need for review of literature in research

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

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.

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 summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write 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, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will 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 scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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 objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. 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 if 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 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 use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

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?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• 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 find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

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’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference 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.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to 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 organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

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 summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse 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 organise 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.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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 dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise 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  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• 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

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys 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 explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

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 collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon 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 identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

• Literature Review Process

Purpose of a Literature Review

• Choosing a Type of Review
• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

The Library's Subject Specialists are happy to help with your literature reviews!  Find your Subject Specialist here . 

If you have questions about this guide, contact Librarian  Jamie Niehof ([email protected]).

A literature review is an overview of the available research for a specific scientific topic. Literature reviews summarize existing research to answer a review question, provide context for new research, or identify important gaps in the existing body of literature.

An incredible amount of academic literature is published each year, by estimates over two million articles .

Sorting through and reviewing that literature can be complicated, so this Research Guide provides a structured approach to make the process more manageable.

THIS GUIDE IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS:

• Getting Started (asking a research question | defining scope)
• Organizing the Literature
• Writing the Literature Review (analyzing | synthesizing)

A  literature search  is a systematic search of the scholarly sources in a particular discipline. A  literature review   is the analysis, critical evaluation and synthesis of the results of that search. During this process you will move from a review  of  the literature to a review  for   your research.   Your synthesis of the literature is your unique contribution to research.

WHO IS THIS RESEARCH GUIDE FOR?

— those new to reviewing the literature

— those that need a refresher or a deeper understanding of writing literature reviews

You may need to do a literature review as a part of a course assignment, a capstone project, a master's thesis, a dissertation, or as part of a journal article. No matter the context, a literature review is an essential part of the research process. 

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A LITERATURE REVIEW?

A literature review is typically performed for a specific reason. Even when assigned as an assignment, the goal of the literature review will be one or more of the following:

• To communicate a project's novelty by identifying a research gap

• An overview of research issues , methodologies or results relevant to field
• To explore the  volume and types of available studies
• To establish familiarity with current research before carrying out a new project
• To resolve conflicts amongst contradictory previous studies

Reviewing the literature helps you understand a research topic and develop your own perspective.

A LITERATURE REVIEW IS NOT :

• An annotated bibliography – which is a list of annotated citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each entry
• A literary review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work
• A book review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book
• Next: Choosing a Type of Review >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 10:31 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• 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: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

PUB - Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient) for drug development

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

• 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

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: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 10:11 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

• Academic Skills
• Reading, writing and referencing
• Literature reviews

Writing a literature review

Find out how to write a lit review.

What is a literature review ?

A literature review explores and evaluates the literature on a specific topic or question. It synthesises the contributions of the different authors, often to identify areas that need further exploration.

You may be required to write a literature review as a standalone document or part of a larger body of research, such as a thesis.

• The point of a standalone literature review is to demonstrate that you have read widely in your field and you understand the main arguments.
• As part of a thesis or research paper, the literature review defines your project by establishing how your work will extend or differ from previous work and what contribution it will make.

What are markers looking for?

In the best literature reviews, the writer:

• Has a clear understanding of key concepts within the topic.
• Clarifies important definitions and terminology.
• Covers the breadth of the specific topic.
• Critically discusses the ideas in the literature and evaluates how authors present them.
• Clearly indicates a research gap for future enquiry.

How do I write a literature review?

This video outlines a step by step approach to help you evaluate readings, organise ideas and write critically. It provides examples of how to connect, interpret and critique ideas to make sure your voice comes through strongly.

Tips for research, reading and writing

You may be given a specific question to research or broad topics which must be refined to a question that can be reasonably addressed in the time and word limit available.

Use your early reading to help you determine and refine your topic.

• Too much literature? You probably need to narrow your scope. Try to identify a more specific issue of interest.
• Not enough literature? Your topic may be too specific and needs to be broader.

Start with readings suggested by your lecturers or supervisors. Then, do your own research - the best place to go is the Library Website .

You can also use the Library Guides or speak to a librarian to identify the most useful databases for you and to learn how to search for sources effectively and efficiently.

Cover the field

Make sure your literature search covers a broad range of views and information relevant to your topic. Focussing on a narrow selection of sources may result in a lack of depth. You are not expected to cover all research and scholarly opinions on your topic, but you need to identify and include important viewpoints. A quality literature review examines and evaluates different viewpoints based on the evidence presented, rather than providing only material that reinforces a bias.

Use reading strategies

Survey, skim and scan to find the most relevant articles, and the most relevant parts of those articles. These can be re-read more closely later when you have acquired an overview of your topic.

Take notes as you read

This helps to organise and develop your thoughts. Record your own reactions to the text in your notes, perhaps in a separate column. These notes can form the basis of your critical evaluation of the text. Record any facts, opinions or direct quotes that are likely to be useful to your review, noting the page numbers, author and year.

Stop reading when you have enough

This depends on the word count required of this literature review. A review of one thousand words can only cover the major ideas and probably less than ten references. Longer reviews that form part of a large research paper will include more than fifty. Your tutor or supervisor should be able to suggest a suitable number.

As you read, ask yourself these questions:

• Have I answered my question without any obvious gaps?
• Have I read this before? Are there any new related issues coming up as I search the literature?
• Have I found multiple references which cover the same material or just enough to prove agreement?

There are many possible ways to organise the material. For example:

• chronologically
• by theoretical perspective
• from most to least important
• by issue or theme

It is important to remember that you are not merely cataloguing or describing the literature you read. Therefore, you need to choose an organisation that will enable you to compare the various authors' treatment of ideas. This is often best achieved by organising thematically, or grouping ideas into sets of common issues tackled in the various texts. These themes will form the basis of the different threads that are the focus of your study.

A standalone literature review

A standalone literature review is structured much like an academic essay.

• Introduction - establish the context for your topic and outline your main contentions about the literature
• Main body - explain and support these inferences in the main body
• Conclusion - summarise your main points and restate the contention.

The main difference between an essay and this kind of literature review is that an essay focuses on a topic and uses the literature as a support for the arguments. In a standalone literature review, the literature itself is the topic of discussion and evaluation. This means you evaluate and discuss not only the informational content but the quality of the author’s handling of the content.

A literature review as part of a larger research paper?

As part of a larger research paper, the literature review may take many forms, depending on your discipline, your topic and the logic of your research. Traditionally, in empirical research, the literature review is included in the introduction, or a standalone chapter immediately following the introduction. For other forms of research, you may need to engage more extensively with the literature and thus, the literature review may spread over more than one chapter, or even be distributed throughout the thesis.

Start writing early. Writing will clarify your thinking on the topic and reveal any gaps in information and logic. If your ideas change, sections and paragraphs can be reworked to change your contentions or include extra information.

Similarly, draft an overall plan for your review as soon as you are ready, but be prepared to rework sections of it to reflect your developing argument.

The most important thing to remember is that you are writing a review . That means you must move past describing what other authors have written by connecting, interpreting and critiquing their ideas and presenting your own analysis and interpretation.

Looking for one-on-one advice?

Get tailored advice from an Academic Skills Adviser by booking an Individual appointment, or get quick feedback from one of our Academic Writing Mentors via email through our Writing advice service.

Go to Student appointments

Social Work

• Getting Started - FInd Books
• Find Articles
• Types of Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Statistics and Data
• Citing Your Work
• Ask a Librarian

Disclaimer!!

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review.

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.  Remember to include comprehensive databases such as WorldCat and Dissertations & Theses, if you need to.

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject UWF Databases categorized by discipline
• Find Databases via Research Guides Librarians create research guides for all of the disciplines on campus! Take advantage of their expertise and see what discipline-specific search strategies they recommend!

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use Zotero  to keep track of your research citations. See the Zotero Guide if you need help.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• << Previous: Types of Reviews
• Next: Statistics and Data >>
• Last Updated: Apr 20, 2024 4:21 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/socialwork

RRL Generator - Review of Related Literature

Ai-powered literature review generator.

• Research projects: Generate a comprehensive literature review for your research project, saving time and effort on finding and analyzing relevant resources.
• Academic papers: Create a literature review section for your academic paper that summarizes and analyzes the existing literature on your topic.
• Thesis or dissertation: Develop a literature review chapter for your thesis or dissertation that provides a comprehensive overview of the existing research on your topic.
• Grant proposals: Include a literature review in your grant proposal that demonstrates your understanding of the existing research in your field.

New & Trending Tools

Ai quote generator, notes generator ai, ai writing ideas.

Repetitive Behaviors in Autism and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 23 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jessica O’Loghlen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0056-5517 2 ,
• Matthew McKenzie 1 ,
• Cathryne Lang 1 &
• Jessica Paynter 1  

5 Altmetric

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and autism are characterized by the presence of repetitive behaviors. Differentiating between repetitive behaviors attributable to a diagnosis of autism, and those attributable to OCD, poses challenges for differential and co-occurring diagnosis. Differentiation is important to inform appropriate supports and interventions for phenotypically similar but functionally distinct behaviors. In this systematic review, the quantitative literature was examined to explore the similarities and differences in repetitive behaviors (including restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors) in autistic individuals and those with OCD, and those with co-occurring diagnoses, in terms of: (1) expression, (2) content, and (3) associated factors. Methods: Thirty-one studies were identified that compared repetitive behaviors in autistic individuals, individuals with OCD, or individuals with both diagnoses. Results: The results suggest considerable overlap in the intensity and content of repetitive behaviors between groups. The findings of this review highlight that research aimed specifically at understanding similarities and differences in repetitive behaviors between autistic individuals and individuals with OCD is limited and frequently only compare at total score or composite measure levels. Conclusion: Further research into differences in the presentation of repetitive behaviors at a subscale and item level is required to inform clearer differentiation of specific behaviors in autism versus OCD. Understanding and more accurately differentiating is essential for efficient diagnosis, effective treatment, and better outcomes.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) diagnostic criteria each include forms of restricted or repetitive behavior (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022 ). For autistic individuals, this includes stereotyped movements, ritualized patterns of verbal/nonverbal behavior, and restricted interests. For people with OCD, this includes compulsions related to cleaning, checking, ordering, or arranging (APA, 2022 ). These repetitive behaviors (henceforth used to include restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests [RRBIs] and obsessive-compulsive behaviors) can appear similar, e.g., repeated recital of verbal information such as a movie script in autism or repetitive chanting in OCD. Autism frequently co-occurs with psychiatric conditions including OCD (> 17.4%; van Steensel et al., 2011 ) and autism diagnoses are often un/under-detected in individuals with OCD, even for those receiving clinical support (e.g., Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ). Considering the high rates of co-occurrence and phenotypical similarities, clinicians likely encounter presentations of repetitive behavior that do not clearly correspond to one diagnosis over the other.

Two review papers have begun to explore differences in repetitive behavior in autism and OCD. In a narrative review, Paula-Pérez ( 2013 ) posited that the emotional valence attached to engagement in repetitive behaviors was a key feature to inform differential diagnosis, based on the ego-syntonic (i.e., expressions harmonious with self-concept and goals, without sparking heightened anguish or self-recrimination) experience of RRBIs for autistic people versus the ego-dystonic (i.e., expressions inconsistent with self-concept and goals and accompanied by an increase in anguish or self-recrimination) experience of compulsions in people with OCD. Dystonic experiences were also described by the sensation that the content of the thought or behavior was foreign, and out of the control of the person experiencing it, which aligns with experiences of engaging in compulsive behavior reported by individuals with OCD (Keyes et al., 2018 ). This review highlights potential internal differences between repetitive behaviors characteristic of autism versus OCD, noting emotional valence differences, despite similar observable behaviors.

