 33 ] and mandatory testing at own expense if not vaccinated (1/53, 2%) [ 44 ]. Vaccine advice or support included vaccination invitation sender (1/53, 2%) [ 73 ] and recommenders (1/53, 2%) [ 46 ]. The proportion of friends and family members who had received the vaccine (1/53, 2%) [ 26 ] was also among the other attributes influencing decision-making ( Table 2 ).

Although effectiveness remained the most important attribute, it is worth noting that variations in preferences were also observed among different subgroups. A higher proportion of studies conducted in LMICs (4/24, 17%) than in HICs (3/29, 10%) prioritized on safety ( Multimedia Appendix 5 ). In addition, COVID-19 mortality risk was the second most important attribute (6/29, 21%) after effectiveness in HICs. Cost was considered to be another most important attribute (3/24, 13%) in LMICs. Interestingly, many other attributes also became more important as the pandemic progressed. Protection duration (2/24, 8%) emerged as one of the most important attributes during the pandemic wave. COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) and cost (3/25, 12%) were considered as the most important attributes after the pandemic wave ( Multimedia Appendix 6 ).

Study Quality

The overall reporting quality was deemed acceptable but there is room for improvement. The PREFS scores of the 47 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.23 (SD 0.52). No study scored 5. Most studies scored 3 (32/47, 68%) or 4 (13/47, 28%), while 2 studies (2/47, 4%) scored 2 ( Multimedia Appendix 7 [ 11 , 26 , 30 - 74 ]).

Principal Findings

This systematic review synthesizes existing data on preference for COVID-19 vaccine using DCE, with the aim of informing improvements in vaccine coverage and vaccine policy development. We identified 47 studies conducted in 29 countries, including 21 HICs and 8 LMICs. HICs had an adequate supply of vaccine since the early emergency availability of COVID-19 vaccine, and HICs had 1.5 times more doses of COVID-19 vaccinations than LMICs by September 2023 [ 85 ]. In total, 19 (40%) studies were conducted in China and 9 (19%) in the United States, demonstrating their significant contribution to the research and their leadership in vaccine research and development. Vaccine effectiveness and safety were the most important attributes in DCEs, although preferences differed among subgroups.

Recent years have seen new trends in the design, implementation, and validation of the DCE. For example, most studies (40/47, 85%) reported that the DCE was administered through web-based surveys, which have become a quick and cost-effective way to collect DCE data [ 66 ]. Almost half of the studies (25/47, 53%) did not report a pilot test. However, piloting in multiple stages throughout the development of a DCE is conducive to identifying appropriate and understandable attributes, considering whether participants can effectively evaluate the full profiles, and producing an efficient design [ 21 , 86 , 87 ].

Overall, vaccine effectiveness and safety have emerged as the most commonly investigated attributes in the outcome category. Despite heterogeneity in preferences across subpopulations, effectiveness remains the primary driver for COVID-19 vaccination across the studies [ 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 - 42 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 57 , 58 , 60 - 62 , 64 - 67 ], similar to the previous findings [ 18 ]. A study conducted in India and Europe found that respondents’ preference for the COVID-19 vaccine increased with effectiveness and peaked at 95% effectiveness [ 45 ]. Another study conducted among university staff and students in South Africa found that vaccine effectiveness not only was a concern but also significantly influenced vaccine choice behavior [ 64 ]. Interestingly, a nationwide stated choice survey in the United States found a strong interaction between effectiveness and other attributes [ 58 ]. These findings support the ongoing efforts to maximize vaccine effectiveness while emphasizing the importance of communicating information on vaccine effectiveness to the target population for promotion [ 62 ].

Safety has also been identified as a crucial factor influencing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine [ 33 , 43 , 47 , 56 , 59 , 68 , 69 ]. One study indicated that the likelihood of the general public choosing vaccines with low or moderate side effects increased by 75% and 63%, respectively, compared with vaccines with high side effects. While the likelihood changed within a 30% range when most attributes other than effectiveness and safety were changed [ 69 ]. In addition, respondents in Australia expressed a willingness to wait an additional 0.04 and 1.2 months to reduce the incidence of mild and severe adverse events by 1/10,000, respectively [ 56 ].

Similar to the results of previous systematic reviews of DCEs for various vaccines [ 18 , 19 ], the most common predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance are effectiveness and safety, particularly during the rapid development and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which essentially boils down to trust in the vaccine [ 31 ]. Respondents expressed the importance of having a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine available as soon as possible, but the majority preferred to wait a few months to observe the experience of others rather than be the first in line [ 43 ]. Therefore, collaborating to enhance vaccine effectiveness while reducing the risk of severe side effects could be a highly effective strategy to address vaccine hesitancy and augment vaccine desirability. Dissemination of this important vaccine-related information by governments and health care institutions, along with effective communication by health care professionals, can help build public trust and ultimately increase vaccination rates [ 69 ]. However, these inherent vaccine attributes are typically beyond the control of a vaccination program, and given the ongoing mutations of SARS-CoV-2, it is challenging to predict the effectiveness of the vaccines currently in development [ 66 ]. Global collaboration between scientists and pharmaceutical companies is therefore essential to improve vaccine effectiveness and minimize side effects [ 41 ].

Vaccine production, including its origin, brand, vaccine frequency, and content, are key considerations in the process category. Vaccine brand also has a significant impact on vaccine choice [ 32 ], independent of effectiveness and safety, due to factors such as reputation, country of origin, technological advances, and reported side effects associated with the brands [ 35 ]. For vaccine origin, some studies found that participants preferred domestic vaccines to imported vaccines, which may depend on the availability or the approval of vaccines in different countries [ 31 , 41 , 50 ] or the incidence of side effects among different types of COVID-19 vaccines [ 37 ]. However, some studies found that imported vaccines were more likely to be accepted than domestically produced vaccines, which may be attributed to less trust in domestically produced vaccines [ 57 , 66 ]. A study on vaccine preferences among the Malaysian population found that the composition and production process of the COVID-19 vaccine, which complied with Islamic dietary requirements (ie, halal content) was an important factor for many Malaysians when deciding whether to be vaccinated. This underscores the substantial influence of religion on vaccine choice [ 53 ].

Vaccine frequency was emphasized to play an important role in the choice of COVID-19 vaccine among the US public, while the 90% efficacy with low side effect rate of the COVID-19 vaccine was set. The prospect of vaccinating once to get lifelong immunity was very attractive, reflecting the fact that people were effort minimizers [ 71 ]. This is similar to the nature of the 2 studies referenced in the outcome attribute, where the protection duration is prioritized. Given the threat of COVID-19, people expect the protection duration to be as long as possible [ 11 , 50 ].

When vaccine supply is limited, people tend to prioritize vaccination for those who are more susceptible to the disease, have higher mortality rates from infectious diseases, or have greater potential to spread the virus. A study in Iran found that individuals tend to prioritize vaccination for those in the community with higher potential for virus transmission [ 57 ]. In addition, results from a study in 6 European countries revealed unanimous agreement among respondents that candidates with higher mortality and infection risks should be prioritized for vaccination [ 63 ]. While another study conducted among Belgians also found that respondents would prioritize populations at higher medical risk [ 72 ].

Cost was another important factor influencing COVID-19 vaccine preferences, mostly related to out-of-pocket costs [ 31 , 37 , 41 ]. In 2 studies comparing public preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in China and the United States, vaccine efficacy emerged as the most important driver for the American public, whereas the cost of vaccination had the greatest impact on the Chinese public. This difference was likely due to the relatively stable pandemic situation in China at the time and the lower perceived risk of COVID-19. As a result, the Chinese population was more price sensitive and reluctant to pay for vaccination [ 31 , 37 , 41 ].

For the other category, several different attributes were highlighted, depending on the specific population or situation. When people perceive the threat of a disease, their desire to be vaccinated becomes more urgent. In a study among health care workers in China, participants’ expectations about the future development of COVID-19 had a greater impact on their decision to be vaccinated than their perceived risk of infection or actual case rates, which may have been influenced by their previous experience with seasonal influenza vaccination [ 30 ]. The mortality rate of COVID-19 was considered the most influential factor in the uptake of COVID-19 booster shots in Vietnam. This study was conducted during a pandemic wave in Vietnam, which may have led to an increased perception of public health risks and a greater inclination toward COVID-19 vaccination [ 55 ]. To achieve herd immunity, government authorities can implement policies of incentives and penalties for vaccination to encourage population-wide uptake. A study conducted in the Netherlands revealed that respondents particularly disliked policies that penalized those who were not vaccinated, such as mandatory testing at their own expense if they were not vaccinated [ 44 ]. Instead, they favored policies that rewarded vaccination, such as giving vaccinated individuals additional privileges through a vaccination passport. This finding is consistent with a study in Hong Kong, which found that quarantine-free travel was considered the most important motivator among university students and staff, given their frequent engagement in international travel [ 33 ].

The source of vaccine information also influences vaccine decision-making [ 30 ]. Variation in the sender of vaccination appointment invitation via SMS text messaging and recommenders may potentially influence the public’s willingness to vaccinate against a disease [ 30 , 46 , 73 ]. Furthermore, the acceptance of vaccines was observed to change as the firsthand information about vaccine side effects and effectiveness was provided by friends and family in India [ 26 ].

In HICs, COVID-19 mortality risk was the second most important attribute after effectiveness, as respondents in all 6 high-income European countries from a study of public preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution prioritized candidates with higher mortality risks [ 63 ]. However, individuals from LMICs appeared to be more concerned about vaccine safety than those from HICs. This may be related to greater confidence in vaccine safety in HICs due to the earlier initiation and higher rates of COVID-19 vaccination [ 85 ]. In contrast, in some LMICs, vaccine safety was reported as the main reason influencing the willingness to vaccinate due to the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines [ 26 , 43 , 47 , 59 , 68 , 69 , 74 , 88 ].

Interestingly, the preference for COVID-19 vaccines may also have changed as the pandemic progressed [ 63 ]. Similarly, effectiveness remained the most important attribute in all periods, possibly due to the continuing severity of the pandemic and the fear of the possible emergence of new coronavirus strains [ 43 ]. Before the pandemic wave, the information on vaccine effectiveness was limited [ 26 ], but people still considered vaccine effectiveness to be the most important driver of vaccination. However, during the pandemic, the public’s perception of the health risk increased. As vaccines were introduced and used, people seemed to become more concerned about the duration of vaccine protection and preferred a longer vaccine protection [ 11 , 50 ]. After the pandemic wave, as the pandemic situation gradually stabilized, cost, combined with their perception of the risk of susceptibility, became more important in their preferences. However, despite this shift, most of the public still believed that people who are at higher risk of infection or death should be vaccinated first [ 63 ].

