NURSING RESEARCH
“THE LITERATURE REVIEW”
Professor Lisa High
University of Windsor
January 22nd, 2007
Why - Literature Review?


Generate a picture of what is “KNOWN” and “NOT
KNOWN”
Sources that are important to providing “in-depth”
knowledge needed to make changes:
(a) In
nursing practice
(b) To study a selected problem
What is the “PURPOSE?”

PRIMARY PURPOSE =
Why is this important? (2 major reasons)
Researchers & Literature Reviews
Relevant literature helps with:
1.
Research problem identification, development or refinement
of research questions
2.
Orientation to what is “known” and “not known”
3.
Identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of research
4.
Need for replication of a study with a different population
Researchers & Literature Reviews
5.
Identification/development of new/refined clinical interventions
to test empirically
6.
Identification of relevant theoretical/conceptual frameworks for
a research problem
7.
Development of a hypotheses to be tested
8.
Identification of designs & data collection methods for a study
9.
Interpretation of study findings, developing implications &
recommendations
What’s the point?
Literature review:
- lays the foundation for a study
- identifies the significance to nursing
So What?
Therefore, the reader can:
- background of the current knowledge
- highlights the significance for the study
Literature Review
The end product of a literature review is:
“the generation of a written report that
summarizes what is known and not known
about a phenomenon”
Non-researchers & Literature Review


Not exclusive to doing a study
Specific purpose of the literature review depends on the
“reviewer’s role”
For example:
1.
To gain evidence-based knowledge on a subject/topic
2.
Critique existing nursing practices, to make
recommendations for changes
Non-researchers & Literature Review
3.
To develop research-based protocols & interventions to
improve clinical practice
4.
To develop a theory/conceptual framework
5.
To develop and revise nursing curricula
6.
To develop policy statements & practice guidelines
SCOPE OF A LITERATURE
REVIEW
To determine the scope:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The types of information & sources available
The approximate depth and breadth of the review needed
The time frame for conducting the review
What is the difference b/w quantitative and qualitative literature
reviews?
(Burns & Grove, 1997, p. 120-121)
Scope of a Literature Review
Types of Information & Sources:
2 types:
(a) theoretical
(b) empirical literature
Published literature includes:
Primary source
Secondary source
Opinion articles & anecdotal & other non-research articles
Scope of a Literature Review
Depth and breadth of the review:
Depth – refers to the number & quality of the sources that are
examined
Breadth – is determined by number of different topics
examined
Scope of a Literature Review
The time frame for conducting the review:
-
influenced by the problem studied, sources available, and
the goals of the researcher
No set length of time
PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE
LITERATURE
PROCESS INVOLVES:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
LOCATING RELEVANT LITERATURE
IDENTIFYING SOURCES
LOCATING SOURCES
READING SOURCES
CRITIQUING SOURCES
LOCATING RELEVANT
LITERATURE








PUBLIC LIBRARIES
ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
ELECTRONIC DATABASES
ONLINE CATALOGUE SYSTEMS
THE CINAHL DATABASE
PRINT RESOURCES
PRINT INDEXES
ABSTRACT JOURNALS
Preparing Written Literature Reviews
Screening references – relevance & appropriateness
Relevance – judged quickly by reading the abstract or
introduction
- description of study findings
- need to rely on “primary sources”
“Secondary sources” – good to start
- to get references
- do not substitute for primary sources
Abstracting & Recording Notes

TAKING NOTES OR WRITING A SUMMARY OF THE
REPORT

IDENTIFYING STRENGTHS

IDENTIFYING LIMITATIONS
Organizing the Review

Prepare a summary table

Review has to have a meaningful flow

Overall goal = presentation is logical, demonstrates
meaningful integration and leads to a conclusion of what is
“KNOWN” and “NOT KNOWN” about the topic
Content of the Written Review

Provide the reader with an objective and thorough
summary of the current state of knowledge

Central tasks:
Point out consistencies
Point out contradictions
Possible explanations for inconsistencies
Make note of gaps or areas of research inactivity
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Style of a Research Review

Should keep in mind no one theory or hypothesis can be
proved or disproved by empirical testing

Can one research question be definitely answered in a
single study?

Are hypothesis proved or supported?

Do the writer’s opinions belong in the review?
Length of a Review

No one formula

Depends on several factors:
Complexity of the research question
Extent of prior research
Purpose the review is being prepared
Space allowed
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Reading & Using Existing Research
Reviews

May be no need to review if a recent literature review on
the topic has been published

TYPES of reviews that support evidence-base practice:
- Traditional Narrative Reviews
- Meta-analysis
- Qualitative Metasynthesis
CRITIQUING LITERATURE
REVIEWS
Understand scope and evaluate thoroughness:
(1) Does the coverage of the literature seem thorough? Does it
appear that the review includes all or most of the major
studies that have been conducted on the topic of interest? Are
recent research reports cited?
(2)
Does the review rely on appropriate materials? (use of
primary sources or secondary?)
(3)
Is the review organized in such a way that the development of
ideas is clear?
CRITIQUING LITERATURE
REVIEWS
(4)
If the review is part of a new research study, does the
review support the need for the new study? If the review is
designed to guide clinical practice , does the review of the
evidence support the need for practice change?
(5)
Does the review conclude with a synopsis of the state-tothe-art knowledge on the topic?
(6)
Is the style of the review appropriate? Does the reviewer
paraphrase, or is there an over reliance on quotes? Is the
reviewer unbiased? Use of appropriate language?