In a comparative review, Jiujias et al. ( 2017 ) posited that repetitive behaviors could be differentiated between autistic individuals and individuals with OCD based on differences in associations with anxiety, executive functioning (EF), and sensory processing. They hypothesized that while anxiety has a bidirectional role in OCD (i.e., obsessions produce anxiety and compulsions alleviate anxiety), the directionality of the relationship between anxiety and RRBIs in autism is unclear (i.e., does anxiety perpetuate RRBIs, or do RRBIs relieve anxiety? ). They also found different relationships between EF and repetitive behaviors between conditions. Poor inhibitory control (i.e., the ability to control and manage thoughts and impulses) was associated with repetitive behaviors in OCD, and difficulties with set-shifting (i.e., the ability to shift attention between one task and another) were associated with repetitive behaviors in autism. Finally, they acknowledged differences in sensory processing as contributing to repetitive behaviors in both conditions based on emerging literature showing associations between sensory integration difficulties, obsessions, and an increased need for control. This review highlights important distinctions and potential overlaps between RRBIs and obsessive-compulsive behaviors, including shared associations with sensory processing, which is widely acknowledged in autism, but less commonly recognized in OCD.

While these reviews provide an important starting point, the absence of a systematic approach to either review limits the degree to which these interpretations can be considered representative of the extant literature, which is essential for informing clearer parameters for differential diagnosis, as well as meaningful directions for future research. Further, the most recent review (Jiujias et al., 2017 ) was published in 2017, since which time many more studies have been published (e.g., Dingemans et al., 2022 ; Kushki et al., 2019 ). Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to examine the similarities and differences in repetitive behaviors in autistic individuals and individuals with OCD in terms of: (1) expression, (2) content, and (3) associated factors (e.g., anxiety).

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021 ) with quantitative components informed by Pickering and Byrne ( 2014 ). The review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42022351325) with a minor variation (12/07/2023) added that eligible studies needed to include both a quantitative measure of repetitive behavior and a comparison between diagnostic groups, leading to the exclusion of studies which did not report an explicit comparison (e.g., Zandt et al., 2009 ).

Search Strategy

Search terms were grouped by target population (i.e., autism and OCD) and behavior of interest (i.e., RRBIs and compulsive behaviors) (see Appendix A). Electronic database searches were conducted in five databases: Science Direct, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. All searches were performed by the first author (JO). The initial search was executed on 18 August 2022. An updated search was executed on 30 June 2023.

Review Criteria

Participants.

Eligible sample participants were individuals of any age with a diagnosis of autism and/or a diagnosis of OCD, and pattern(s) of restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests, and/or compulsive behaviors.

Studies were required to include at least two groups that could comprise autism-only compared to OCD-only, OCD-only compared to autism + OCD, or autism-only compared to autism + OCD, and include a measure of repetitive behaviors. Studies with three or more groups (i.e. autism-only, OCD-only, and autism + OCD) were also included.

Eligibility Criteria

Quantitative studies of all designs were considered. This included non-randomized studies of interventions and randomized control trials. For intervention studies, only measures of repetitive behavior collected at baseline were included, because the interventions implemented may have influenced group differences. Inclusion criteria were studies that: (1) included participants of any age with a diagnosis of autism, (2) included a comparison group of any age with a diagnosis of OCD (including co-occurring autism and OCD), (3) included a quantitative measure of RRBIs, and/or compulsive behaviors, and/or OCD symptomology, and a comparison of this measure between diagnostic groups (i.e., between autistic individuals and individuals with OCD, or either group and a comparison group with both conditions), (4) were peer-reviewed, (5) were full-text, and (6) were written in English. Diagnosis of autism included Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD, e.g., DSM-5-TR; APA, 2022 ), and earlier diagnoses made using previous diagnostic criteria (e.g., DSM-IV; APA, 1994 ) or other diagnostic systems (e.g., ICD-10; WHO, 2004 ) including Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified. Diagnoses included in earlier classifications of Pervasive Developmental Disorders (i.e., Rett Syndrome, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder; APA, 1994 ), but not included under the current autism classification (APA, 2022 ), were excluded.

Papers including participants with other additional co-occurring conditions were also considered for inclusion, given the high rates of co-occurring conditions observed in autistic individuals (APA, 2022 ). Exclusion criteria were studies that involved: (1) non-human research (e.g., mice models), (2) participants without diagnoses (e.g., traits only), (3) a single clinical population only (i.e., with no comparison clinical group), (4) an autism or OCD population not separately reported in a study evaluating a range of diagnoses, and/or (4) those that did not include a quantitative measure of repetitive behaviors. Qualitative studies were also excluded. In the absence of a comparable previous systematic review, no date restrictions were placed on the searches.

Study Selection and Coding

The screening process comprised: (1) removal of duplicates; (2) title and abstract screening; and (3) full text screening and data charting (Fig.  1 ). Covidence was used to manage the screening process. Database searches (August 2022; June 2023) yielded 16,736 papers, including 6307 duplicates. Following de-duplication, the remaining 10,429 papers were screened by title and abstract by the first author. A second reviewer screened 20% of titles and abstracts ( n  = 2086) against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers were sorted into exclusions, inclusions, or assigned for full text review if unclear based on the title/abstract. Initial agreement between reviewers was substantial (Cohen’s κ = 0.85), with 100% agreement following discussion. A total of 194 papers were then reviewed in full text. These remaining papers were reviewed by the first author, with 20% checked by a second reviewer ( n  = 39). There was 100% agreement on papers meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This review resulted in 31 papers deemed eligible for inclusion, and data from these was extracted using a template in Covidence. A sample of 20% were also extracted by a second independent reviewer and checked to confirm reliability, with 100% agreement on the extracted data.

PRISMA flow diagram

Data Extraction

Data extracted from each full text record included title, author(s), year of publication, country of origin, objective(s), design and methodology, community involvement in the research (i.e., input from autistic individuals or individuals with OCD), participant demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, IQ/cognitive ability, and communication/language ability), diagnostic characteristics (including diagnostic tool/method used to ascertain autism and/or OCD diagnosis), presence of other co-occurring conditions (e.g., anxiety disorders), inclusion/exclusion criteria, method(s) of data collection, RRBIs/obsessive-compulsive behavior(s) measured (including measure), level of measurement (total score only, subscale scores, or item-level analyses), presence/level of repetitive behaviors by group (mean, standard deviation), reported experience of repetitive behaviors (if reported), content/focus of repetitive behaviors (e.g., special interests), covariates assessed (e.g., anxiety), functional assessment/motivation behind repetitive behaviors (if reported), statistical analyses used, statistical results of group comparisons, correlations/interactions with covariates, and key findings. Where possible, findings based on specific sub-categories of behavior were also extracted such as subscale scores and individual item scores.

Quality Assessment

Quality assessment was conducted by the first author, with a sample of 20% conducted by a second independent reviewer. The quality of included studies was appraised using published guidelines by Hawker et al. ( 2002 ). These guidelines were selected due to their suitability for assessing methodological rigor across studies using different research designs. The methodological rigor of each aspect of the study (e.g., theoretical framework, sampling, approach to and explanation of data analysis) and the generalizability and implications of the findings is ranked from (1) Very Poor to (4) Good, based on established individual criteria, and these scores are summed to indicate the quality of each study (i.e., overall scores of < 10 = Very Poor to 40 = Very Good; Hawker et al., 2002 ). Initially, there was 89% agreement between reviewers. Following discussion of seven discrepancies, 100% agreement was achieved. Resolution of these discrepancies did not impact on the final rating of any study. A web-based AMSTAR 2 (A [revised] MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; Shea et al., 2017 ) checklist was also used to assess the quality and reliability of the systematic review as a whole.

Data Synthesis

Data were synthesized through quantitative and narrative synthesis. To address the review questions, data pertaining to specific sub-categories of behavior were critically compared. Categories of behavior were determined based on the measure used to assess repetitive behaviors across the included studies. For example, for studies including a subscale analysis of RRBIs using the Repetitive Behavior Scale – Revised (RBS-R; Bodfish et al., 2000 ), these sub-categories were differentiated as: (1) stereotyped behavior, (2) self-injurious behavior, (3) compulsive behavior, (4) routine behavior, (5) sameness behavior, and (6) restricted behavior. Sub-categorization of OCD behaviors was made in line with recognized OCD symptom dimensions, for example, based on the Y-BOCS Symptom Checklist (i.e., cleaning/washing, checking, repeating, counting, ordering/arranging, hoarding, and miscellaneous compulsions; Storch et al., 2010 ).

Overview of Included Studies

A total of 31 studies were included from the United Kingdom ( n  = 5; 16%), the Netherlands ( n  = 4; 13%), the United States ( n  = 4; 13%), Japan ( n  = 3; 10%), Italy ( n  = 2; 6%), Australia ( n  = 2; 6%), Canada ( n  = 2; 6%), Norway ( n  = 1; 3%), Sweden ( n  = 1; 3%), and France ( n  = 1; 3%). Six studies (19%) were conducted across multiple countries including data from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden. Most employed a cross-sectional ( n  = 9; 29%) or case control ( n  = 9; 29%) design. Appendix B outlines the key characteristics of each included study.

Demographic data for the total sample are provided in Table  1 . In the 31 included studies, 1123 autistic participants, 982 participants with OCD, and 262 participants with both conditions (i.e., autism and OCD) were included. Only four studies reported participants’ ethnicity (Akkermans et al., 2019 ; Hollestein et al., 2021 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ; Pertusa et al., 2012 ). Of the 253 participants represented across these four studies, 231 (91.3%) were White. Only two studies (6.3%) included participants with a below average intelligence or intellectual impairment, with most studies ( n  = 23; 74%) excluding participants on the basis of below average intelligence, co-occurring intellectual or developmental conditions, or language impairment. Sixteen studies (52%) examined repetitive behaviors in children or adolescents and fourteen studies (45%) examined repetitive behaviors in adults. One study (3%) included both adolescent and adult participants.

Quality of Included Studies

The quality of most included studies ( n  = 29; 94%) ranged between good and very good, except for two studies which were rated as fair-poor ( n  = 1; 3%) and poor-very poor ( n  = 1; 3%) (for full scoring see Appendix C). No studies reported explicit input from autistic individuals or individuals with OCD.

Quality of the Systematic Review

A high level of confidence in the results of this review was indicated based on a critical appraisal via AMSTAR 2, suggesting that the current review provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the question of interest (Shea et al., 2017 ; Appendix D).

Expression of Repetitive Behaviors across Groups

Studies used a variety of different standardized measures to assess the expression of repetitive behavior. Some measures reported on the intensity or severity of repetitive behavioral presentations (e.g., Y-BOCS) whereas others reported on the frequency or breadth of repetitive behaviors endorsed (e.g., RBS-R and Repetitive Behavior Questionnaire [RBQ; Turner, 1995 ]). Thus, expression of repetitive behaviors in the following analyses encompasses both the frequency and/or intensity of repetitive behavioral presentations.