Limitations

Our study had several limitations. First, not all studies used the same attributes and levels, which limited our ability to perform a quantitative synthesis and directly compare the estimates of model parameters. Instead, we qualitatively synthesized and summarized the range of attributes that may be useful in the formative stage of attribute selection in future DCE surveys investigating the preference for COVID-19 vaccine. Second, although DCEs have been shown to be a valid method for eliciting preferences, the experiment may not represent real market choices but rather hypothetical scenarios with plausible and realistic attributes. However, it offers opportunities to evaluate vaccines that are not yet available in the market or to specific population [ 68 ]. Third, the commonly used classification of outcome, cost, and process was used in order to better explain the public’s preference for vaccine attributes. However, several attributes could not be properly classified, and a fourth category (ie, other attributes) had to be added [ 19 ]. Meanwhile, the variety of attributes included may make it difficult to appropriately name and interpret this category as a whole. Fifth, the PREFS checklist is limited to 5 questions and fails to elicit several criteria that should be reported in DCE studies. Also, it does not provide sufficient tools to assess the biases in a DCE, such as selection bias and nonresponse bias [ 79 , 89 ]. Finally, although there was no specific theoretical framework to structure our qualitative analysis from the 4 identified categories, our classification was based on previous studies [ 18 , 19 , 82 , 90 , 91 ] and our own findings. This synthesis led us to categorize attributes into 4 main classes, providing a clear structure for analyzing and presenting participants’ vaccine preferences and making it easier to compare their preferences across different studies.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this systematic review synthesized the global evidence on preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the DCE methodology. Vaccine effectiveness and safety were found to be the main drivers for COVID-19 vaccination, highlighting the importance of global collaboration to improve vaccine effectiveness and minimize side effects, as well as the importance of communicating this vaccine-related information to the public to maximize the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. The subgroup analyses emphasized the importance of differences in vaccine preference of specific populations and time periods in optimizing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. These findings may serve as valuable insights for government agencies involved in the social mobilization process for COVID-19 vaccination. However, the response to the pandemic is a continuous learning process [ 92 ]. It is crucial for policy makers to consider preference evidence when designing policies to promote vaccination.

Acknowledgments

The authors have not received a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data Availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. Data sets of this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Authors' Contributions

YH, SF, and YZ are joint first authors. HJ conceived the study and its methodology. YH, SF, and YZ designed, refined, and implemented the search strategy; screened articles for inclusion; and extracted and curated the data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. YH, SF, and YZ wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. HJ and HW critically reviewed the manuscript. HJ supervised the study design and provided overall guidance. All authors approved the final draft of the manuscript. HJ had full access to all the data used in this study, and all authors had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist.

Search strategies.

Attributes included in each category.

The detailed distribution of the study period across countries.

Preference for COVID-19 vaccines among high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (n=53).

Preference for COVID-19 vaccines in the different study periods (n=53).

Assessment of 47 included studies quality using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.