Expression of RRBIs

Relatively consistent findings were observed when comparing autism-related RRBIs between groups. The majority of studies (91% of studies making this comparison) found no significant differences in the overall intensity of RRBIs between autistic individuals, individuals with OCD, and individuals with both conditions (Akkermans et al., 2019 ; Cadman et al., 2015 ; DiCriscio et al., 2016 ; Gooskens et al., 2019 , 2021 ; Hollestein et al., 2021 ; Jacobs et al., 2021 ; Lamothe et al., 2022 ; Naaijen et al., 2017 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ). In contrast, a single study (Sturm et al., 2018 ) found autistic children to have more intense levels of RRBIs compared to children with OCD. However, these differences may be related to the measure used, with differences in the endorsement of RRBIs only found when using the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; restricted interests and repetitive behavior subscale; Constantino & Gruber, 2012 ) in this study, but not the RBS-R or RBQ in other studies (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2019 ). Three studies also compared intensity of compulsive behaviors as a sub-construct of RRBIs between autistic children and children with OCD. Two studies found that children with OCD reported significantly greater compulsivity (Gooskens et al., 2019 , 2021 ), whereas another study found that autistic children reported significantly greater compulsivity (Naaijen et al., 2017 ).

Expression of Compulsions

When comparing individuals with a single diagnosis, findings in relation to OCD-related compulsions were relatively consistent. Six studies (86% of studies making this comparison) reported individuals with OCD had significantly greater total obsessive-compulsive symptom severity compared to autistic individuals (Bejerot et al., 2014 ; DiCriscio et al., 2016 ; Kushki et al., 2019 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ; also Niemeyer et al., 2022 though significance was not reported). Three studies also reported that children with OCD had significantly greater compulsive symptom severity at the subscale level, than autistic children (DiCriscio et al., 2016 ; Kushki et al., 2019 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ). Significantly greater total obsessive-compulsive symptom severity in individuals with OCD was reported using a variety of different measures including the Brief Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (BOCS; Bejerot et al., 2014 ), Toronto Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (TOCS; Park et al., 2016 ) (Kushki et al., 2019 ), and CY-BOCS/Y-BOCS (DiCriscio et al., 2016 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ). Exceptions were Dingemans et al. ( 2022 ) who reported no significant differences in obsessive-compulsive symptom severity between autistic individuals and individuals with OCD via the Padua Inventory – Revised (Sanavio, 1988 ), Mack et al., ( 2010 ) who reported no significant differences in impairment associated with obsessive-compulsive symptoms between children with OCD and autistic children with co-occurring OCD via the Children’s Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (ChOCI; Shafran et al., 2003 ).

The majority of studies (67% of studies making this comparison) comparing individuals with OCD with individuals with both conditions found no significant differences in total obsessive-compulsive symptom severity (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Murray et al., 2015 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Tsuchiyagaito et al., 2017 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ). Studies that did report differences between these groups found that individuals with both conditions reported significantly greater symptom severity than autistic individuals (Helverschou et al., 2009 ; Lamothe et al., 2022 ; Niemeyer et al., 2022 ), except for Cath et al. ( 2008 ) who found that adults with OCD reported significantly greater total symptom severity (but not compulsive symptom severity at the subscale level) compared to autistic adults with co-occurring OCD.

Content of Repetitive Behaviors across Groups

Content of rrbis.

Studies examining differences in the content of autism-related RRBIs were limited, with mixed results. Hollestein et al. ( 2021 ) found no significant differences in the intensity of stereotypy, compulsivity, ritualistic behaviors, or limited interests between children with OCD and autistic children. However, in the same study, autistic children reported significantly greater insistence on sameness behaviors compared to children with OCD at the first time point. One year later, children with OCD reported significantly more insistence on sameness behaviors than autistic children. Similarly, Zandt et al. ( 2007 ) found that children with OCD were rated similarly to autistic children in their intensity of most types of RRBIs (repetitive language, stereotyped movement, self-injury, manipulation of objects, sameness environment, attachment to objects, limited interests), except for routines and rituals, where children with OCD reported greater intensity of routine and ritual behaviors.

In adults, only one study examined RRBIs between groups at the symptom level. Fusar-Poli et al. ( 2020 ) examined the presence of RRBIs via two individual items on the Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults Screening Questionnaire (ASDASQ; Nylander & Gillberg, 2001 ) between autistic adults and adults with OCD. Autistic adults reported more ritualized, routine- and rule-oriented behaviors, and special interests than adults with OCD.

Content of Compulsions

Mixed findings in relation to the content of compulsive behaviors were found, with most studies comparing the content of compulsions via the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS; Goodman et al., 1991 ) or Y-BOCS. The frequency of counting compulsions endorsed by autistic individuals, individuals with OCD, and individuals with both conditions was generally similar (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ). Two exceptions found conflicting results. McDougle et al. ( 1995 ) found that adults with OCD endorsed more counting compulsions than autistic adults, whereas Zandt et al. ( 2007 ) found that counting compulsions were highly endorsed by autistic children and not at all by children with OCD. The frequency of repeating compulsions endorsed was also generally similar between groups (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; McDougle et al., 1995 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ), with some exceptions reporting more frequent endorsement of repeating compulsions by individuals with OCD compared to autistic individuals (Russell et al., 2005 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ) or individuals with both conditions (Lewin et al., 2011 ).

More variable findings were found for checking and hoarding compulsions. A number of studies reported greater frequencies of checking compulsions by individuals with OCD compared to autistic individuals (Bejerot et al., 2014 ; McDougle et al., 1995 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ) or individuals with both conditions (Lewin et al., 2011 ), although others found no significant differences between groups (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ). In support of the former, others reported more severe checking compulsions by individuals with OCD (Cadman et al., 2015 ) or both conditions (Cadman et al., 2015 ; Helverschou et al., 2009 ) compared to autistic individuals via the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Revised (OCI-R; Foa et al., 2002 ) and Psychopathology in Autism Checklist (Helverschou et al., 2009 ) respectively. In contrast, Dingemans et al. ( 2022 ) found no differences in the severity of counting compulsions between groups via the Padua Inventory – Revised. The use of different assessment measures may have contributed to differences in these findings.

Several studies also found that hoarding compulsions were endorsed in similar frequencies between groups (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ). However, some variable findings were reported amongst adults. Several studies found that hoarding compulsions were more frequently endorsed by (McDougle et al., 1995 ) or more intense in (Cadman et al., 2015 ; Pertusa et al., 2012 ) autistic adults compared to adults with OCD. Others found that hoarding compulsions were more frequently endorsed by (Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ) or severe in (Cadman et al., 2015 ) adults with both conditions compared to adults with OCD only.

In many studies, the intensity (Cadman et al., 2015 ) or frequency (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ) of ordering/arranging compulsions was similar between groups. In others, adults with OCD more frequently endorsed ordering/arranging compulsions compared to autistic adults (Bejerot et al., 2014 ). In further contrast, others found that autistic adults (McDougle et al., 1995 ) or adults with both conditions (Nakagawa et al., 2019 [post-treatment]) endorsed significantly more ordering/arranging compulsions than adults with OCD only. Differences between these studies’ methodology that may explain contrasts in results including the use of different standardized measures (e.g., BOCS; Bejerot et al., 2014 ), the inclusion of autistic participants with cognitive impairments (McDougle et al., 1995 ), or the effects of a therapeutic intervention (i.e., cognitive-behavioral therapy; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ).

Mixed findings were also found in relation to washing/cleaning compulsions. Some studies reported no significant differences in severity (Dingemans et al., 2022 ) or frequency (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Russell et al., 2005 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ) between groups. In some cases, these lack of significant differences may be attributable to differences in sample characteristics across studies, including the absence of formal autism diagnoses in the comparison group (Mito et al., 2014 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ) or the use of different standardized measures (i.e., Padua Inventory – Revised; Dingemans et al., 2022 ). In contrast, other studies reported more frequent (Bejerot et al., 2014 ; McDougle et al., 1995 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ) or more intense (Cadman et al., 2015 ) washing/cleaning compulsions by individuals with OCD or individuals with both conditions (Cadman et al., 2015 ; Helverschou et al., 2009 ; Lewin et al., 2011 ) compared to autistic individuals.

A limited number of studies examined differences in miscellaneous compulsions (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; McDougle et al., 1995 ; Mito et al., 2014 ; Nakagawa et al., 2019 ; Wikramanayake et al., 2018 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ) and compulsions involving others (Griffiths et al., 2017 ; Mack et al., 2010 ; Ruta et al., 2010 ; Zandt et al., 2007 ), each finding no significant differences in the frequency of these compulsions endorsed between groups. Magical/superstitious compulsions were only compared in children. Two studies reported more frequent endorsement of magical/superstitious compulsions amongst children with OCD compared to autistic children (Zandt et al., 2007 ) and children with both conditions (Mack et al., 2010 ). Griffiths et al. ( 2017 ) reported no significant differences between autistic children and children with both conditions.

Only two adult studies examined differences in self-injurious behaviors, with mixed findings. McDougle et al. ( 1995 ) found that autistic adults reported more frequent ‘self-damaging’ compulsions than adults with OCD, and Helverschou et al. ( 2009 ) found that adults with both conditions endorsed more severe self-injurious behaviors compared to autistic adults. However, differences in the measures used to assess self-injurious behavior (Y-BOCS versus Psychopathology in Autism Checklist, respectively), or the presence of an intellectual impairment in Helverschou et al. ( 2009 )’s sample, may have contributed to the differences in these findings. Taken together, while some consistent patterns emerged in relation to the content of repetitive behaviors, there were exceptions in relation to the frequency and severity of some types of compulsions between groups.

Factors Associated with Repetitive Behaviors Across Groups

A number of studies investigated correlates or predictors of repetitive behavior, including associations with neurological factors, aspects of EF, social and communication factors, psychological or experiential factors, and age.

Neurological Factors

Several studies highlighted associations between neurological factors and repetitive behavior. Seven child studies incorporated a brain imaging component (Akkermans et al., 2019 ; Gooskens et al., 2019 , 2021 ; Hollestein et al., 2021 ; Jacobs et al., 2021 ; Kushki et al., 2019 ; Naaijen et al., 2017 ), with only three reporting differences in repetitive behavior based on neurological markers. Two studies associated the intensity of repetitive behaviors with decreased glutamate concentration in autistic children, or increased glutamate concentration in autistic children and children with OCD (Hollestein et al., 2021 ; Naaijen et al., 2017 , respectively). Akkermans et al. ( 2019 ) implicated increased functional connectivity in some brain areas with greater intensity of repetitive behaviors in autistic children and children with OCD, though between-group comparisons were not reported. Further, Hollestein et al. ( 2021 ) associated increased striatal activity (i.e., cognitive demand) during failed inhibitory control to greater compulsivity in children with OCD, suggesting an association between compulsivity and difficulties in inhibition in OCD. In contrast, Naaijen et al. ( 2017 ) found no differences in striatal activity between autistic children and children with OCD, despite significantly greater compulsivity amongst autistic children.

Executive Functioning

Several aspects of executive functioning (EF) were also related to the intensity of repetitive behaviors. Four studies incorporating a brain-imaging component examined differences in behavior between children with OCD versus autism (Gooskens et al., 2019 , 2021 ), or between empirically derived transdiagnostic subgroups (Jacobs et al., 2021 ; Kushki et al., 2019 ). Due to the nature of their approach, Jacobs et al. ( 2021 ) and Kushki et al. ( 2019 ) did not report autism- and OCD-specific group comparisons. Gooskens et al. ( 2019 ) and Gooskens et al. ( 2021 ) found no associations between repetitive behavior and cognitive control assessed via a modified stop-signal task. In contrast, in an eye-tracking study, DiCriscio et al. ( 2016 ) reported a significant association between antisaccade errors and RRBIs (via the ADOS) in a group of autistic children, and in contrast no relationship between cognitive control of visual attention and the intensity of compulsions in children with OCD). This suggests a link between autism-specific repetitive behavior and cognitive control of visual attention.

Via a network analysis, Dingemans et al. ( 2022 ) posited difficulties relating to cognitive flexibility (i.e., problems with set-shifting and attention switching, and rigid cognitive style) as central and potentially perpetuating factors associated with manifestations of repetitive behavior in adults with a range of disorders (including autism and OCD). Also using a mixed sample of adults with a range of psychiatric conditions including autism and OCD, Bejerot et al. ( 2014 ) reported that greater obsessive-compulsive symptom severity was associated with poorer global functioning, though in both cases between-group differences were not reported. As well, in a sample of adults with OCD and adults with co-occurring conditions, Mito et al. ( 2014 ) found the overall obsessive-compulsive symptom severity was positively correlated with difficulties in attention switching, attention to detail, and imagination (via the AQ) in the total sample.

Social and Communication Factors

Several studies found that social and communication factors contributed to manifestations of repetitive behavior. In every case, these factors were compared using the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ; Baron-Cohen et al., 2001 ). In addition to cognitive inflexibility, Dingemans et al. ( 2022 ) posited difficulties related to components of social behavior (social communication, perception of social cues) as central, perpetuating factors associated with repetitive behavior in autistic adults and adults with OCD. Cath et al. ( 2008 ) reported that obsessive-compulsive symptom severity was significantly associated with social difficulties in autistic adults and adults with OCD. Pertusa et al. ( 2012 ) found that hoarding behaviors (difficulties discarding, and excessive acquisition) were positively correlated with communication difficulties amongst autistic adults, but not adults with OCD.

Psychological/Experiential Factors

Three studies reported on psychological or experiential factors associated with repetitive behavior, generally finding no differences in metacognitive beliefs about, or control associated with, engaging in repetitive behaviors between autistic adults and adults with OCD. Cath et al. ( 2008 ) examined ego-dystonia associated with repetitive behaviors between adults with OCD and adults with both conditions, finding no significant differences in the degree to which repetitive behaviors were experienced as excessive, unreasonable, strange, abnormal, or inappropriate, or the extent to which the person felt the need to exhibit control over their thoughts or actions. Melchior et al. ( 2021 ) examined beliefs about the necessity of performing ritual behaviors, via the Beliefs About Rituals Inventory (BARI; McNicol & Wells, 2012 ), also finding no significant differences between autistic adults and adults with OCD. Comparatively, Ruta et al. ( 2010 ) examined insight (i.e., individuals’ degree of awareness into the senselessness/excessiveness of beliefs related to repetitive behaviors) via a single CY-BOCS item. While neither the autistic or OCD groups displayed excellent insight into their repetitive behaviors, and ratings of good, fair, and poor insight were similar between groups, autistic individuals displayed significantly higher rates of absent insight, which was attributed to potential differences in perceiving, processing, and describing repetitive behaviors, which may indicate group differences in the experience of these behaviors.

One study posited differences in repetitive behavior in children with OCD as a product of age. Zandt et al. ( 2007 ) found sameness behavior to be significantly more prevalent in younger children with OCD. Age was not significantly related to endorsement of sameness behaviors, repetitive motor behaviors, or compulsions in autistic children.

We systematically examined similarities and differences in repetitive behavior between autistic individuals and individuals with OCD, finding considerable overlap in the expression and content of repetitive behaviors using a range of measures. There were generally no significant differences between groups in the overall endorsement of autism-related RRBIs for adults, although some exceptions were noted when comparing groups of children. In a single study, Sturm et al. ( 2018 ) found that autistic children reported significantly greater endorsement of RRBIs compared to children with OCD via the SRS. This is perhaps unsurprising as the SRS is an autism measure and thus may be more sensitive to the identification of autism-specific behaviors rather than more general presentations of repetitive behavior such as those observed in OCD. Further discrepancies were noted when compulsivity (measured in the context of RRBIs) was compared via the RBS or the RBS-R, which seem to correspond with revisions made to this measure where the revised form includes more complex RRBIs such as ritualized behaviors, insistence on sameness behaviors, and restricted interests (Bodfish et al., 1999 , 2000 ). Thus, significantly greater endorsement of RRBIs by children with OCD when assessed via the RBS-R rather than the RBS may be a result of more complex forms of repetitive behaviors now being captured and may indicate differences in the complexity of repetitive behaviors endorsed by children with OCD compared to autistic children of a similar age.

The presence of an OCD diagnosis was generally associated with significantly higher obsessive-compulsive symptom severity than in autism only. Studies which found non-significant effects predominantly compared behaviors between individuals with OCD and those with both conditions, suggesting similar symptom severity irrespective of whether OCD occurs in conjunction with autism or alone. Only one of the thirty-one included studies reported no significant differences in overall obsessive-compulsive symptom severity when comparing individuals with OCD to autistic individuals (Dingemans et al., 2022 ). However, this result may have been an artifact of the measure used; Dingemans et al. ( 2022 ) assessed OCD symptoms via the Padua Inventory – Revised, whereas most other studies used the CY-BOCS/Y-BOCS. Overall, these results suggest that while autism and OCD populations may be differentiated in terms of the frequency and intensity of obsessive-compulsive symptomology at a group level, they generally could not be differentiated based on characteristics related to autism with similar results at a group level.

Findings related to the content of repetitive behaviors were mixed, particularly in relation to OCD-related compulsions. The frequency of endorsement of washing/cleaning and ordering/arranging compulsions was mixed across studies, indicating that more research is needed to understand if different repetitive behavioral content is seen in each condition. In contrast, relatively consistent findings were reported for checking and hoarding compulsions. Generally, checking compulsions were more frequently and intensely endorsed by individuals with OCD. This aligns with previous research acknowledging checking compulsions as one of the most common types of compulsions manifested in OCD (Ruscio et al., 2010 ). The ego-dystonic nature of these compulsions may be more characteristic of the anxiety which underpins OCD, which may explain why these behaviors are more frequently endorsed by individuals with OCD than by autistic individuals (Paula-Pérez, 2013 ).

Autistic adults generally endorsed more hoarding compulsions compared to individuals with OCD. Previous research suggests that hoarding behaviors are common among autistic individuals (e.g., Storch et al., 2016 ). In a recent qualitative study, autistic adults reported that hoarding behaviors were motivated by difficulties discarding possessions, a need for emotional aids, and collecting items related to their special interests (Goldfarb et al., 2021 ). Thus, for autistic people, hoarding behaviors may be more often motivated by emotional attachment rather than a compulsive need or response, differentiating them from hoarding behaviors manifested in OCD. In relation to this finding, it is noted that recent changes to the diagnostic criteria view hoarding disorder as separate from OCD (APA, 2022 ). Regardless, hoarding behaviors were commonly included in measures of both autism- and OCD-related repetitive behavior and were hence included in the current review. Considering recent amendments to the diagnostic classification of hoarding behaviors, more research examining the distinction between these behaviors and other types of repetitive behaviors is still needed.

Findings were mixed in terms of the factors associated with repetitive behaviors. In many cases, studies reported on factors associated with an autism or OCD diagnosis, rather than correlates of repetitive behavior specifically. Further, associated factors were only reported for repetitive behaviors as a unidimensional phenomenon, so comparisons based on specific subtypes of repetitive behavior were not possible. In children, studies highlighted associations between repetitive behavior and neurological factors such as differences in glutamate concentration or striatal activity. However, only two studies examined these differences between groups. Hollestein et al. ( 2021 ) associated increased striatal activity with increased compulsivity in children with OCD, suggesting a relationship between increased cognitive demand and compulsive behavior in OCD. In contrast, Naaijen et al. ( 2017 ) found no differences in striatal activity between autistic children and children with OCD, despite significantly greater compulsivity amongst autistic children. Several previous studies have also highlighted links between striatal activity and repetitive behavior, though much of this research has been conducted using animal models (e.g., Longo et al., 2022 ; Muehlmann et al., 2020 ). To better understand the links between neurological factors and manifestations of repetitive behavior, more studies assessing repetitive behaviors as a multidimensional construct are needed. This may allow for clearer identification of the neurological features associated with different types of behavior. As well, longitudinal studies which track changes in repetitive behavior over time may be helpful for understanding how these behaviors change, and whether changes in repetitive behavior correspond with physiological, neurodevelopmental, or environmental factors.

Challenges in EF were associated with greater intensity of repetitive behaviors in autistic children. This association did not extend to children with OCD, suggesting that EF may be a factor related more closely to RRBIs in autism than to obsessive-compulsive symptomology. In support, a recent meta-analysis by Iversen and Lewis ( 2021 ) confirmed significant associations between elevated levels of RRBIs and poorer EF (including set shifting, inhibitory control, and parent-rated EF) in autistic children. Based on their findings, Iversen and Lewis ( 2021 ) surmised that impairments in EF, particularly set shifting, may contribute to the intensity of repetitive behavioral presentations, due to difficulties related to control over thoughts and behaviors.

While much of the previous literature has evaluated EF and RRBIs in younger children, similar findings relating impairments in EF to more intense RRBIs have also been found for autistic adolescents (e.g., Miller et al., 2015 ) and adults (e.g., Lopez et al., 2005 ). Two studies included in the current review (Dingemans et al., 2022 ; Mito et al., 2014 ) suggested an association between the intensity of repetitive behaviors and aspects of EF, including cognitive flexibility and attention switching. However, these associations related to individuals with a variety of obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders (including autism and OCD), limiting the degree to which these findings can be attributed to one condition over the other. Further research investigating the role of EF on manifestations of repetitive behavior, particularly in autistic adults and/or adults with OCD including group comparisons, is warranted to understand specific mechanisms that affect each condition and better inform support or treatment.

The association between social and communicative factors and repetitive behaviors was acknowledged in several studies involving adults. While some previous research suggests connections between repetitive behaviors and social behaviors (e.g., Martínez-González et al., 2022 ; Rojas et al., 2006 ), others posit that autism-related social and communication differences are not associated with corresponding levels of RRBIs (e.g., Mandy & Skuse, 2008 ). Further, studies directly comparing these differences between autistic individuals and those with OCD appear limited. Thus, more research exploring the associations between social skills and corresponding engagement in RRBIs may be warranted to understand the social mechanisms that may drive transdiagnostic engagement in repetitive behaviors.

Similarities related to psychological and experiential factors when engaging in repetitive behaviors were also noted between autistic individuals, individuals with OCD, and those with both conditions. Cath et al. ( 2008 ) reported no significant differences in the ego-dystonicity of repetitive behaviors, or perceived control over repetitive behaviors, between adults with OCD and adults with both OCD and autism. This non-significant finding may be due to both groups having OCD, thus experiences associated with repetitive behaviors may have been associated with compulsions rather than with autism-related RRBIs. In contrast to this hypothesis however, Melchior et al. ( 2021 ) also found no group differences in beliefs about the necessity of performing ritualistic behaviors between autistic adults and adults with OCD. This may indicate that, irrespective of whether repetitive behaviors are experienced as ego-dystonic or ego-syntonic, autistic individuals and individuals with OCD may feel equally compelled to engage in repetitive behaviors. The reasons underpinning this drive, however, remain unclear. Differentiating between the motivating factors underpinning engagement in repetitive behaviors in future research may offer new insights into how these drivers may be different or the same in autism versus OCD and could inform supports or treatment.