• WHO chief declares end to COVID-19 as a global health emergency. United Nations. 2023. URL: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367 [accessed 2023-09-11]
• Lam IC, Zhang R, Man KK, Wong CK, Chui CS, Lai FT, et al. Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Commun. Feb 26, 2024;15(1):1716. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Al Kaabi N, Zhang Y, Xia S, Yang Y, Al Qahtani MM, Abdulrazzaq N, et al. Effect of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on symptomatic COVID-19 infection in adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Jul 06, 2021;326(1):35-45. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Azzolini E, Levi R, Sarti R, Pozzi C, Mollura M, Mantovani A, et al. Association between BNT162b2 vaccination and long COVID after infections not requiring hospitalization in health care workers. JAMA. Aug 16, 2022;328(7):676-678. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Català M, Mercadé-Besora N, Kolde R, Trinh NT, Roel E, Burn E, et al. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent long COVID symptoms: staggered cohort study of data from the UK, Spain, and Estonia. Lancet Respir Med. Mar 2024;12(3):225-236. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Trinh NT, Jödicke AM, Català M, Mercadé-Besora N, Hayati S, Lupattelli A, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent long COVID: data from Norway. Lancet Respir Med. May 2024;12(5):e33-e34. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations. Our World in Data. URL: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Asundi A, O'Leary C, Bhadelia N. Global COVID-19 vaccine inequity: the scope, the impact, and the challenges. Cell Host Microbe. Jul 14, 2021;29(7):1036-1039. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rydland HT, Friedman J, Stringhini S, Link BG, Eikemo TA. The radically unequal distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations: a predictable yet avoidable symptom of the fundamental causes of inequality. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. Feb 23, 2022;9(1):61. [ CrossRef ]
• Levin AT, Owusu-Boaitey N, Pugh S, Fosdick BK, Zwi AB, Malani A, et al. Assessing the burden of COVID-19 in developing countries: systematic review, meta-analysis and public policy implications. BMJ Glob Health. May 2022;7(5):e008477. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Donin G, Erfányuková A, Ivlev I. Factors affecting young adults' decision making to undergo COVID-19 vaccination: a patient preference study. Vaccines (Basel). Feb 09, 2022;10(2):265. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Stamm TA, Partheymüller J, Mosor E, Ritschl V, Kritzinger S, Alunno A, et al. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine fatigue. Nat Med. May 2023;29(5):1164-1171. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Larson HJ, Gakidou E, Murray CJ. The vaccine-hesitant moment. N Engl J Med. Jul 07, 2022;387(1):58-65. [ CrossRef ]
• Williams V, Edem B, Calnan M, Otwombe K, Okeahalam C. Considerations for establishing successful coronavirus disease vaccination programs in Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. Aug 2021;27(8):2009-2016. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Attwell K, Lake J, Sneddon J, Gerrans P, Blyth C, Lee J. Converting the maybes: crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy. PLoS One. Jan 20, 2021;16(1):e0245907. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kreps S, Dasgupta N, Brownstein JS, Hswen Y, Kriner DL. Public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination: the role of vaccine attributes, incentives, and misinformation. NPJ Vaccines. May 14, 2021;6(1):73. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kreps S, Prasad S, Brownstein JS, Hswen Y, Garibaldi BT, Zhang B, et al. Factors associated with US adults' likelihood of accepting COVID-19 vaccination. JAMA Netw Open. Oct 01, 2020;3(10):e2025594. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lack A, Hiligsmann M, Bloem P, Tünneßen M, Hutubessy R. Parent, provider and vaccinee preferences for HPV vaccination: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Vaccine. Oct 27, 2020;38(46):7226-7238. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Diks ME, Hiligsmann M, van der Putten IM. Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments. BMC Infect Dis. Aug 28, 2021;21(1):879. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R. Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice Model. 2011;4(1):1-8. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-677. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. Aug 09, 2002;2(4):319-326. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buckell J, Mitchell CA, Fryer K, Newbert C, Brennan A, Joyce J, et al. Identifying preferred features of weight loss programs for adults with or at risk of type 2 diabetes: a discrete choice experiment with 3,960 adults in the U.K. Diabetes Care. Apr 01, 2024;47(4):739-746. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3-13. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mathieu E, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Roser M, Hasell J, Appel C, et al. A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nat Hum Behav. Jul 2021;5(7):947-953. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bansal P, Raj A, Mani Shukla D, Sunder N. COVID-19 vaccine preferences in India. Vaccine. Apr 01, 2022;40(15):2242-2246. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abbasi J. What to know about EG.5, the latest SARS-CoV-2 "variant of interest". JAMA. Sep 12, 2023;330(10):900-901. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. Jul 21, 2009;339:b2700. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Collaborate on your reviews with anyone, anywhere, anytime. rayyan. URL: https://www.rayyan.ai/ [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Fu C, Wei Z, Zhu F, Pei S, Li S, Zhang L, et al. Acceptance of and preference for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers: a comparative analysis and discrete choice experiment. medRxiv. Preprint posted online April 11, 2022. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu T, He Z, Huang J, Yan N, Chen Q, Huang F, et al. A comparison of vaccine hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in China and the United States. Vaccines (Basel). Jun 14, 2021;9(6):649. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Asim S, Wang K, Nichini E, Yip FF, Zhu L, Fung HC, et al. COVID-19 vaccination preferences among non-Chinese migrants in Hong Kong: discrete choice experiment. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Mar 27, 2023;9:e40587. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fung LW, Zhao J, Yan VK, Blais JE, Chan JC, Li ST, et al. COVID-19 vaccination preferences of university students and staff in Hong Kong. JAMA Netw Open. May 02, 2022;5(5):e2212681. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schwarzinger M, Watson V, Arwidson P, Alla F, Luchini S. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a representative working-age population in France: a survey experiment based on vaccine characteristics. Lancet Public Health. Apr 2021;6(4):e210-e221. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang K, Wong EL, Cheung AW, Chung VC, Wong CH, Dong D, et al. Impact of information framing and vaccination characteristics on parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for children: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Pediatr. Nov 2022;181(11):3839-3849. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang K, Wong EL, Cheung AW, Yau PS, Chung VC, Wong CH, et al. Influence of vaccination characteristics on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among working-age people in Hong Kong, China: a discrete choice experiment. Front Public Health. 2021;9:793533. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhang J, Ge P, Li X, Yin M, Wang Y, Ming W, et al. Personality effects on Chinese public preference for the COVID-19 vaccination: discrete choice experiment and latent profile analysis study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Apr 15, 2022;19(8):4842. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Igarashi A, Nakano Y, Yoneyama-Hirozane M. Public preferences and willingness to accept a hypothetical vaccine to prevent a pandemic in Japan: a conjoint analysis. Expert Rev Vaccines. Feb 2022;21(2):241-248. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Díaz Luévano C, Sicsic J, Pellissier G, Chyderiotis S, Arwidson P, Olivier C, et al. Quantifying healthcare and welfare sector workers' preferences around COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional, single-profile discrete-choice experiment in France. BMJ Open. Oct 04, 2021;11(10):e055148. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Velardo F, Watson V, Arwidson P, Alla F, Luchini S, Schwarzinger M, et al. CoVaMax Study Group. Regional differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in December 2020: a natural experiment in the French working-age population. Vaccines (Basel). Nov 20, 2021;9(11):1364. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li X, Yang L, Tian G, Feng B, Jia X, He Z, et al. Understanding influencing attributes of COVID-19 vaccine preference and willingness-to-pay among Chinese and American middle-aged and elderly adults: a discrete choice experiment and propensity score matching study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1067218. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McPhedran R, Toombs B. Efficacy or delivery? an online discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. Econ Lett. Mar 2021;200:109747. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mouter N, de Ruijter A, Ardine de Wit G, Lambooij MS, van Wijhe M, van Exel J, et al. "Please, you go first!" preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. Jan 2022;292:114626. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mouter N, Boxebeld S, Kessels R, van Wijhe M, de Wit A, Lambooij M, et al. Public preferences for policies to promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake: a discrete choice experiment in the Netherlands. Value Health. Aug 2022;25(8):1290-1297. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dong Y, He Z, Liu T, Huang J, Zhang CJ, Akinwunmi B, et al. Acceptance of and preference for COVID-19 vaccination in India, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain: an international cross-sectional study. Vaccines (Basel). May 24, 2022;10(6):832. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Daziano RA. A choice experiment assessment of stated early response to COVID-19 vaccines in the USA. Health Econ Rev. Mar 31, 2022;12(1):23. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen Y, Wang J, Yi M, Xu H, Liang H. The COVID-19 vaccination decision-making preferences of elderly people: a discrete choice experiment. Sci Rep. Mar 31, 2023;13(1):5242. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Huang W, Shao X, Wagner AL, Chen Y, Guan B, Boulton ML, et al. COVID-19 vaccine coverage, concerns, and preferences among Chinese ICU clinicians: a nationwide online survey. Expert Rev Vaccines. Oct 2021;20(10):1361-1367. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Prosser LA, Wagner AL, Wittenberg E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Rose AM, Pike J. A discrete choice analysis comparing COVID-19 vaccination decisions for children and adults. JAMA Netw Open. Jan 03, 2023;6(1):e2253582. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Blaga Z, Czine P, Takacs B, Szilagyi A, Szekeres R, Wachal Z, et al. Examination of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in Hungary based on their properties-examining the impact of pandemic awareness with a hybrid choice approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jan 10, 2023;20(2):1270. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Leng A, Maitland E, Wang S, Nicholas S, Liu R, Wang J. Individual preferences for COVID-19 vaccination in China. Vaccine. Jan 08, 2021;39(2):247-254. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang S, Nicholas S, Maitland E, Leng A. Individual preferences for COVID-19 vaccination under the China's 2021 national vaccination policy: a discrete choice experiment study. Vaccines (Basel). Mar 31, 2022;10(4):543. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Teh HS, Woon YL, Leong CT, Hing NY, Mien TY, Roope LS, et al. Malaysian public preferences and decision making for COVID-19 vaccination: a discrete choice experiment. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. Oct 2022;27:100534. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hess S, Lancsar E, Mariel P, Meyerhoff J, Song F, van den Broek-Altenburg E, et al. The path towards herd immunity: predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents. Soc Sci Med. Apr 2022;298:114800. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tran BX, Do AL, Boyer L, Auquier P, Le HT, Le Vu MN, et al. Preference and willingness to pay for the regular COVID-19 booster shot in the Vietnamese population: theory-driven discrete choice experiment. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Jan 31, 2023;9:e43055. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Borriello A, Master D, Pellegrini A, Rose JM. Preferences for a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Vaccine. Jan 15, 2021;39(3):473-479. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Darrudi A, Daroudi R, Yunesian M, Akbari Sari A. Public preferences and willingness to pay for a COVID-19 vaccine in Iran: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoecon Open. Sep 2022;6(5):669-679. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Krueger R, Daziano RA. Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral. J Choice Model. Dec 2022;45:100385. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang S, Maitland E, Wang T, Nicholas S, Leng A. Student COVID-19 vaccination preferences in China: a discrete choice experiment. Front Public Health. 2022;10:997900. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Craig BM. United States COVID-19 vaccination preferences (CVP): 2020 hindsight. Patient. May 2021;14(3):309-318. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang J, Wagner AL, Chen Y, Jaime E, Hu X, Wu S, et al. Would COVID-19 vaccination willingness increase if mobile technologies prohibit unvaccinated individuals from public spaces? a nationwide discrete choice experiment from China. Vaccine. Dec 05, 2022;40(51):7466-7475. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hazlewood GS, Colmegna I, Hitchon C, Fortin PR, Bernatsky S, Clarke AE, et al. Preferences for COVID-19 vaccination in people with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. J Rheumatol. Jul 2023;50(7):949-957. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Steinert JI, Sternberg H, Veltri GA, Büthe T. How should COVID-19 vaccines be distributed between the Global North and South: a discrete choice experiment in six European countries. Elife. Oct 18, 2022;11:e79819. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• George G, Strauss M, Lansdell E, Nadesan-Reddy N, Moroe N, Reddy T, et al. South African university staff and students' perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines: a multi-methods study. Vaccines (Basel). Aug 04, 2022;10(8):1250. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Morillon GF, Poder TG. Public preferences for a COVID-19 vaccination program in Quebec: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. Mar 20, 2022;40(3):341-354. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dong D, Xu RH, Wong EL, Hung CT, Feng D, Feng Z, et al. Public preference for COVID-19 vaccines in China: a discrete choice experiment. Health Expect. Dec 2020;23(6):1543-1578. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Xiao J, Wang F, Wang M, Ma Z. Attribute nonattendance in COVID-19 vaccine choice: a discrete choice experiment based on Chinese public preference. Health Expect. Jun 2022;25(3):959-970. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Panchalingam T, Shi Y. Parental refusal and hesitancy of vaccinating children against COVID-19: findings from a nationally representative sample of parents in the U.S. Prev Med. Nov 2022;164:107288. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen YW, XU JX, Wang Y, Yan HH, Gao JI. Public preference and vaccination willingness for COVID-19 vaccine in China. Fudan Univ J Med Sci. 2021;48(05):617-685. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bughin J, Cincera M, Kiepfer E, Reykowska D, Philippi F, Żyszkiewicz M, et al. Vaccination or NPI? a conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Health Econ. Feb 2023;24(1):39-52. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Eshun-Wilson I, Mody A, Tram KH, Bradley C, Sheve A, Fox B, et al. Preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies in the US: a discrete choice survey. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256394. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Luyten J, Tubeuf S, Kessels R. Rationing of a scarce life-saving resource: public preferences for prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination. Health Econ. Feb 2022;31(2):342-362. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McPhedran R, Gold N, Bemand C, Weston D, Rosen R, Scott R, et al. Location, location, location: a discrete choice experiment to inform COVID-19 vaccination programme delivery in the UK. BMC Public Health. Mar 04, 2022;22(1):431. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li X, Chong MY, Chan CY, Chan VW, Tong X. COVID-19 vaccine preferences among university students in Hong Kong: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Res Notes. Nov 22, 2021;14(1):421. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2022-2023. The World Bank. 2023. URL: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023 [accessed 2022-07-01]
• Wang J, Jing R, Lai X, Zhang H, Lyu Y, Knoll MD, et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Vaccines (Basel). Aug 27, 2020;8(3):482. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang J, Lu X, Lai X, Lyu Y, Zhang H, Fenghuang Y, et al. The changing acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in different epidemic phases in China: a longitudinal study. Vaccines (Basel). Feb 25, 2021;9(3):191. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. worldometer. URL: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [accessed 2024-04-29]
• Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. Oct 1, 2013;31(10):877-892. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hollin IL, Paskett J, Schuster AL, Crossnohere NL, Bridges JF. Best-worst scaling and the prioritization of objects in health: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. Sep 2022;40(9):883-899. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beckham SW, Crossnohere NL, Gross M, Bridges JF. Eliciting preferences for HIV prevention technologies: a systematic review. Patient. Mar 2021;14(2):151-174. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients' preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. Oct 2017;10(5):553-565. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wulandari LP, He SY, Fairley CK, Bavinton BR, Marie-Schmidt H, Wiseman V, et al. Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. EClinicalMedicine. Sep 2022;51:101507. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Russo S, Jongerius C, Faccio F, Pizzoli SF, Pinto CA, Veldwijk J, et al. Understanding patients' preferences: a systematic review of psychological instruments used in patients' preference and decision studies. Value Health. Apr 2019;22(4):491-501. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• COVID-19 data explorer. Our World in Data. URL: https:/​/ourworldindata.​org/​explorers/​coronavirus-data-explorer? tab=table&zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01.​.latest&facet=none&country=High+income~Lower+middle+income~ Low+income&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Vaccine+doses&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true& Color+by+test+positivity=false [accessed 2023-09-11]
• Street DJ, Viney R. Design of discrete choice experiments. In: Banerjee A, Dixit A, Edwards S, Judd K, editors. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Economics and Finance. Oxfordshire, UK. Oxford University Press; 2019.
• Pérez-Troncoso D. A step-by-step guide to design, implement, and analyze a discrete choice experiment. arXiv. Preprint posted online on September 23, 2020. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patwary MM, Alam MA, Bardhan M, Disha AS, Haque MZ, Billah SM, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among low- and lower-middle-income countries: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines (Basel). Mar 11, 2022;10(3):427. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Al-Aqeel S, Alotaiwi R, Albugami B. Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies. Health Econ Rev. Mar 18, 2023;13(1):17. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. Nov 01, 2011;147(11):1285-1294. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jiang S, Ren R, Gu Y, Jeet V, Liu P, Li S. Patient preferences in targeted pharmacotherapy for cancers: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. Jan 2023;41(1):43-57. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nabia S, Wonodi CB, Vilajeliu A, Sussman S, Olson K, Cooke R, et al. Experiences, enablers, and challenges in service delivery and integration of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid systematic review. Vaccines (Basel). May 11, 2023;11(5):974. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 19.01.24; peer-reviewed by T Ricks, I Saha; comments to author 11.04.24; revised version received 01.05.24; accepted 26.05.24; published 29.07.24.

©Yiting Huang, Shuaixin Feng, Yuyan Zhao, Haode Wang, Hongbo Jiang. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 29.07.2024.

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

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

2024 Investment Climate Statements: Finland

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Finland is a Nordic country situated north of the Baltic states, bordering Russia, Sweden, and Norway. It has excellent transportation links within the Nordic-Baltic region and is a member of the Schengen Zone within which internal border controls have been, for the most part, eliminated. In 2023, the population was around 5.6 million, with over 85 percent residing in cities in the country’s south. Helsinki is the capital and largest city, with a population of around 675,000 in the city and 1.5 million in the metropolitan area.

Finland is a member of the European Union and a part of the Euro area. In 2023, Finland joined NATO and concluded negotiations on a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the United States. NATO membership and the DCA should benefit the country economically by increasing regional security and stability; and investments in the defense industry will create jobs and stimulate economic growth and trade. According to Finnish Customs, the United States was Finland’s biggest trading partner for exports in 2023.

As a modern, stable economy, Finland offers a well-developed digital infrastructure with stability, functionality, and a high standard of living. The country has a highly skilled, educated, and multilingual labor force with solid expertise in Information Communications Technology (ICT) and emerging technologies, including microelectronics; quantum and supercomputing; shipbuilding; forestry; and renewable energy. Finland and the United Sates are intensifying cooperation in various fields, including cybersecurity, 6G networks, nuclear, climate, energy, health, biotechnology, space, quantum technology, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies through bilateral joint statements and agreements.