Several gaps in the extant literature are highlighted by this review. In comparison to OCD-specific compulsive behaviors, contrasts between groups in relation to autism-related RRBIs were more rarely investigated and are important to further explore. Nine of the included studies examined autism characteristics via the AQ or SCQ, neither of which includes a subscale measure of RRBIs. As a result, this limited the number of studies which could offer insights into the content of RRBIs and how these varied between groups. As well, item-level comparisons based on subtypes of repetitive behavior were generally missing from the literature, particularly in relation to autism-specific RRBIs, limiting the degree to which between-group differences based on specific types of repetitive behaviors could be compared. Features associated with repetitive behaviors also tended not to be compared between groups. Instead, features were associated with diagnosis, rather than with repetitive behaviors directly, limiting the degree to which assertions about the links between these factors and repetitive behaviors could be made.

A lack of sampling diversity was also noted. From the 31 studies included in this review, it is likely that some members of the autistic and OCD communities may be underrepresented, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations. Few studies reported on ethnicity ( n  = 4), and where reported, participants were mostly White, suggesting that other ethnicities may not be well represented in the current review. Further, in the autistic and co-occurring condition subgroups, a large proportion of participants were male (74% and 65%, respectively; Table  1 ), and none of the included studies examined sex or gender as a potential predictor of repetitive behavior. This is an important omission to note given the associations between sex and gender differences and different manifestations of repetitive behaviors often seen between autistic men and women (Bourson & Prevost, 2022 ). Further, only two studies included participants with an intellectual impairment or below average intelligence, despite individuals with intellectual differences representing as much as 38% of the autistic community (Maenner et al., 2023 ). Repetitive behaviors may manifest differently, and be motivated by different factors, amongst individuals with an intellectual impairment. The ego-dystonic versus ego-syntonic experience of these behaviors may be less clear than in populations without intellectual or language impairment as understanding relies more heavily on observable behaviors rather than reported experience. Underrepresentation of autistic individuals with higher support needs remains an enduring issue in the scientific literature and represents an important direction for future research to ensure that individuals with a variety of support needs are included in, and can benefit from, the findings of future research.

The results of this review should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. First, grey literature was not included, nor were non-English publications, the latter of which may have exacerbated cultural/ethnic bias. Second, while a thorough appraisal of the quality of each included study was undertaken, this review did not exclude eligible papers based on quality. While care was taken to consider the quality of each study during analysis of the results, in instances where studies did not attain adequate quality ratings, these findings must be interpreted cautiously. Alongside quality ratings, studies were also considered for input from autistic or OCD community members. Of the included studies, none acknowledged input from individuals with lived experience of repetitive behaviors in the context of autism and/or OCD, which may provide more subjective insights into differences in behavioral experiences between diagnostic groups. Future research must consider how to better integrate co-design practices and involve individuals with lived experience (in this case, autistic individuals and/or individuals with OCD) in the research process. Relatedly, while the current review was focused on quantitative studies, qualitative studies may yield differing insights into subjective experiences of repetitive behaviors, and their underlying motivations and outcomes, and are thus an important consideration in future research.

Given the significant degree of overlap in repetitive behavioral presentations observed across diagnostic groups based on standardized scores, the results of this review emphasize that accurate differential diagnosis cannot be determined, nor accurately informed by a score above a certain threshold on one or more measures, given overlapping and often non-significant group findings. Total scores on questionnaires are not sufficient to inform accurate clinical diagnosis without a thorough understanding of the factors and functions driving the repetitive behavior. While a plethora of research has identified anxiety as an inherent component of obsessive-compulsive behavioral manifestation, the links between function and behavior are not clear in the context of autism. Based on the findings of this review, OCD-specific measures of repetitive behavior (e.g., the Y-BOCS) may be more helpful than autism-specific measures in differentiating between conditions as evidence indicates that total and some subscale scores may differ at least between OCD and OCD and autism, and autism alone. Despite this, given the high degree of co-occurrence observed between autism and OCD and the evidenced overlaps in the expression and content of repetitive behaviors, it may be useful for clinicians to utilize diagnostic measures that consider both conditions in early diagnostic assessments. Furthermore, analyses of repetitive behaviors based on total scores only limit the degree to which unique behaviors can be critically compared and subsequently understood. Some types of repetitive behaviors may be more frequent or severe in autism or OCD, such as hoarding in autistic adults or magical/superstitious compulsions in children with OCD, as highlighted in the current findings. However, more research at the subscale and item-level is needed to confirm differences in the manifestation of different types of repetitive behaviors between conditions.

We highlight the ambiguity surrounding characterizations of repetitive behaviors in autism versus OCD in this review. Despite the use of similar assessment tools, findings pertaining particularly to the content of repetitive behaviors are inconsistent, suggesting more research is needed to understand to degree to which behavioral presentations across these two conditions are the same and different. At least at a phenotypical level, similarities in the expression and content of repetitive behavior are notable. Therefore, deeper understanding of the function and experience of repetitive behaviors is needed to differentiate between behavioral features in these two clinical populations more clearly. While individuals may exhibit the same behaviors, the factors driving the use of these behaviors may differ, and subsequently correspond to a distinct underlying diagnosis and importantly, different treatment and supports. In the case of co-occurring diagnosis, this may be a particularly pertinent consideration, given that these individuals may exhibit both autism-related repetitive behaviors which support self-regulation, and OCD-related compulsions manifested in response to psychological distress. Future research aimed at clearly differentiating between these experiences with repetitive behavior will inform more accurate differential diagnosis and treatment planning and maximize the benefits of therapeutic support for autistic individuals, individuals with OCD, and individuals with both conditions.

Akkermans, S. E., Rheinheimer, N., Bruchhage, M. M., Durston, S., Brandeis, D., Banaschewski, T., Boecker-Schlier, R., Wolf, I., Williams, S. C., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2019). Frontostriatal functional connectivity correlates with repetitive behaviour across autism spectrum disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder. Psychological Medicine , 49 (13), 2247–2255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718003136 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

APA. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

APA (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR (5th ed., text rev. ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, malesand females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 31 (1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471 .

Bejerot, S., Edman, G., Anckarsäter, H., Berglund, G., Gillberg, C., Hofvander, B., Humble, M. B., Mörtberg, E., Råstam, M., & Ståhlberg, O. (2014). The brief obsessive–compulsive scale (BOCS): A self-report scale for OCD and obsessive–compulsive related disorders. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry , 68 (8), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2014.884631 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bodfish, J., Symons, F., & Lewis, M. (1999). The repetitive Behavior scales: A test manual. Child Psychiatry and Human Development , 37 , 347–360.

Google Scholar  

Bodfish, J. W., Symons, F. J., Parker, D. E., & Lewis, M. H. (2000). Repetitive behavior scale–revised. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders . https://doi.org/10.1037/t17338-000 .

Bourson, L., & Prevost, C. (2022). Characteristics of restricted interests in girls with ASD compared to boys: A systematic review of the literature. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-01998-5 .

Cadman, T., Spain, D., Johnston, P., Russell, A., Mataix-Cols, D., Craig, M., Deeley, Q., Robertson, D., Murphy, C., & Gillan, N. (2015). Obsessive‐compulsive disorder in adults with high‐functioning autism spectrum disorder: What does self‐report with the OCI‐R tell us? Autism Research , 8 (5), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1461 .

Cath, D. C., Ran, N., Smit, J. H., Van Balkom, A. J., & Comijs, H. C. (2008). Symptom overlap between autism spectrum disorder, generalized social anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: A preliminary case-controlled study. Psychopathology , 41 (2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1159/000111555 .

Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale: SRS-2 . Western Psychological Services.

DiCriscio, A. S., Miller, S. J., Hanna, E. K., Kovac, M., Turner-Brown, L., Sasson, N. J., Sapyta, J., Troiani, V., & Dichter, G. S. (2016). Brief report: Cognitive control of social and nonsocial visual attention in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 46 (8), 2797–2805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2804-7 .

Dingemans, A. E., Volkmer, S. A., Mulkens, S., Vuijk, R., & van Rood, Y. R. (2022). The obsessive-compulsive spectrum: A network analysis. Psychiatry Research , 308 , 114351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114351 .

Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak, G., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2002). The obsessive-compulsive inventory: Development and validation of a short version. Psychological Assessment , 14 (4), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.4.485 .

Fusar-Poli, L., Bisso, E., Concas, I., Surace, T., Tinacci, S., Vanella, A., Furnari, R., Signorelli, M. S., Nylander, L., & Aguglia, E. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Autism Spectrum disorder in adults screening questionnaire (ASDASQ) in a sample of Italian psychiatric outpatients. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 78 , 101668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101668 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Goldfarb, Y., Zafrani, O., Hedley, D., Yaari, M., & Gal, E. (2021). Autistic adults’ subjective experiences of hoarding and self-injurious behaviors. Autism , 25 (5), 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361321992640 .

Goodman, W., Price, L., Rasmussen, S., Riddle, M., & Rapoport, J. (1991). Children’s Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale (CY-BOCS). New Haven Connecticut: Clinical Neuroscience Unit , 29 , 31–51.

Gooskens, B., Bos, D. J., Mensen, V. T., Shook, D. A., Bruchhage, M. M., Naaijen, J., Wolf, I., Brandeis, D., Williams, S. C., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2019). No evidence of differences in cognitive control in children with autism spectrum disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder: An fMRI study. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience , 36 , 100602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.11.004 .

Gooskens, B., Bos, D. J., Naaijen, J., Akkermans, S. E., Kaiser, A., Hohmann, S., Bruchhage, M. M., Banaschewski, T., Brandeis, D., & Williams, S. C. (2021). The development of cognitive control in children with autism spectrum disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder: A longitudinal fMRI study. Neuroimage: Reports , 1 (2), 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynirp.2021.100015 .

Griffiths, D. L., Farrell, L. J., Waters, A. M., & White, S. W. (2017). Clinical correlates of obsessive compulsive disorder and comorbid autism spectrum disorder in youth. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders , 14 , 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2017.06.006 .

Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research , 12 (9), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302238251 .

Helverschou, S. B., Bakken, T. L., & Martinsen, H. (2009). The psychopathology in autism checklist (PAC): A pilot study. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 3 (1), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.05.004 .

Hollestein, V., Buitelaar, J. K., Brandeis, D., Banaschewski, T., Kaiser, A., Hohmann, S., Oranje, B., Gooskens, B., Durston, S., & Williams, S. C. (2021). Developmental changes in fronto-striatal glutamate and their association with functioning during inhibitory control in autism spectrum disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. NeuroImage: Clinical , 30 , 102622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102622 .

Iversen, R. K., & Lewis, C. (2021). Executive function skills are linked to restricted and repetitive behaviors: Three correlational meta analyses. Autism Research , 14 (6), 1163–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2468 .