In 2021, emerging from the pandemic, Finland’s economy recovered swiftly from recession to moderate growth of 2.6 percent, but growth slowed after Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The center-right government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, formed in June 2023 following parliamentary elections in April 2023, aims to improve weak economic growth through changes to structural policies, including balancing public finances; spurring investment in education, research, and development; accelerating the green transition; and introducing labor market reforms. Labor unions engaged in a series of political strikes aimed at blocking the implementation of the labor market reforms during the spring of 2024.

At the same time, an aging population and a shrinking workforce are the most pressing demographic concerns for economic growth. According to the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Barometer 2023, over three-quarters of businesses report experiencing a talent shortage, with large foreign-owned companies being most negatively affected. In response, Finland aims to increase work- and education-based immigration through the Talent Boost program, revised for the years 2023-2027. The aim is to attract and improve the employment of international specialists immigrating to Finland.

Finland has set a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2035. To accelerate the green transition, the government is prioritizing investment projects in renewable energy production, industrial electrification, hydrogen economy, carbon capture and storage, and battery production to grant quicker permit processing times. The current pipeline of green investments amounts to approximately 230 billion euros ($247 billion), including projects by domestic and multinational companies. The high share of carbon-free electricity production in the domestic energy mix, which was 94 percent in 2023, facilitates the green transition.

The European Central Bank has tightened monetary policy in the euro area in response to high inflation, which has also slowed economic growth in Finland during the past two years. Industrial production and construction are sensitive to interest rate movements, which have reduced private consumption, investment, and the demand for housing in Finland. The Bank of Finland’s interim forecast indicates Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will decrease by 0.5 percent in 2024. Economists predict the economy will bounce back towards the end of the year, and GDP will grow by 1.7 percent in 2025. Inflation is projected to decline to below one percent during 2024, improving employees’ actual earnings and consumers’ purchasing power.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has impacted Finland’s economic activity and inflation through higher energy and commodity prices, the disruption of international commerce, and weaker confidence in the economy. Finnish Customs indicates the value of Finland’s exports of goods to Russia and Central Asia amounted to 1.2 billion euros ($1.3 billion) in 2023, a decrease of 50.5 percent compared to 2022. The overall economic effects of the war on the private sector have remained relatively small as companies have replaced Russian trade with other markets.

1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

• Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

The Finnis government is open to foreign investment. As an EU member state, Finland is committed to the free movement of goods, capital, persons, and certain services. Companies benefit from trade arrangements through EU and World Trade Organization (WTO) membership, and the protection offered by Finland’s bilateral investment treaties with sixty-three countries.

Private ownership and the participation of foreign companies or individuals are unrestricted, and the government promotes trade and foreign direct investment. Business Finland helps foreign investors set up businesses and provides free services ranging from data collection and matchmaking to location management. The organization offers funding for research and development work carried out by companies, research organizations, and public sector service providers in Finland: https://www.businessfinland.com/  

• Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

The Act on Monitoring Foreign Corporate Acquisitions (172/2012) governs foreign investments in Finland. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment monitors and confirms foreign corporate acquisitions and decides whether an acquisition conflicts with securing national defense and safeguarding public order and security. If the ministry finds a critical national interest jeopardized, it must refer the matter to the Council of State, which may refuse to approve the acquisition. For more information: https://tem.fi/en/acquisitions  

In the non-military sector, Finnish companies considered critical for securing vital functions are subject to screening, which applies to foreign owners residing or domiciled outside the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment provides instructions for preparing the application/notification. The application and statement must also be accompanied by a form containing specific information required by EU regulation.

For defense acquisitions, monitoring applies to all foreign owners, who must apply for prior approval. “Defense” includes all entities that supply or have supplied goods or services to the Finnish Ministry of Defense, the Finnish Defense Forces, and the Finnish Border Guard, as well as entities dealing in dual-use goods.

Finland requires non-EU/European Economic Area (EEA) foreign individuals or entities to receive Defense Ministry permission before they purchase real estate. Companies registered in Finland with decision-making bodies of at least one-tenth non-EU/EEA origin must seek a permit. More information is available here: https://www.defmin.fi/en/licences_and_services/authorisation_to_non-eu_and_non-eea_buyers_to_buy_real_estate#a6591279  

In 2022, the European Commission published guidance for EU member states on assessing and preventing threats to EU security and public order from Russian and Belarusian investments. The direction highlights the increased risk from investments subject to Russian or Belarusian government influence in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calls for close cooperation between authorities involved in investment screening and those responsible for enforcing sanctions.

• Other Investment Policy Reviews

Finland is considered one of the most open economies in the OECD area with a stable economy and society, strong institutions, and low corruption that attracts foreign investors. Knowledge and innovation capacity are among the most critical factors bringing foreign firms to the Finnish economy, and salaries for high-skilled workers are considered relatively competitive compared to other Nordic states.

In 2021, the OECD launched the Impact of Regulation on International Investment in Finland report to analyze FDI flows toward Finland and other Nordic-Baltic countries and discuss the benefits of foreign investment for the Finnish economy. The OECD noted that several challenges may prevent Finland from exploiting its full potential as a destination for FDI.

The OECD recommended reviewing and streamlining inefficient and burdensome policies, diminishing red tape, and fostering competition to encourage new international investment and enhance the economic performance of existing players. Complex administrative procedures to recruit foreign talent and stringent labor market conditions affect growth prospects. Further policy responses that help businesses deal with skill shortages are essential to ensure attractiveness as an investment location. More information is available here: https://www.oecd.or g/publications/the-impact-of-regulation-on-international-investment-in-finland-b1bf8bee-en.htm  

Over the past three years, Finland has not undergone an investment policy review by the WTO or the United Nations Committee on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

• Business Facilitation

All businesses in Finland must be publicly registered at the Finnish Trade Register. The website is: https://www.prh.fi/en/kaupparekisteri.html .

The Business Information System (BIS) is an online service enabling investors to start a business or organization, report changes, close down a business, or conduct searches: https://www.prh.fi/en/kaupparekisteri/rekisterointipalvelut/ytj.html  

All businesses must also enter the VAT, Prepayment, and Employer Registers of Tax Administration. Instructions for registering a company can be found at this website: https://www.vero.fi/en/businesses-and-corporations/business-operations/tax-administrations-registers–business/  

Entrepreneurs can apply for a residence permit in Finland. Before a permit can be issued, entrepreneurs usually need to enter their business in the Trade Register maintained by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office. https://migri.fi/en/entrepreneur  

In 2022, Finland introduced a long-term “D” visa for students, researchers, persons in managerial positions in companies, and their family members to increase the immigration of skilled labor. With a “D” visa, applicants can enter Finland immediately after receiving a favorable decision on the residence permit application, and the “D” visa sticker has been attached to the passport. For more information: https://migri.fi/en/d-visa  

• Outward Investment

International trade and external economic relations are central to Finland’s foreign and security policy. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs prepares and implements Finland’s trade policy within the framework of the EU.

Team Finland is a network of public sector bodies dedicated to helping Finnish companies grow and be successful in their dealings abroad. It also promotes the country’s image and attracts foreign investments and experts to Finland. The network offers tailor-made service packages for companies’ internationalization needs based on the services provided by the network actors. Service packages typically combine services provided by the Center for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, Business Finland, Finnvera, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. https://www.team-finland.fi/en/network-services-for-companies  

Business Finland is a public-sector operator and part of the Team Finland network. It helps Finnish Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) go international, encourages foreign direct investment in Finland, and promotes tourism. The organization focuses on agricultural technology, clean technology, connectivity, e-commerce, education, information and communication technology, digitalization, mining, and mobility. While many of Business Finland’s programs are export-oriented, they also seek to offer business and network opportunities within Finland that are not necessarily focused on exports. The organization employs 760 specialists at 40 foreign locations and 16 offices in Finland. https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-customers/home  

The government generally allows domestic investors to invest abroad, with some exceptions. The defense ministry approves arms exports for military use, the National Police Board grants permission to export civilian weapons, and the foreign ministry oversees exports of dual-use products.

• 2. Bilateral Investment and Taxation Treaties

Finland has 55 Bilateral Investment Treaties in force but does not share a BIT or Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. As an EU member state, Finland is a signatory to any treaty or agreement signed by the EU, including free trade agreements. A complete list of Finland’s investment agreements can be found at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/71/finland  

Finland and the United States signed a convention to avoid double taxation and prevent fiscal evasion concerning taxes on income and capital (TIAS 12101) that entered into force in 1990. In 2014, the two countries signed an intergovernmental agreement to implement the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which fights tax evasion and fraud. For more information: https://www.vero.fi/en/businesses-and-corporations/business-operations/financial-sector/fatca-crs-and-dac2/general-information/   https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/FATCA-Agreement-Finland-3-5-2014.pdf

Finland is a member of the OECD Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and a party to the two-pillar plan to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy. For a list of Finland’s bilateral tax agreements, see: https://www.vero.fi/en/detailed-guidance/guidance/49062/tax_treatie/  

3. Legal Regime

• Transparency of the Regulatory System

In Finland, competition policy aims to create and maintain an environment where enterprises have a level playing field and an opportunity to succeed due to their expertise. The Competition Act (948/2011) is the base for the national competition policy, seeking to ensure sound and effective economic competition. The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority is responsible for applying the legislation. For more information: https://www.kkv.fi/en/competition-affairs/competition-act/  

Finland is subject to accounting, auditing, and financial reporting requirements established through EU regulations and directives as transposed into national laws and regulations. Finland has fully aligned its legal framework with the EU acquis communitaire related to accounting and auditing. For more information: https://www.ifac.org/about-ifac/membership/profile/finland#:~:text=In%20Finland%2C%20the%20Accounting%20Act,European%20Commission%20(EC)%20Regulations  

Finnish law does not require institutional investors and financial intermediaries to consider Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions. Most institutional investors and financial intermediaries have signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and also consider sustainable development goals in their investment decisions. However, the Finnish Corporate Governance Code considers certain ESG factors in its recommendations, such as the composition of the company’s board of directors concerning gender. The Corporate Governance Code applies to all companies listed on Nasdaq Helsinki. https://cgfinland.fi/en/corporate-governance-code/  

In September 2021, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment released a Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) finance roadmap, called the “Finnish Roadmap for Financing a Decade of SDG Action 2021.” The roadmap aims to support Finnish stakeholders with a goal of increasing financing for solutions to reach the SDGs in Finland and globally. More information can be found here: https://tem.fi/en/developing-finlands-sustainable-finance-ecosystems  