Jacobs, G. R., Voineskos, A. N., Hawco, C., Stefanik, L., Forde, N. J., Dickie, E. W., Lai, M. C., Szatmari, P., Schachar, R., & Crosbie, J. (2021). Integration of brain and behavior measures for identification of data-driven groups cutting across children with ASD, ADHD, or OCD. Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology , 46 (3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00902-6 .

Jiujias, M., Kelley, E., & Hall, L. (2017). Restricted, repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorder and obsessive–compulsive disorder: A comparative review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development , 48 (6), 944–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-017-0717-0 .

Keyes, C., Nolte, L., & Williams, T. I. (2018). The battle of living with obsessive compulsive disorder: A qualitative study of young people’s experiences. Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 23 (3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12216 .

Kushki, A., Anagnostou, E., Hammill, C., Duez, P., Brian, J., Iaboni, A., Schachar, R., Crosbie, J., Arnold, P., & Lerch, J. P. (2019). Examining overlap and homogeneity in ASD, ADHD, and OCD: A data-driven, diagnosis-agnostic approach. Translational Psychiatry , 9 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0631-2 .

Lamothe, H., Godin, O., Stengel, C., Benmansour, S., Burckard, S., Brouillet, J., Petrucci, J., Weil, D., Lejuste, F., & Leboyer, M. (2022). Clinical characteristics of adults suffering from high-functioning autism and comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research , 311 , 114498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114498 .

Lewin, A. B., Wood, J. J., Gunderson, S., Murphy, T. K., & Storch, E. A. (2011). Phenomenology of comorbid autism spectrum and obsessive-compulsive disorders among children. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities , 23 (6), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-011-9247-z .

Longo, F., Aryal, S., Anastasiades, P., Maltese, M., Baimel, C., Albanese, F., Tabor, J., Zhu, J., Oliveira, M. M., & Gastaldo, D. (2022). Cell type-specific disruption of cortico-striatal circuitry drive repetitive patterns of behaviour in fragile X syndrome model mice. bioRxiv , 2022.2012. 2008.519509. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.08.519509 .

Lopez, B. R., Lincoln, A. J., Ozonoff, S., & Lai, Z. (2005). Examining the relationship between executive functions and restricted, repetitive symptoms of autistic disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 35 , 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-5035-x .

Mack, H., Fullana, M. A., Russell, A. J., Mataix-Cols, D., Nakatani, E., & Heyman, I. (2010). Obsessions and compulsions in children with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism: A case-control study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 44 (12), 1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048674.2010.515561 .

Maenner, M. J., Warren, Z., Williams, A. R., Amoakohene, E., Bakian, A. V., Bilder, D. A., Durkin, M. S., Fitzgerald, R. T., Furnier, S. M., & Hughes, M. M. (2023). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 72 (2), 1. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mandy, W. P., & Skuse, D. H. (2008). Research review: What is the association between the social-communication element of autism and repetitive interests, behaviours and activities? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 49 (8), 795–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01911.x .

Martínez-González, A. E., Cervin, M., & Piqueras, J. A. (2022). Relationships between emotion regulation, social communication and repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 52 (10), 4519–4527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05340-x .

McDougle, C. J., Kresch, L. E., Goodman, W. K., Naylor, S. T., Volkmar, F. R., Cohen, D. J., & Price, L. H. (1995). A case-controlled study of repetitive thoughts and behavior in adults with autistic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry , 152 (5), 772–777. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.5.772 .

McNicol, K., & Wells, A. (2012). Metacognition and obsessive-compulsive symptoms: The contribution of thought-fusion beliefs and beliefs about rituals. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy , 5 (3), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2012.5.3.330 .

Melchior, K., Franken, I. H., Vuijk, R., Peerbooms, V., & van der Heiden, C. (2021). The assessment of thought fusion beliefs and beliefs about rituals: Psychometric properties of the Thought Fusion Instrument and Beliefs about rituals Inventory. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development , 2 (1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000011 .

Miller, H. L., Ragozzino, M. E., Cook, E. H., Sweeney, J. A., & Mosconi, M. W. (2015). Cognitive set shifting deficits and their relationship to repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 45 , 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2244-1 .

Mito, H., Matsuura, N., Mukai, K., Yanagisawa, Y., Nakajima, A., Motoyama, M., Arikawa, A., Yamanishi, K., & Matsunaga, H. (2014). The impacts of elevated autism spectrum disorder traits on clinical and psychosocial features and long-term treatment outcome in adult patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry , 55 (7), 1526–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.05.005 .

Muehlmann, A. M., Maletz, S., King, M. A., & Lewis, M. H. (2020). Pharmacological targeting of striatal indirect pathway neurons improves subthalamic nucleus dysfunction and reduces repetitive behaviors in C58 mice. Behavioural Brain Research , 391 , 112708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112708 .

Murray, K., Jassi, A., Mataix-Cols, D., Barrow, F., & Krebs, G. (2015). Outcomes of cognitive behaviour therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder in young people with and without autism spectrum disorders: A case controlled study. Psychiatry Research , 228 (1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.03.012 .

Naaijen, J., Zwiers, M. P., Amiri, H., Williams, S. C., Durston, S., Oranje, B., Brandeis, D., Boecker-Schlier, R., Ruf, M., & Wolf, I. (2017). Fronto-striatal glutamate in autism spectrum disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology , 42 (12), 2456–2465. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.260 .

Nakagawa, A., Olsson, N. C., Hiraoka, Y., Nishinaka, H., Miyazaki, T., Kato, N., Nakatani, E., Tomita, M., Yoshioka, K., & Murakami, S. (2019). Long-term outcome of CBT in adults with OCD and comorbid ASD: A naturalistic follow-up study. Current Psychology , 38 (6), 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9952-1 .

Niemeyer, L., Mechler, K., Dittmann, R. W., Banaschewski, T., Buitelaar, J., Durston, S., & Häge, A. (2022). Memantine as treatment for compulsivity in child and adolescent psychiatry: Descriptive findings from an incompleted randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications , 29 , 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100982 .

Nylander, L., & Gillberg, C. (2001). Screening for autism spectrum disorders in adult psychiatric out-patients: A preliminary report. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 103 (6), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2001.00175.x .

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., & Brennan, S. E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 10 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 .

Park, L. S., Burton, C. L., Dupuis, A., Shan, J., Storch, E. A., Crosbie, J., Schachar, R. J., & Arnold, P. D. (2016). The Toronto Obsessive-compulsive scale: Psychometrics of a dimensional measure of obsessive-compulsive traits. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 55 (4), 310–318e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.01.008 .

Paula-Pérez, I. (2013). Differential diagnosis between obsessive compulsive disorder and restrictive and repetitive behavioural patterns, activities and interests in autism spectrum disorders. Revista De Psiquiatría Y Salud Mental (English Edition) , 6 (4), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsmen.2012.07.006 .

Pertusa, A., Bejerot, S., Eriksson, J., de la Fernández, L., Bonde, S., Russell, A., & Mataix-Cols, D. (2012). Do patients with hoarding disorder have autistic traits? Depression and Anxiety , 29 (3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20902 .

Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development , 33 (3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651 .

Rojas, D. C., Peterson, E., Winterrowd, E., Reite, M. L., Rogers, S. J., & Tregellas, J. R. (2006). Regional gray matter volumetric changes in autism associated with social and repetitive behavior symptoms. Bmc Psychiatry , 6 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-6-56 .

Ruscio, A. M., Stein, D. J., Chiu, W. T., & Kessler, R. C. (2010). The epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Molecular Psychiatry , 15 (1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.94 .

Russell, A. J., Mataix-Cols, D., Anson, M., & Murphy, D. G. (2005). Obsessions and compulsions in Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism. The British Journal of Psychiatry , 186 (6), 525–528. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.6.525 .

Ruta, L., Mugno, D., d’Arrigo, V. G., Vitiello, B., & Mazzone, L. (2010). Obsessive–compulsive traits in children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 19 (1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0035-6 .

Sanavio, E. (1988). Obsessions and compulsions: The Padua Inventory. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 26 (2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(88)90116-7 .

Shafran, R., Frampton, I., Heyman, I., Reynolds, M., Teachman, B., & Rachman, S. (2003). The preliminary development of a new self-report measure for OCD in young people. Journal of Adolescence , 26 (1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(02)00083-0 .

Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., & Kristjansson, E. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ , 358 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 .

Storch, E. A., Larson, M. J., Price, L. H., Rasmussen, S. A., Murphy, T. K., & Goodman, W. K. (2010). Psychometric analysis of the Yale-Brown obsessive–compulsive scale second edition symptom checklist. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 24 (6), 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.010 .

Storch, E. A., Nadeau, J. M., Johnco, C., Timpano, K., McBride, N., Mutch, J., Lewin, P., A. B., & Murphy, T. K. (2016). Hoarding in youth with autism spectrum disorders and anxiety: Incidence, clinical correlates, and behavioral treatment response. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 46 , 1602–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2687-z .

Sturm, A., Rozenman, M., Chang, S., McGough, J. J., McCracken, J. T., & Piacentini, J. C. (2018). Are the components of social reciprocity transdiagnostic across pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders? Evidence for common and disorder-specific social impairments. Psychiatry Research , 264 , 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.063 .

Tsuchiyagaito, A., Hirano, Y., Asano, K., Oshima, F., Nagaoka, S., Takebayashi, Y., Matsumoto, K., Masuda, Y., Iyo, M., & Shimizu, E. (2017). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder with and without autism spectrum disorder: Gray Matter differences associated with poor outcome. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 8 , 143. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00143 .

Turner, M. A. (1995). Repetitive behaviour and cognitive functioning in autism (Doctoral Thesis) University of Cambridge].

van Steensel, F. J. A., Bögels, S. M., & Perrin, S. (2011). Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review , 14 (3), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0097-0 .

WHO. (2004). ICD-10: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems : Tenth revision (2nd ed.). World Health Organization.

Wikramanayake, W. N. M., Mandy, W., Shahper, S., Kaur, S., Kolli, S., Osman, S., Reid, J., Jefferies-Sewell, K., & Fineberg, N. A. (2018). Autism spectrum disorders in adult outpatients with obsessive compulsive disorder in the UK. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice , 22 (1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2017.1354029 .

Zandt, F., Prior, M., & Kyrios, M. (2007). Repetitive behaviour in children with high functioning autism and obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 37 (2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0158-2 .