The Act on the Openness of Public Documents establishes the openness of all records in the possession of officials of the state, municipalities, registered religious communities, and corporations that perform legally mandated public duties, such as pension funds and public utilities. Exceptions can only be made by law or by an executive order for reasons such as national security. https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/act-on-the-openness-of-government-activities  

The Ministry of Justice maintains an online Finlex Data Bank database of up-to-date legislative and judicial information. Most of the databases are only available in Finnish and Swedish, but some translations of Finnish acts and decrees are also available in English and other languages. Case law in the legal literature database is also available in English. https://finlex.fi/en/  

The Ministry of Justice provides an online service to request and give statements electronically in connection with draft regulations, legislation, and other government documents. Public administration authorities can publish draft bills and regulations for public consultation. The service is available in Finnish and Swedish: https://www.lausuntopalvelu.fi/FI  

The Parliamentary Ombudsman exercises oversight to ensure that those who perform public tasks comply with the law and fulfill their responsibilities. The Ombudsman investigates complaints, conducts on-site inspections, and makes statements on legislative proposals. The scope of the Ombudsman’s oversight includes courts, authorities, and public servants, as well as other persons and organizations that perform public tasks. The Ombudsman submits an annual report to Parliament, including observations on the state of the administration of justice and any shortcomings in legislation. https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en/eoa  

The status of Finland’s public finances is available at Statistics Finland, Finland’s official statistics agency: https://www.stat.fi/en/topic/national-economy  

The status of Finland’s national debt is available at the State Treasury: https://www.treasuryfinland.fi/statistics/statistics-on-central-government-debt/  

• International Regulatory Considerations

Finland follows EU internal market practices, which define Finland’s trade relations both inside the EU and with non-EU countries. As a member of the WTO, Finland reports under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) all proposed technical regulations that could affect trade with other member countries. In 2021, Finland submitted two notifications of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures to the WTO. It has submitted 105 notifications since 1995. Finland is a signatory to the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which entered into force on February 22, 2017.

• Legal System and Judicial Independence

Finland has a civil law system. European Community (EC) law is directly applicable in Finland and takes precedence over national legislation. The Market Court is a special court for rulings in commercial law, competition, and public procurement cases, and may issue injunctions and penalties against the illegal restriction of competition. It also governs mergers and acquisitions, may overturn public procurement decisions, and require compensatory payments. More information about the court is available here: https://oikeus.fi/tuomioistuimet/en/index.html  

Finland has been a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards since 1962. The provisions of the convention have been included in the Arbitration Act (957/1992).

The Oikeus.fi website https://oikeus.fi/en/index.html   contains information about the Finnish judicial system and links to the websites of the independent courts, the public legal aid and guardianship districts, the National Prosecution Authority, the National Enforcement Authority Finland, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency.

• Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment monitors foreign corporate acquisitions and is a national contact point for the EU screening regulation. The purpose of the Act on the Monitoring of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions in Finland (127/2012) (hereafter the Act) is to monitor and, if vital national interests so require, to restrict the transfer of influence to foreigners and foreign organizations and foundations. More information about the Act is available here: ihttps://tem.fi/en/acquisitions.

Under the Act, corporate acquisition refers to activities in which a foreign owner gains control of at least one-tenth, at least one-third, or at least one-half of the aggregate number of votes conferred by all shares in the company or a holding that otherwise corresponds to decision-making authority in a limited liability company or other monitored entity. For more information: https://tem.fi/documents/1410877/0/Kysymyksi%C3%A4+ja+vastauksia_en.pdf/0ef51799-6c84-9251-6cfe-188bc91c6f83/Kysymyksi%C3%A4+ja+vastauksia_en.pdf?t=1636548655250  

There is no primary or “one-stop-shop” website that provides all relevant laws, rules, procedures, and reporting requirements for investors. A non-European Economic Area (EEA) resident (persons or companies) operating in Finland must obtain a license or a notification when starting a business in a regulated industry. For more information: https://tem.fi/en/regulation-of-business-operations  

• Competition and Antitrust Laws

The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) protects competition by intervening in cases regarding restrictive practices, such as cartels and abuse of dominant position, and violations of the Competition Act and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Investigations occur both on the FCCA’s initiative and based on complaints. Where necessary, the FCCA makes proposals to the Market Court regarding penalties.

The FCCA requires notification on mergers and acquisitions that exceed certain turnover thresholds. The FCCA will intervene in the transaction if it deems it to prevent effective competition in Finland. The FCCA would investigate transactions where the parties’ combined turnover generated in Finland exceeds EUR 100 million and the total turnover generated in Finland of at least two parties exceeds EUR 10 million per party.

In international competition matters, the FCCA’s key stakeholders are the European Commission (DG Competition), the OECD Competition Committee, the Nordic competition authorities, and the International Competition Network (ICN). FCCA rulings and decisions can be found in the archive in Finnish. More information is available at: https://www.kkv.fi/en/facts-and-advice/competition-affairs/

• Expropriation and Compensation

Finnish law protects private property rights. Citizen property is protected by the constitution, which includes basic provisions in the event of expropriation. Private property is only expropriated for public purposes (eminent domain), in a non-discriminatory manner, with reasonable compensation, and in accordance with established international law.

Expropriation is usually based on a permit given by the government or on a confirmed plan and is performed by the District Survey Office. An expropriation permit granted by the government may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Compensation is awarded at full market price but may exclude the rise in value due only to planning decisions.

Besides normal expropriation according to the Expropriation Act, a municipality or the state has the right to expropriate land for planning purposes. Expropriation is mainly for acquiring land for common needs, such as street areas, parks, and civic buildings. The method is rarely used: less than one percent of land acquired by the municipalities is expropriated. Credendo Group ranks Finland’s expropriation risk as low (1), on a scale from 1 to 7: https://credendo.com/en/country-risk/finland  

Dispute Settlement

• ICSID Convention and New York Convention

In 1969, Finland became a member state of the World Bank-based International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID; Washington Convention). Finland is a signatory to the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958 New York Convention).

• Investor-State Dispute Settlement

The Finnish Arbitration Act (967/1992) applies to domestic and international arbitration without distinction. Sections 1 to 50 apply to arbitration in Finland, and Sections 51 to 55 apply to arbitration agreements providing for arbitration abroad and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Finland. Of 229 parties in 2021, the majority (208) were from Finland.

In 2021, a Chinese investor brought the first known investment treaty claim against Finland. He was detained and had his business center raided and shut down on suspicion it was facilitating illegal immigration. The proceedings were ultimately settled between Finland and the claimant. For more information: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/1192/wang-v-finland  

• International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Finland has a long tradition of institutional arbitration, and its legal framework dates to 1928. Today, arbitration procedures are governed by the 1992 Arbitration Act (as amended), which largely mirrors the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (with amendments, as adopted in 2006). However, the UNCITRAL Model law has yet to be incorporated into Finnish law.

Finland’s Act on Mediation in Civil Disputes and Certification of Settlements by Courts (394/2011) aims to facilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and promote amicable settlements by encouraging mediation and applies to settlements concluded in other EU member states: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110394.pdf

In June 2016, the Finland Arbitration Institute of the Chamber of Commerce (FAI) launched its Mediation Rules under which FAI will administer mediation: https://arbitration.fi/mediation/mediation_rules/  

Any dispute in a civil or commercial matter, international or domestic, which can be settled by agreement may be referred to arbitration. Arbitration is frequently used to resolve commercial disputes and is usually faster than court proceedings. An arbitration award is final and binding. FAI promotes the settlement of disputes through arbitration, commonly using the “FAI Arbitration/Expedited Arbitration Rules,” which were updated in 2020: https://arbitration.fi/en/arbitration/rules-and-guidelines/  

The Finland Arbitration Institute (FAI) appoints arbitrators both to domestic and international arbitration proceedings and administers domestic and international arbitrations governed by its rules. It also appoints arbitrators in ad hoc cases when the arbitration agreement provides and acts as appointing authority under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Finnish Arbitration Act (967/1992) states that foreign nationals can act as arbitrators. For more information: https://arbitration.fi/en/arbitration/  

Finland signed the UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (“Mauritius Convention”) in March 2015. Under these rules, all documents and hearings are open to the public, interested parties may submit statements, and protection for confidential information has been strengthened.

• Bankruptcy Regulations

The Bankruptcy Act (120/2004) governs bankruptcy proceedings aimed at liquidating the assets of an insolvent company to satisfy its creditors and dissolve the company. The act was amended in 2019 to simplify, digitize, and speed up bankruptcy proceedings. The amended act allows administrators to send notices and invitations to creditor addresses registered in the Trade Register. This improves accessibility for foreign companies that have established a branch in Finland. For more information: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20040120.pdf

The Bankruptcy Ombudsman is an independent authority that supervises the administration of bankruptcy estates in Finland . The Office of Bankruptcy Ombudsman is a member of the International Association of Insolvency Regulators (IAIR). For more information: https://www.konkurssiasiamies.fi/en/index.html  

The Reorganization of Enterprises Act (1993/47) establishes a legal framework for reorganization with the aim to provide an alternative to bankruptcy proceedings. The act excludes credit and insurance institutions and certain other financial institutions. Recognition of restructuring or insolvency processes initiated outside of the EU requires an exequatur from a Finnish court. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1993/en19930047  

4. Industrial Policies

• Investment Incentives

Foreign-owned companies in Finland are eligible for government and EU incentives on an equal footing with Finnish-owned businesses. Companies receive support through grants, loans, tax benefits, equity participation, guarantees, and employee training.

The income tax rate for limited liability companies and other corporate entities is 20 percent. According to the 2023 International Tax Competitiveness Index, the Finnish tax system is the 19th best tax code among 38 OECD countries. For more information: https://www.vero.fi/en/businesses-and-corporations/business-operations/foreign-business-in-finland/taxation-in-finland/   and https://taxfoundation.org/location/finland/  

Startups, SMEs, and large companies can benefit from Business Finland’s incentives: https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/do-business-with-finland/invest-in-finland/business-environment/incentives/incentives-short   and https://www.businessfinland.fi/48d8e1/globalassets/julkaisut/invest-in-finland/business-guides-and-fact-sheets/iif_factsheet_incentives.pdf

Centers for Economic Development, Transport, and the Environment (ELY Centers) support the establishment, growth, and development of SMEs by providing advisory, training, and expert services, and by granting funding for investment and development projects. Large companies may also qualify for assistance or funding if they significantly increase employment in their region of operation. Startups can receive subsidies to establish and expand business operations during their first 24 months. For more information: http://www.ely-keskus.fi/en/web/ely-en/business-and-industry;jsessionid=0B09A1B237B74FAC485AAD7C8E068DBF  

As part of its Sustainable Growth Program, which is funded by the EU Recovery Plan, Finland is promoting energy investments and energy infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Finland and support Finland’s target to be carbon neutral by 2035. For more information: https://tem.fi/en/-/energy-investments-of-finland-s-sustainable-growth-programme-promote-the-green-transition   and https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-customers/services/funding/energy-aid  

Government aid is available for the implementation of energy audits, investments that conserve energy, and investments related to the use of renewable energy, as well as for European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) projects. For more information: https://www.motiva.fi/en/solutions/policy_instruments/energy_aid  

Finnvera offers loans, domestic guarantees, export credit guarantees, and other services associated with financing exports: https://www.finnvera.fi/eng  

• Foreign Trade Zones/Free Ports/Trade Facilitation

The EU Customs Code (UCC), which entered into force on May 1, 2016, harmonized free trade zone area regulations in the EU.