Zandt, F., Prior, M., & Kyrios, M. (2009). Similarities and differences between children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and those with obsessive compulsive disorder: Executive functioning and repetitive behaviour. Autism , 13 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361308097120 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Ms Emma Hinze for her contribution to inter-rater reliability coding in this manuscript.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, 58 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia

Matthew McKenzie, Cathryne Lang & Jessica Paynter

Building N23, -1.03, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

Jessica O’Loghlen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.O. L. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Project administration Software Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing. J. P: Conceptualization Data curation Methodology Supervision Visualization Writing – review & editing. M. M. Conceptualization Data curation Supervision; Visualization Writing – review & editing. C. L. Conceptualization; Supervision Visualization Writing – review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica O’Loghlen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This study is a systematic review. The Griffith University Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Contributors

Jessica O’Loghlen and Jessica Paynter designed the study. Jessica O’Loghlen wrote the protocol with input from Jessica Paynter, Matthew McKenzie, and Cathryne Lang. Jessica O’Loghlen conducted the literature searches, provided summaries of previous research studies, and conducted the analysis for the results with input from Jessica Paynter, Matthew McKenzie, and Cathryne Lang. Jessica O’Loghlen wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

O’Loghlen, J., McKenzie, M., Lang, C. et al. Repetitive Behaviors in Autism and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review. J Autism Dev Disord (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06357-8

Download citation

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06357-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Differential diagnosis
• Dual diagnosis
• Comorbidity
• Compulsions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 08 November 2023

Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence

• Chloe Clifford Astbury 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Kirsten M. Lee 1 , 2 ,
• Ryan Mcleod 1 ,
• Raphael Aguiar 2 ,
• Asma Atique 1 ,
• Marilen Balolong 4 ,
• Janielle Clarke 1 ,
• Anastassia Demeshko 1 ,
• Ronald Labonté 5 ,
• Arne Ruckert 5 ,
• Priyanka Sibal 6 ,
• Kathleen Chelsea Togño 4 ,
• A. M. Viens 1 , 3 ,
• Mary Wiktorowicz 1 , 2 ,
• Marc K. Yambayamba 7 ,
• Amy Yau 8 &
• Tarra L. Penney 1 , 2 , 3  

Globalization and Health volume  19 , Article number:  82 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2931 Accesses

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

Emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin present a critical threat to global population health. As accelerating globalisation makes epidemics and pandemics more difficult to contain, there is a need for effective preventive interventions that reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover events. Public policies can play a key role in preventing spillover events. The aim of this review is to identify and describe evaluations of public policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover. Our approach is informed by a One Health perspective, acknowledging the inter-connectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

In this systematic scoping review, we searched Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Global Health in May 2021 using search terms combining animal health and the animal-human interface, public policy, prevention and zoonoses. We screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and reported our process in line with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We also searched relevant organisations’ websites for evaluations published in the grey literature. All evaluations of public policies aiming to prevent zoonotic spillover events were eligible for inclusion. We summarised key data from each study, mapping policies along the spillover pathway.

Our review found 95 publications evaluating 111 policies. We identified 27 unique policy options including habitat protection; trade regulations; border control and quarantine procedures; farm and market biosecurity measures; public information campaigns; and vaccination programmes, as well as multi-component programmes. These were implemented by many sectors, highlighting the cross-sectoral nature of zoonotic spillover prevention. Reports emphasised the importance of surveillance data in both guiding prevention efforts and enabling policy evaluation, as well as the importance of industry and private sector actors in implementing many of these policies. Thoughtful engagement with stakeholders ranging from subsistence hunters and farmers to industrial animal agriculture operations is key for policy success in this area.

This review outlines the state of the evaluative evidence around policies to prevent zoonotic spillover in order to guide policy decision-making and focus research efforts. Since we found that most of the existing policy evaluations target ‘downstream’ determinants, additional research could focus on evaluating policies targeting ‘upstream’ determinants of zoonotic spillover, such as land use change, and policies impacting infection intensity and pathogen shedding in animal populations, such as those targeting animal welfare.

The increasing incidence of zoonotic emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) has been attributed to behavioural practices and ecological and socioeconomic change, and is predicted to continue in the coming years [ 1 ]. Higher levels of anthropogenic activity, including agricultural intensification, urbanisation and other forms of land use change, have led to increased interactions between wildlife, humans and livestock, increasing the risk of cross-species transmission [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Meanwhile, accelerating rates of globalisation and urbanisation, leading to increased global movement of people and goods and more dense human settlements, have made outbreaks of disease in human populations more difficult to contain [ 5 ]. In response, a call has been issued by leading organisations and experts, including the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Livestock Research Institute and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, to complement reactive policy responses with policies that prevent zoonotic EIDs [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. This approach, sometimes called deep prevention, would need to target upstream drivers to reduce the risk of outbreaks occuring [ 11 ].

Zoonotic spillover, defined as the transmission of a pathogen from an animal to a human, depends on the alignment of ecological, epidemiological and behavioural factors [ 12 ]. Zoonotic pathogens must be transmitted across a spillover pathway (Fig.  1 ) in order to induce infections in humans [ 12 , 13 ]. This involves meeting a series of conditions including appropriate density and distribution of reservoir hosts, pathogen prevalence, infection intensity and human exposure [ 12 ]. Across this pathway, a number of drivers of zoonotic spillover have been identified, including changes in wildlife and livestock populations [ 14 ]; deforestation, urbanisation and other forms of land use change [ 15 , 16 ]; bushmeat consumption [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]; and a variety of human practices including hunting, farming, animal husbandry, mining, keeping of exotic pets and trade [ 8 , 9 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. These large-scale changes have repeatedly given rise to spillover events [ 2 , 15 , 23 ], sometimes involving pathogens with epidemic or pandemic potential [ 24 ].

Spillover pathway adapted from Plowright et al. [ 12 , 13 ]

The responsibility for addressing zoonotic disease frequently spans multiple sectors of governance due to its relevance for both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, which recognises the health of humans, animals and the environment as being closely linked and inter-dependent [ 25 ], can be useful in understanding the spillover pathway and drivers of spillover events, as well as informing policy and governance approaches to address this cross-sectoral problem. At the international level, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the United Nations Environment Programme have endorsed a One Health approach to policymaking to respond to zoonotic infectious diseases, emphasising collaboration between agencies [ 26 ].

Operationalising a One Health approach to policy

While One Health is a promising approach to preventing zoonotic EIDs, operationalising this concept remains a challenge. Evaluative evidence exists around the effectiveness of interventions to prevent spillover events [ 13 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], however these have often been implemented as short- to medium-term programmes or academic investigations [ 8 ]. In some cases, zoonoses have re-emerged after successful programmes have ended [ 29 ]. As a result, experts have argued for the incorporation of successful interventions into policy frameworks, providing interventions with the sustainability required for long-term disease control [ 8 , 10 ].

Operationalising a One Health approach to policy involves understanding the policy options, identifying the stakeholders involved and developing insights into how to successfully implement and evaluate these policies. Although the longevity and scope of government actions may make policy an effective vehicle for prevention of emerging diseases, implementing policy is a complex process involving numerous actors with competing views and interests [ 30 ]. This context presents challenges for policy development and implementation. Where relevant policies are designed and implemented in isolation, opportunities for co-benefits may be missed and interventions may produce unintended consequences [ 31 ]. Finally, while evaluative evidence is key to informing future policy decisions, the complex systems in which policies are often implemented make evaluation challenging [ 32 ].

Aims and scope

To provide insights around how to use policy to successfully prevent zoonotic spillover events, it is necessary to synthesise the available evaluative evidence. A One Health perspective allows this evidence synthesis to incorporate a wide range of policy instruments and actors and to identify approaches to successfully implementing and evaluating policies in this complex, multi-sectoral context.

Approaches to managing epidemic and pandemic infectious pathogens when they have entered human populations have been systematically catalogued in the medical literature [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. These measures include hand washing, face masks, school closures, contact tracing, vaccination and case isolation. Further upstream, systematic reviews of interventions targeting the spillover pathway have predominantly focused on programmes rather than policies, and have been restricted by various characteristics such as geographic region [ 28 ] or pathogen type [ 29 ], or focused on programmes with an explicit endorsement of a One Health approach [ 27 ]. In consequence, a comprehensive understanding of what policies to prevent zoonotic spillover have been evaluated, what actors are involved, and how to successfully implement and evaluate them, is lacking. To address these research gaps, our objective was to synthesise the existing evaluative evidence around policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover.

Our approach to identifying and analysing this literature was informed by a One Health perspective, acknowledging the inter-connectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

We conducted a systematic scoping review of evaluations of policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover events, based on a previously published protocol [ 40 ]. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews [ 41 ]. The scoping review was conducted in line with guidelines published by Arksey and O’Malley and refined by Levac and colleagues [ 42 , 43 , 44 ], which emphasise an iterative approach suited to an exploratory research question.

The One Health perspective guided the development of the review methodology. This included the search strategy and inclusion criteria, which allow for the inclusion of policies focused on human, animal or environmental health (or any combination of these areas) and with leadership from one or more of these sectors, and the research questions, which seek to outline the policies and the range of sectors involved in implementation. While our focus on the spillover pathway meant we only included policies that had been evaluated in terms of their impacts on animal and human population distributions, health and interactions, we explicitly searched for environment-focused policies (e.g., protection of wetlands and other wildlife habitats) that might have been evaluated from this perspective. We also aimed to interrogate the One Health approach to governance, by assessing to what extent cross-sectoral collaboration – a key tenet of One Health practice [ 25 ] – emerged as a reason for policy success.

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Informed by our research objective, our research questions were:

What policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover (i.e., policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover included in the spillover pathway [ 12 ]: population distribution, health and interactions) have been evaluated?

What are the types of policies?

Which policy actors (single department, multi-sectoral, whole of government) are involved?

What are the reasons for policy success and failure, and the unintended consequences of implementing these policies?

How has evaluation of these policies been approached in the literature?

What are the methods or study designs used?

What are the outcomes?

What are the opportunities and challenges for evaluation?

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

We systematically searched four electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health) in May 2021. The search strategy was organized by the main concepts in our research question: the spillover pathway; public policy; prevention; and zoonotic pathogens. The search strategy was developed iteratively, informed by existing systematic reviews focused on related concepts [ 28 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ] and known indicator papers meeting inclusion criteria. We also searched the websites of 18 organisations involved in the prevention of zoonotic spillover to identify relevant grey literature. The choice of organisations was informed by an actor mapping exercise in which we identified key international organisations working on the prevention of emerging zoonoses using network sampling [ 50 ]. We searched the websites of a subset of these organisations, focusing on inter-governmental organisations and organisations whose main focus was zoonotic disease. See Supplementary File 1 for details of academic database and grey literature search strategies.

Stage 3: study selection

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Primary empirical study with an English-language abstract from any country or region (reviews were excluded);

Study reporting empirical findings from an evaluation of any sort; and.

Study focused on a policy implemented by government that targets the determinants of zoonotic spillover.

Academic records identified through the searches were collated and double screened using the online platform Covidence [ 51 ]. Two researchers (CCA and KML) initially screened titles and abstracts. Title and abstract screening of an initial set of 100 papers was undertaken by both researchers independently. Results were compared to ensure consistency in decisions around study eligibility, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. This process was repeated until an acceptable level of agreement (> 90%) was reached. The remaining papers were then screened by one of the two reviewers. Full-text screening was undertaken by two independent researchers and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies with full-texts in any language were eligible for inclusion if they include an English-language abstract. Full-text studies published in French, Spanish or Chinese were single-screened by a member of the research team fluent in that language (CCA or AY). Studies published in other languages were translated as necessary.

Grey literature was screened by one researcher (CCA) to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. Publications were initially screened by looking at titles, tables of contents and executive summaries. Where these indicated that the publication might be eligible, documents were read in full to determine if inclusion criteria were met.

In line with published guidelines, the approach to study selection was refined iteratively when reviewing articles for inclusion [ 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Stage 4: charting the data

Data charting was conducted using a form designed to identify the information required to answer the research question and sub-research questions (see Supplementary File 2). Data charting focused on characteristics of the study, the policy, and the evaluation. For each policy, this included identifying which determinant of zoonotic spillover situated along the spillover pathway was being targeted. For the purpose of this study, we used a model of the spillover pathway adapted from Plowright et al.’s work [ 12 , 13 ], in which we differentiated between wildlife and domesticated animals (Fig.  1 ). This differentiation is important in the policy context, as the wildlife-domesticated animal interface is an important site for intervention, as well as the human-animal interface.