The Åland Islands are one of the unique fiscal territories within Finland and the EU. The tax border separates the Åland Islands from the VAT and excise territory of the EU. VAT and excise are levied on goods imported across the tax border, but no customs duty is levied. In tax border trade, goods can be sold with a tax-free invoice in accordance with the detailed taxation instructions of the Finnish Tax Administration. Trade between Åland and non-EU countries is subject to the same regulations and instructions as trade between the EU and third countries. For more information: https://tulli.fi/en/businesses/aland-businesses  

• Performance and Data Localization Requirements

As an EU member state, Finland adheres to the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (GDPR), an EU law that entered into force in 2016, and, following a two-year transition period, became law on May 25, 2018, without requiring EU member states to change national laws.

Finland’s Data Protection Act (1050/2018) supplements the GDPR. The Data Protection Ombudsman is a national supervisory authority that supervises compliance with data protection legislation. The office has approximately 45 specialists, including the Data Protection Ombudsman and two Deputy Data Protection Ombudsmen. For more information: https://tietosuoja.fi/en/home   and https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf

5. Protection of Property Rights

• Real Property

The Finnish legal system protects and enforces property rights and secured interests in property, both movable and real. Mortgages exist in Finland and can be applied to both owned and rented real estate. In Finland, real property formation, development, land consolidation, cadastral or boundary mapping, registration of real properties, ownership and legal rights, real property valuation, and taxation are all combined within one basic cadastral system (i.e. real estate register) maintained by the National Land Survey: https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/apartments-and-real-property  

Finland is not a contracting party to the 2001 Cape Town Convention on Mobile Equipment (CTC) and the Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (Aircraft Protocol).

• Intellectual Property Rights

Finland is not included on USTR’s Special 301 Report or Notorious Markets List..

USTR’s 2022 Notorious Markets List mentions Finland for reportedly hosting a Flokinet server associated with infringing activity and reportedly hosting an FLVTO web server, a platform that allows the user to download music from YouTube and convert it to an mp3.

The Finnish legal system protects intellectual property rights (IPR), and Finland adheres to numerous international agreements. Finland ranked first among 129 countries in the Property Rights Alliance 2023 International Property Rights Index (IPRI), which concentrates on a country’s legal and political environment, physical property rights, and IPR: https://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/  

IPR enforcement in Finland is based on EU Regulation 608/2013. For more information, see: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/prohibitions-and-restrictions/counterfeit-piracy-and-other-ipr-violations_en  

IPR must be registered in Finland to be enforced under local laws, such as the Copyright Act, the Registered Designs Act, and the Patents Act. Patent rights in Finland are consistent with international standards, and a granted patent is valid for 20 years. The Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH) website contains unofficial translations in English of the Patents Act, Patents Decree, and Patent Regulation. For more information: https://www.prh.fi/en/index.html  

The Finnish Trademarks Act was enacted in May 2019 to implement the revised EU Trademark Directive. The act includes provisions concerning collective marks and control marks. It includes amendments to related legislation such as the Finnish Company Names Act, the Criminal Code, and relevant procedural acts. Trademark applicants or proprietors not domiciled in Finland must have a representative resident in the European Economic Area. Finland is a party to the Madrid Protocol.

Finnish Customs supervises counterfeit products that are imported to, exported from, and transited via Finland and other products that violate IPR. Custom officers have the authority to seize and destroy counterfeit goods. Customs has intensified the control of counterfeit goods by conducting a risk analysis of postal traffic. The long-term trend indicates a decline in counterfeit goods detected in large-volume shipments: https://www.vero.fi/en/grey-economy-crime/prevention/preventionstatistics/  

Finland is a member of the World International Property Organization (WIPO) and party to a several other treaties, including the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention). Finland is a party to the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

For additional information about national laws and points of contact at local IP offices, please see WIPO’s country profiles at: https://www.wipo.int/directory/en/details.jsp?country_code=FI  

6. Financial Sector

• Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment

Finland is open to foreign portfolio investment and has an effective regulatory system. Credit is allocated on market terms and made available to foreign investors non-discriminately, and private sector companies have access to various credit instruments. Legal, regulatory, and accounting systems are transparent and consistent with international norms.

The Helsinki Stock Exchange is part of OMX, referred to as NASDAQ OMX Helsinki (OMXH). NASDAQ OMX Helsinki is part of the NASDAQ OMX Nordic division, together with the Stockholm, Copenhagen, Iceland, and Baltic (Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius) stock exchanges.

Finland accepts the obligations under IMF Article VIII, Sections 2(a), 3, and 4 of the IMF Articles of Agreement. It maintains an exchange system free of restrictions on payments and transfers for current international transactions, except for those measures imposed for security reasons by the Regulations of the Council of the European Union.

• Money and Banking System

Finland has a resilient, digitally advanced, and well-capitalized banking sector characterized by cooperative banking and pan-Nordic groups. Banking is open to foreign competition, and the industry is one of Europe’s most prominent relative to the size of the national economy. Four significant banks (OP Financial Group, Nordea, Municipality Finance, and Danske Bank) dominate the banking sector, holding 80 percent of the market. The Bank of Finland is the national monetary authority and the central bank of Finland: https://www.suomenpankki.fi/en  

The Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA) supervises Finland’s financial and insurance sectors, including banks, insurance and pension companies, other companies operating in the insurance sector, investment firms, fund management companies, and the Helsinki Stock Exchange: https://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/  

In 2023, the financial sector’s capital position remained strong despite the gloomier economic environment. Finland’s banks met the requirements for liquid bank holdings under Basel III standards, which compare a bank’s assets with its capital to see if the bank would withstand a financial crisis. The sector’s operating environment weakened as the Finnish economy slid into a recession. Despite increased credit risks in corporate and household loans, the Finnish banking sector’s non-performing loans and loan losses were still among the lowest in Europe.

Foreign companies and nationals can, in principle, open bank accounts in the same manner as Finnish nationals. However, banks must identify customers, and this may prove more difficult for foreign nationals. In addition to personal and address data, the bank often needs to know the person’s identifier code (i.e. social security number). Several banks require a work permit, a certificate of studies, a letter of recommendation from a trustworthy bank, and details regarding the nature of transactions to be made with the account. All authorized deposit-taking banks are members of the Deposit Guarantee Fund, which guarantees customers’ deposits to a maximum of EUR 100,000 ($109,000) per depositor.

The Act on Virtual Currency Providers (572/2019) entered into force in May 2019. FIN-FSA is the registration authority for virtual currency providers. The primary objective of the act is to introduce virtual currency providers into the scope of anti-money laundering regulation. Only virtual currency providers meeting statutory requirements can carry on their activities in Finland, and only a FIN-FSA registered virtual currency provider may market its currency and services in Finland. The Finnish Tax Administration released guidelines on the taxation of cryptocurrency, available here: https://www.vero.fi/en/detailed-guidance/guidance/48411/taxation-of-virtual-currencies3/  

Foreign Exchange and Remittances

• Foreign Exchange

Finland adopted the Euro as its official currency in January 1999. Finland maintains an exchange system free of restrictions on making payments and transfers for international transactions, except for those measures imposed for security reasons. Currency transfers are protected by Article VII of the IMF Articles of Agreement: http://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/AA/index.htm#art7  

• Remittance Policies

There are no legal obstacles to direct foreign investment in Finnish securities or exchange controls regarding payments into and out of Finland. Banks must identify their customers and report suspected cases of money laundering or the financing of terrorism. Banks and credit institutions must also report single payments or transfers of EUR 15,000 ($16,000) or more. If the origin of funds is suspicious, banks must immediately inform the National Bureau of Investigation. There are no restrictions on current transfers or repatriation of profits. Residents and non-residents may hold foreign exchange accounts. There is no limit on dividend distributions as long as they correspond to a company’s official earnings records. Travelers carrying more than EUR 10,000 ($11,000) must make a declaration upon entering or leaving the EU.

• Sovereign Wealth Funds

Solidium is a holding company fully owned by the Finnish government. It is a minority owner of nationally listed companies operating in clusters significant to the national economy, such as the forest industry. Solidium’s ownership stake of these companies is usually over 10 percent but rarely exceeds 20 percent. According to Solidium’s investment strategy, future investments may include companies that seek to implement green transition strategies or solutions related to the platform economy. Solidium aims to strengthen and stabilize Finnish ownership in the companies and increase the value of their holdings. In 2023, Solidium paid the Finnish government approximately $374 million as a dividend. For more information: https://www.solidium.fi/en/  

7. State-Owned Enterprises

The government of Finland owns directly or through Solidium the shares of 15 listed companies on the Helsinki stock exchange. In general, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are open to competition except where they have a monopoly position, namely in alcohol retail and gambling. SOEs in Finland operate in chemicals, petrochemicals, plastics, and composites; energy and mining; environmental technologies; food processing and packaging; industrial equipment and supplies; marine technology; media and entertainment; metal manufacturing and products; services; and travel. The market value of all state direct shareholdings was approximately $24 billion as of March 2024. For more information, see: https://vnk.fi/en/government-ownership-steering/companies   https://vnk.fi/en/government-ownership-steering/value-of-state-holdings  

The Ownership Steering Department in the Prime Minister’s Office has ownership steering responsibility for Finnish SOEs, and is responsible for Solidium. The State Shareholdings and Ownership Steering Act (1368/2007) and the Act Amending the State Shareholdings and Ownership Steering Act (1315/2016) regulate the administration of state-owned companies. For more information, see: https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2007/en20071368   https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2016/20161315  

Finnish state ownership steering complies with the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. The Parliamentary Advisory Council in the Prime Minister’s Office serves in an advisory capacity regarding SOE policy; it does not make recommendations regarding any business in which the individual companies are engaged. The government has proposed changing its ownership levels in several companies and increasing the number of companies the Prime Minister’s Office steers. Parliament decides from which companies the state may relinquish its sole ownership (100 percent), its control of ownership (50.1 percent), or minority ownership (33.4 percent of votes). For more information: https://vnk.fi/en/government-ownership-steering/ownership-policy  

Finland opened domestic rail freight to competition in early 2007, and in July 2016, Fenniarail Oy, the first private rail operator on the Finnish market, began operations. In November 2020, Estonian-based Operail, which works in Finland’s rail freight operations, started a subsidiary in Finland as Operail Finland. In 2023, Operail Finland’s share was sold to Nurjminen Logistics. Passenger rail transport services will be opened to competition in stages, starting with local rail services in southern Finland. Based on an agreement between Finnish State Railways (VR) and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, VR has exclusive rights to provide passenger transport rail services in Finland until the end of 2030. For more information, see: https://lvm.fi/en/-/nine-year-contract-between-the-ministry-of-transport-and-communications-and-vr-for-purchasing-rail-transport-services-1643706  

The exclusive right applies to all passenger rail transport in Finland, excluding the commuter train transport services provided by the Helsinki Regional Transport Agency (HSL). In February 2020, HSL put its commuter train transport services out for tender; VR won the tender and will continue to provide passenger rail service for the next ten years. The value of southern Finland commuter train services is $67 million per year, with 200,000 daily passengers.

• Privatization Program

Parliament makes all decisions identifying the companies in which the state may relinquish sole ownership (100 percent of the votes) or control (minimum of 50.1 percent of the votes), while the government decides on the actual sale. The state has privatized companies by selling shares to Finnish and foreign institutional investors through both public offerings and directly to employees. Sales of the state’s direct holdings totaled $2.89 billion (2007 – 2018).

The government issued a new resolution on state-ownership policy in April 2020, seeking to maximize overall social and financial benefits; use corporate assets to promote domestic ownership; and diversify the economy, create innovations, and support sustainable structural change. For more information, visit https://vnk.fi/en/government-ownership-steering  

8. Responsible Business Conduct

Finland has long traditions in compliance with labor, occupational safety, health, and environmental legislation. Finnish companies recognize that their due diligence to comply with laws and regulations is central to responsible business conduct and corporate responsibility. The Finnish Business & Society (FIBS) is the largest corporate responsibility network in the Nordic countries and has more than 300 members: https://www.fibsry.fi/briefly-in-english/  

Finland is committed to implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the ILO’s tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. The government promotes Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through the Ministry of Employment and the Economy CSR Guidelines. or more information: https://tem.fi/en/key-guidelines-on-csr  

Finland ranks first in the UN’s Sustainable Development Report, which compares 193 UN member states based on 17 sustainability goals. Finland launched a new sustainable development strategy built around the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). More information is available here: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/finland  

The Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the disclosure of non-financial information has been implemented via amendments to the Finnish Accounting Act, requiring affected organizations to report on their CSR. The obligation to report non-financial information and corporate responsibility reports applies to significant public interest entities, i.e., listed companies, credit institutions, and insurance companies with more than 500 employees. In addition, turnover must be greater than $45.4 million, or the balance sheet must exceed more than $22.7 million. For more information: https://tem.fi/en/accounting  

Currently, there are no other mandatory human rights-related due diligence requirements apart from those set out in the Act on the Placing on the Market of Conflict Minerals and Their Ores (1196/2020) (the Conflict Minerals Act), which improved the transparency of supply chains and brought Finland’s conflict minerals regime into line with EU regulations. Businesses importing conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) from conflict-affected areas into the EU that exceed certain volume thresholds are subject to due diligence requirements. The Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency and Finnish Customs are competent authorities in implementing the act. For more information: https://tukes.fi/en/industry/conflict-minerals  

Finland has joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which supports improved governance in resource-rich countries. Finland is not a member of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative. The Human Rights Center (HRC), administratively linked to the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, encourages foreign and local enterprises to follow the most important international norms: https://www.humanrightscentre.fi/  

Finland participates in the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for states related to private military and security company operations during armed conflict. However, Finland is not a member of ICoCA, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ Association.

• Additional Resources

Department of State

• Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ;
• Trafficking in Persons Report ;
• Guidance on Implementing the “UN Guiding Principles” for Transactions Linked to Foreign Government End-Users for Products or Services with Surveillance Capabilities
• U.S. National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ; and;
• Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory 

Department of the Treasury

• OFAC Recent Actions

Department of Labor

• Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor Report ;
• List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor ;
• Sweat & Toil: Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking Around the World and;
• Comply Chain .

Finland participates in international climate negotiations as an EU member state. It is firmly committed to the EU’s joint reduction target under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. The core elements of EU climate policy are the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS); national targets for sectors excluded from EU ETS (effort sharing); and obligations concerning the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry sector (LULUCF). The EU ETS covers more than 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU and just under half of the greenhouse gas emissions in Finland. For more information, see: https://tem.fi/en/emissions-trading  

The National Climate Act is another fundamental pillar of Finland’s climate policy. The act aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 (-60 percent), 2040 (-80 percent), and 2050 (-95 percent) compared to 1990 levels. According to the act, Finland must be carbon neutral by 2035. For more information, see: https://ym.fi/en/climate  

Finland reduces carbon emissions by increasing clean energy production, investing in the hydro economy, and augmenting the carbon sequestration of the industrial and land use sectors. Renewables have replaced imported fossil fuels in domestic electricity production. In 2023, the share of carbon-free electricity production was 94 percent. The primary energy sources of electricity production were nuclear power at 41 percent, hydropower at 18.8 percent, wind at 18.1 percent, and biomass at 13.3 percent, while the share of imported electricity was 2.2 percent.

In 2024, the government reserved EUR 14.1 million ($15.3 million) in national energy aid to promote the production of renewable energy, renewable hydrogen and hydrogen-refined fuels, energy saving or more efficient energy production or use, utilization of waste heat, and the transition towards a low-carbon energy system. The government will prioritize investment projects promoting new technology, its commercialization, and the capacity of the electricity system. In addition, REPowerEU aid supports investments in new energy technology and the production and storage of renewable hydrogen, funded by the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. REPowerEU aims to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels by fast forwarding the clean transition and joining forces to achieve a more resilient energy system and a true Energy Union. For more information, see: https://tem.fi/en/-/ministry-of-economic-affairs-and-employment-sets-energy-aid-priorities-for-2024  

The Finnish Climate Fund is a state-owned company that focuses on combating climate change, boosting the low-carbon industry, and promoting digitalization. Companies targeted by the fund typically receive the funding in installments over several years when meeting conditions specified in the financing agreements. For more information, see: https://www.ilmastorahasto.fi/en/  

The National Forest Strategy contains the critical outlines of Finland’s forest policy. For more information, see: https://mmm.fi/en/forests/strategies-and-programmes  

Finland also aims to increase ecological public procurement. Finland’s first National Public Procurement Strategy, launched in September 2020, focuses on developing strategic management and promoting procurement expertise. For more information, see: https://vm.fi/en/-/national-public-procurement-strategy-identifies-concrete-ways-in-which-public-procurement-can-help-achieve-wider-goals-in-society  

On MIT’s Green Future Index 2023, Finland ranked second among 76 leading countries and territories. The index measures progress and commitment towards building a low-carbon future. According to the index, Finland fosters an extensive green tech R&D ecosystem with leading-edge renewables and food tech.

9. Corruption

Corruption in Finland is covered by the criminal code and penalties range from fines to imprisonment of up to four years. The bribery offenses criminalized in the criminal code are electoral bribery, bribery violation, the giving of bribes, the acceptance of a bribe, providing bribes to a Member of Parliament, accepting a bribe as a Member of Parliament, giving of bribes in a business transaction, and accepting a bribe in a business transaction. For more information, see: https://korruptiontorjunta.fi/en/national-legislation  

Finland does not have an authority specifically charged to prevent corruption. Instead, several authorities and agencies contribute to anti-corruption work. The Ministry of Justice coordinates anti-corruption matters, but Finland’s EU anti-corruption contact is the Ministry of the Interior. The National Bureau of Investigation also monitors corruption, while the tax administration has guidelines obliging tax officials to report suspected offenses, including foreign bribery, and the Ministry of Finance has guidelines on hospitality, benefits, and gifts. The Ministry of Justice describes its anti-corruption efforts at https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/anti-corruption-activities.

The EU Directive on non-financial reporting supports action against corruption. Implementation of the EU Directive in Finland led to the amendment of the Accounting Act in December 2016. Current legislation imposes obligations on large companies to report on anti-bribery and anti-corruption action policies.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for monitoring and developing the Transparency Register legislation. The Transparency Register Guide contains a general description, key concepts, related procedures, and published actors. The guide answers questions such as who is subject to the obligation to provide information to the Transparency Register, what kind of information must be provided to the register and when, and how the Transparency Register is monitored. The guide is available in Finnish, Swedish, and English: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/164813  

In 2020, the Ministry of Employment and Economy released an anti-corruption guide intended for companies, especially SMEs, to provide them with guidance and support for promoting sound business practices and corruption-free business relations both in Finland and abroad. Large companies must publish corporate responsibility reports. These reports must briefly describe their business model, explain the risks related to their policies, and describe how they manage these risks. The reporting obligation applies to public interest entities with over 500 employees and a turnover of over 40 million euros ($43 million) or an annual balance sheet of over 20 million euros ($22 million). Smaller companies can report voluntarily. The report can be part of yearly reports or reports on corporate social responsibility. For more information: https://tem.fi/en/-/guide-offers-smes-practical-anti-corruption-tips  

Finland has ratified the following anti-corruption conventions: the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure, and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime; the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption; the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption; and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Finland has become the 32nd country to sign the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) Coalition’s Transparency Pledge, voluntarily committing to a high level of transparency and civil society inclusion in the second cycle of the UNCAC implementation review. Finland is a member of the European Partners against Corruption (EPAC).

Finland is a signatory to the OECD Convention on Anti-Bribery. In October 2020, the OECD working group on bribery said it recognizes Finland’s commitment to combat corruption but is concerned about lack of foreign bribery enforcement. For more information: https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/finland-oecdanti-briberyconvention.htm  

• Resources to Report Corruption

Jaakko Christensen Head of Financial Crime Division National Board of Investigation P.O. Box 285, 01310 Vantaa, Finland [email protected]

Jaakko Korhonen Chairperson Transparency Finland [email protected]

• 10. Political and Security Environment

Finland acceded to NATO in April 2023 and signed a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States in December 2023. The Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO) estimated in the National Security Overview 2023, the most current version released, that Russia’s actions remain the greatest threat to Finland’s national security, with Russia treating Finland as an unfriendly state, and as a target for espionage and malign influence activities. According to SUPO, NATO membership protects Finland from Russia’s measures. SUPO assesses Russia’s use of irregular migration as a way for Russia to indicate its dissatisfaction with Finland’s NATO membership and generally sow the consequences of actions Russia perceives as unfriendly.

SUOP assesses that no significant changes have occurred in the threat of terrorism faced by Finland. The threat of terrorism in Finland remains at level 2, ‘Elevated’, on the four-tier scale. There are probably far-right and radical Islamist operators in Finland with the desire and capacity to carry out violent attacks. Supporters of these ideologies pose the most likely threat, either as individuals or in small groups. Attacks remain unlikely in the short term. .For more information, see: https://supo.fi/en/terrorism-overview  

While instances of political violence in Finland are rare, extremism exists, and anti-immigration and anti-Semitic incidents do occur. The Central Council of Finnish Jewish Communities has noted a rise in anti-Semitism in Finland over the past two decades, with reported instances likely underestimating the prevalence of such cases. Targeted acts of vandalism against the synagogue and property of the Israeli Embassy and random acts of vandalism featuring anti-Semitic language and images have become more common. Hate groups and far-right political parties use anti-Semitic language and Nazi iconography in both online publications and public events. SUPO considers Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism (REMVE) online platforms a significant source of radicalization in Finland, and Jewish and Muslim community leaders have identified these websites as contributors to increases in public anti-Semitism.

In 2022, The Ministry of the Interior published the National Counterterrorism Strategy 2022–2025 to guide national and international counterterrorism activities. Finland combats terrorism, violent radicalization, and extremism to safeguard national interests and foster the safety and security of the country and its population. The Ministry of the Interior monitors the achievement of objectives and will prepare an interim report in 2024. For more information, see: https://intermin.fi/en/publication?pubid=URN:ISBN:978-952-324-578-5  

• 11. Labor Policies and Practices

According to Statistics Finland, the population was approximately 5.6 million, and the average number of employed persons aged 15 to 74 was 2,628,000 in 2023. The number of unemployed persons was 204,000. Men’s unemployment rate was 7.9 percent, while women’s unemployment rate was 6.5 percent. In January 2024, the number of unfilled vacancies was 133,400. The working-age population will decrease in the years to come due to an increasing retirement rate caused by Finland’s aging population. At the same time, the number of immigrants is growing, and people are working to a later age in life. In Finland, most job vacancies advertised are in the social healthcare services sector, the construction industry, and the service and retail sectors.

Finland has a long tradition of trade unions. The country has a 60 percent unionization rate, and approximately 90 percent of employees have participated in the collective bargaining system. Extensive tripartite cooperation between the government, employers’ groups, and trade unions characterizes the labor market system in Finland. Trade unions and employers’ associations may make collective agreements, and the ministry decides on the agreements’ validity, determining minimum wages, working hours, and working conditions. The Ministry of Employment and the Economy is responsible for drafting labor legislation, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is responsible for enforcing labor laws and regulations via the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) authorities of the OSH Divisions at the Regional State Administrative Agencies, which operate under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

To increase the labor market’s flexibility, the government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo aims to reform the labor market legislation in 2024. As part of the proposed reforms, the government intends to increase local bargaining, which refers to workplace-level agreements on working hours, annual holidays, or wages; tie all sectors’ wage increases to export industry levels; restrict the right to political strikes, including limiting political strikes to 24 hours; and cut social welfare and benefits programs, including unemployment benefits. The government’s proposed labor reforms launched a wave of political strikes in Finland.

In the March 2024 IMF Article IV consultation with Finland, the IMF commended the government’s efforts to boost employment through social benefit reforms, greater flexibility in the labor market, and lowering the labor tax wedge. According to the IMF, the government should establish robust systems to monitor the impact of these reforms on employment closely. Additionally, government policies and procedures should aim to improve higher education, lower skill mismatches, and more effectively attract and integrate international talent.

Finland adheres to most ILO conventions; and enforcement of worker rights is effective. Freedom of association and collective bargaining are guaranteed by law, providing the right to form and join independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively. The law prohibits anti-union discrimination and any obstruction of these rights. The National Conciliator under the Ministry of Employment and the Economy assists negotiating partners with labor disputes. The arbitration system is based on the Act on Mediation in Labor Disputes, and the Labor Court is the highest body for settlement. The ILO’s Finland Country profile can be found here: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11110:0::NO:11110:P11110_COUNTRY_ID:102625  

• 12. U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and Other Investment Insurance or Development Finance Programs

The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, DFC, does not operate in Finland.

• 13. Foreign Direct Investment Statistics

* Source for Host Country Data: Statistics Finland

• 14. Contact for More Information

[email protected]  

On This Page

U.s. department of state, the lessons of 1989: freedom and our future.

Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony: All the Biggest Moments From the Games’ Kickoff

After braving political chaos, major train disruptions and threats of defecating in the Seine, the Paris Olympics are finally about to kick off under cloudy skies.

Related Stories

Some olympics tv is in 4k, but viewers care little for the format: survey, oscar winners robert downey jr. and da'vine joy randolph continue 2024 awards run with emmy noms — could they win both prizes in one year, popular on variety.

For the first time, the opening ceremony is unfolding outdoors and outside of a stadium. A nautical parade of 85 boats carrying some 10,500 athletes from each Olympic delegation will unfold along the Seine running through the city, starting from the Pont d’Austerlitz and culminating at the foot of the Eiffel Tower.

More than 3,500 actors, dancers and musical performers will take their marks on Paris’ historical sites, bridges and rooftops. Jolly, who is best known for his rock-opera musical “Starmania,” has created 12 tableaux, or scenes, that will encapsulate the ambition of these Paris Olympics to mix postcard-worthy settings with ultra-contemporary artists, choreography, costumes and props. Bringing the Summer Olympics back to Paris for the first time in a century, these games will also stand out as the first ever gender-balanced edition.

However, the weather isn’t playing ball, as rain is expected to fall down during festivities. But organizers have made sure no technical glitches could ruin the show by pre-recording the voices of all performers, while immersive audio from the performances will be produced through walls positioned along the Seine.

Read on for the biggest moments from this year’s Olympics opening ceremony, updating live.

Zizou Kicked Things Off

Then things went gaga.

After the opening video, Lady Gaga took over headline proceedings and on a flamboyant note, giving a colorful performance of Renée Jeanmaire’s “Mon Truc en Plumes” (My Thing With Feathers). She was accompanied by a troupe of dancers from the revered Moulin Rouge cabaret and played on a piano floating down the Seine. Although this marks the first time Gaga has performed at the Olympics, she has sang in French before – Edith Piaf’s La Vie en Rose — in Bradley Cooper’s “A Star is Born.” This is to be her biggest performance to date, topping her 2017 SuperBowl Halftime Show. 

Celine Dion Brought it All to a Tear-Jerking Close

As had been widely – and excitedly — touted in the days leading up the event, Celine Dion made a spectacular and emotional comeback performance as the opening night ceremony drew to a close, her first live show since disclosing that she had a rare medical disorder in 2022. The Canadian icon and Queen of Power Ballads didn’t just sing Edith Piaf’s “Hymne A L’Amour,” but did so halfway up the Eiffel Tower and beneath a set of giant Olympic rings. No, you’re crying!

Vive La Rock!

In a segment dedicated to the French revolution, local metal icons Gojira pulled out their angular guitars for a head-banging performance alongside French-Swiss opera singer Marina Viotti. Adding to the dramatic display, they appeared in front of castle while cannons belched out fire.

‘Pookie’ on the Pont

French-Malian singer Aya Nakamura, who ranks as the world’s most popular contemporary French-speaking artist, sang her two biggest hits, “Pookie” and “Djadja,” whose lyrics were laced with Aznavour’s “Ma Boheme” and “For Me Formidable.” Dancing and singing on the Pont des Arts, she was accompanied by the orchestra of the French Republican Guard and 36 choristers from the French Army. 

There were some exquisitely choreographed dance performances throughout the entire show, most taking place all along the Seine. From a high-kicking Moulin Rouge show by dancers kitted out in pink, to an extreme splashy display featuring hundreds of performers in a fountain and one in which dancers looking like hotel bellboys pushed around large Louis Vuitton cases (LVMH is a sponsor, of course). There were also some quieter individual performances, including a ballet display on a rooftop.

Parkour Mystery?

A trip to the minions.

In a special segment dedicated to French filmmaking, there were nods to the Lumiere Brothers and their groundbreaking “The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station” (the one where people thought the train was coming through the cinema screen) plus Georges Méliès sci-fi classic “A Trip to the Moon.” But much of the time was devoted to more contemporary icons of local cinema, the banana-loving, nonsense-talking yellow creatures known as the Minions. While the “Despicable Me” franchise may be produced by Universal’s U.S. animation powerhouse Illumination, at the helm has been French filmmaker Pierre-Louis Padang Coffin, who co-directed four films and provided most of the Minions iconic voices. In honor of this — and perhaps Illumination’s French tax rebate — an extended and specially-made animation was shown in which Kevin, Stuart, Bob and co attempted various sports in a submarine (with predictably disastrous results).

Gender Balancing Act

Kicking off the first ever gender-balanced edition of the Olympics, the ceremony also fittingly celebrated 10 French female icons, including philosopher Simone de Beauvoir; Simone Veil, an Auschwitz survivor who championed abortion rights in France; Louise Michel, a 19th century political activist and leader of the French anarchist movement; Olympe de Gouges, an 18th century social reformer and playwright; Alice Milliat, a pioneer of women’s sport; Gisele Halimi, a Tunisian-French lawyer and feminist; and Alice Guy, the first female filmmaker, among others. These women were feted as part of the Sororité, Sisterhoo tableau. Jolly said “the French national anthem becomes a symbol of unification and a call to pay tribute to the women of France’s history, represented by 10 golden statues emerging from the Seine.” Last time Paris hosted the Paris Olympics, in 1902, there were only 2% of female athletes. Estanguet said inclusiveness was a key goal for these Olympics. 

100m Drag Race

Fashion was — of course — a part of the Olympic festivities, with a special section towards the end involving a red-carpeted catwalk over a bridge on which various models and celebrities showcased the work of young French designers while local DJ-producer Barbara Butch took care of the music. Alongside the DJ various stars of “Drag Race France” were spotted, including contestants Paloma and Piche and host Nicky Doll. The “Assassin’s Creed”-y parkour athlete also turned up on the runway, performing some impressive one-handed cartwheels (he was still carrying the Olympic flame).

Rain (and LeBron James in a Plastic Poncho)

More from variety, it’s official: ventana sur 2024 relocates to montevideo, uruguay, gen alpha prefers social video over paid streaming: 2024 kids survey, ‘the invasion’ review: sergei loznitsa’s raw but restrained reflection on life during wartime, ai terms remain vague as iatse releases its tentative basic agreement summary, more from our brands, inside the swifties movement to elect kamala harris, toddler takeover why young families are now lake como’s most important guests., venu sports sets launch pricing as fubo court date looms, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, fire country season 3 casts true detective’s leven rambin as ex-con (exclusive).