The data charting form was piloted with ten records to ensure that it was consistent with the research question, and revised iteratively [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Data charting was conducted by one researcher (CCA, RM, JC, AD or PS) and checked by a second researcher (CCA or KML). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

Our protocol stated that we would use the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [ 52 ] to assess study quality [ 40 ]. However, on reviewing the included studies we selected two tools that were more appropriate to their characteristics: (1) ROBINS-I [ 53 ] for quantitative outcome evaluations and (2) a tool developed by the authors of a previous review [ 54 ] – based on Dixon-Woods et al.’s approach to assessing study credibility and contribution [ 55 ] – for all other study types. Two researchers (CCA and KML) assessed study quality independently for an initial set of 10 studies, before comparing assessments and reaching agreement where discrepancies occurred. This process was repeated until an adequate level of agreement was reached (> 90%). The remaining studies were assessed by a single researcher (CCA or KML). Records were not excluded based on quality assessment. Instead, assessments were primarily used to help synthesize the literature on how policies were evaluated. Quality assessment was not performed on grey literature due to the wide variability in the format and comprehensiveness of included publications.

We analysed the charted data, presenting a numerical summary of the included studies in table form, allowing us to describe the range of policy interventions that have been evaluated, aspects of policy implementation and approaches to evaluation. Based on the charted data, we inductively grouped evaluated policies with similar characteristics into policy types and assigned a policy instrument to each policy type: communication/marketing, guidelines, fiscal, regulation, legislation, environmental/social planning or service provision. We mapped policy types onto the spillover pathway shown in Fig.  1 to outline the policies that have been used to target each of these determinants. Thematic analysis was conducted using the approach described by Braun and Clarke where the focus is guided by the researcher’s analytic interests [ 56 ], with five overarching themes chosen as an a priori coding framework: (1) reasons for policy success; (2) reasons for policy failure; (3) unintended consequences of policy implementation; (4) opportunities for policy evaluation; and (5) challenges for policy evaluation. We selected these themes based on our research questions and previous familiarisation with the included articles during the process of article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Sub-themes were subsequently identified through close reading and coding of the included articles. Thematic analysis was conducted by one researcher (RM) using the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose [ 57 ] and reviewed by the lead author (CCA).

Study characteristics

After removing duplicates, our searches identified a total of 5064 academic records. After screening titles and abstracts, we considered 330 records for full-text review. We also identified 11 relevant publications through our grey literature search. Grey literature reports were published by five organisations: four organisations focused on health and disease, including an intergovernmental organisation (the World Organisation for Animal Health) and three non-governmental organisations (the One Health Commission, the Global Alliance for Rabies Control and EcoHealth Alliance); and one non-governmental organisation focused on wildlife trade (TRAFFIC). In total, we included 95 publications in this review (PRISMA diagram in Fig.  2 ) [ 58 ].

We excluded studies which assessed the unintended consequences of policies to prevent zoonotic spillover without evaluating their effectiveness. This included studies that looked exclusively at the mental health impacts of mandatory livestock culls on farm workers [ 59 ]; studies which focused on potentially relevant factors, such as the wildlife trade, but with no consideration of outcomes situated on the spillover pathway [ 60 ]; and studies which assessed the detection power of surveillance systems without assessing the impact of associated policy interventions [ 61 , 62 , 63 ].

Policy characteristics

The characteristics of the policies evaluated in the included studies are presented in Supplementary File 3 and summarised in Table  1 . Some studies evaluated more than one policy, particularly modelling studies which compared the impacts of several policy options and process evaluations focused on a range of activities undertaken by a single government. Therefore, the number of evaluated policies (n = 111) is greater than the number of included studies (n = 95).

Most policies were evaluated for their impact on human exposure (21%), pathogen prevalence in domesticated animals (18%), barriers within domesticated animals (15%), and pathogen survival and spread in domesticated animals (9%). There were also a number of multi-component policies studies across multiple stages of the spillover pathway (18%). Fewer studies focused on wildlife health and populations, and none of the included studies evaluated policies for their impact on infection intensity and pathogen release in either domesticated animals or wildlife.

Where the government department responsible for implementing a policy was identified in the paper, most policies were implemented by a single department (35%), although there were a number of multi-sectoral efforts (24%). The range of government sectors responsible for implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover included human health, animal health, food safety, agriculture, conservation, national parks, forestry, fisheries, environmental protection, border control and foreign affairs. Policies were predominantly intended to be implemented by private sector actors, including individuals and organisations working in trade, retail, hunting and animal agriculture. However, some policies were also implemented by public sector actors working in public health, veterinary public health and environmental conservation.

Most policies were situated in high-income (49%) and upper middle-income (28%) countries, with studies from East Asia and the Pacific (43%) and Europe and Central Asia (19%) dominating. Publications focused on policies targeting various zoonotic diseases, with the most common being avian influenza (50%), rabies (19%), brucellosis (11%) and Hendra virus (4%).

Most policies were evaluated using process (38%) or outcome (31%) evaluation. The most frequently used policy instrument was legislation (59%), particularly for managing pathogen spread in domesticated animals through measures such as mandatory vaccination, culls or disinfection protocols. Meanwhile, communication and marketing or service provision was more typically used to reduce risk in wildlife and human populations, for example by providing guidance around recommended hygiene protocol, by distributing oral vaccination in wildlife habitat or by offering vaccination to human populations.

PRISMA 2020 diagram [ 58 ]

What policies aimed at preventing zoonotic spillover have been evaluated?

Policy types targeted different determinants across the pathway to zoonotic spillover and used various approaches with different evidence of success (Table  2 ). We identified policy options including culling – both general and targeted – of wild and domesticated animals; habitat protection (limiting activities such as agriculture and animal husbandry in wildlife habitats); supplemental feeding to control wildlife movements; vaccination of both wildlife, domesticated animals and human populations with occupational exposure to animals; policies to improve biosecurity in sites where animals are kept, slaughtered and sold, including mandates and information campaigns; live animal market closures; and bans on hunting and selling wildlife. Where outcomes or impacts were evaluated, most policies saw some level of success (i.e., outcome measures were found to vary in a direction that indicated policy success), though relative effectiveness was not assessed due to variation in study design and outcome measure. Policies with consistent evidence of effectiveness – where outcome measures varied in a direction that indicated policy success in all studies included in the review – included culling and sterilisation of wildlife populations, habitat protection, vaccination in wildlife and domesticated animal populations and mandated disinfection protocols. Policies with equivocal evidence of success (i.e., outcome measures varied in different directions or studies had different findings, some indicating success and some indicating failure) included supplemental feeding of wildlife, pre-emptive livestock culls, live animal market closures and bans on wildlife hunting, trade and consumption. For many policies, there were no impact or outcome evaluations identified in this review.

What are the reasons for policy success?

The evidence from the identified impact and outcome evaluations suggests that most of the policies succeeded to some extent. A range of factors contributed to policy success. First, studies emphasized the importance of effective collaboration and coordination between various agencies, disciplines, and levels of government in the execution of policy directives [ 114 , 115 ], in line with a One Health approach to policy and governance. Policy success was attributed, in part, to strong working relationships that encouraged effective communication between various government agencies, and facilitated timely and appropriate policy responses [ 115 ]. Synergy between agencies responsible for surveillance and the execution of control strategies was also reported to be beneficial. For example, prompt communication and effective collaboration between laboratories testing samples and agencies implementing culls in the field was seen as important in the control of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Nigeria [ 116 ]. Similarly, authors also identified the importance of private-public relations and private sector contributions to implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover [ 112 ]. This included stronger government engagement with private veterinarians as a factor for success in reducing the spillover of Hendra virus in Queensland [ 109 ], and with farmers, poultry companies and national farming and poultry processing associations in Ghana as part of a successful campaign to reduce risk from highly pathogenic avian influenza [ 112 ]. Studies suggest that the inclusion of private sector stakeholders in the policy process has the potential to improve compliance through transparent dialogue around disease ecology, risk and risk mitigation [ 90 , 91 , 103 , 117 ]; and highlight the utility of participatory approaches in prompting behaviour changes [ 91 ].

Second, authors emphasised the significance of economic incentives, suggesting that policy impact is dependent on private actors’ appraisal of costs and benefits. Studies illustrated how incentives, including compensation, subsidies, rebates, and fines, have had varying degrees of success [ 91 , 97 , 112 , 115 ]. Compensation levels [ 104 , 114 ] and enforcement practices [ 92 ] were identified as salient factors for compliance and adherence. For example, fear of sanctions for bushmeat hunting while a ban was in place in some parts of West Africa were identified as a stronger incentive to avoid bushmeat hunting than the fear of contracting Ebola virus [ 97 ]. Culls were seen as particularly challenging in this regard: while the long-term benefits for farmers may outweigh the financial loss [ 104 ], authorities need to be conscientious of the substantial economic impacts when considering policies that mandate culling or safe disposal [ 95 ]. The direct losses related to compliance (time, labour and expenses) and indirect losses due to price fluctuations and decreases in trade volume, as well as losses to associated industries, are substantial [ 88 , 96 , 113 , 118 ].

Third, trust in government and public support for implemented policy were specified as critical factors influencing the effectiveness of disease control strategies, and research suggests that strategic engagement to facilitate compliance is a necessary step in the policy process [ 97 ]. Participatory approaches that attempt to identify and understand factors influencing compliance have been consistently used to overcome resistance to policy, as insights from engagement and consultation can lead to solutions that facilitate behaviour change at the population level [ 91 , 103 ]. For example, a World Health Organization initiative to reduce avian influenza transmission in poultry markets in Indonesia worked alongside market vendors to achieve its aims, carrying out repeated consultations with the vendors and implementing market infrastructure (such as energy and running water in the market) in collaboration with local authorities to support vendor behaviour change [ 91 ].

Fourth, studies also demonstrated the importance of public communication. The quality of information, as well as the volume, complexity and delivery of public health messages, were key factors [ 75 , 114 ]. Authors contend that communication strategies must understand the target audience and how they interpret and engage with messages [ 97 ], for example by building on relationships where there is exiting trust, such as between veterinarians advising animal vaccination and animal owners [ 117 ]. Homogenously delivered communication strategies were ineffectual: they limited opportunities for open discourse; discounted contradictory lived experiences and expressions of uncertainty; and ultimately contributed to scepticism surrounding implemented policies [ 97 , 117 ].

Finally, studies underscored the importance of surveillance infrastructure to inform intervention strategies. Surveillance programs with the ability to collect and operationalize relevant data were essential to the development of appropriate interventions that are responsive to each unique context [ 115 , 119 ]. Implementing effective surveillance programmes requires the appropriate evaluation tools [ 120 ] and trained personnel [ 81 ].

What are the reasons for policy failure?

Studies showed that perceptions of acceptability and appropriateness were crucial to the effectiveness of implemented policies [ 101 , 104 ]. Several factors were identified that negatively affected acceptability and appropriateness, including: additional expenses for private sector actors without sufficient support [ 75 , 100 , 104 , 112 , 114 ], particularly were culls were demanded but reimbursement for farmers was slow and inadequate, as in a brucellosis eradication campaign in Macedonia [ 81 ]; lack of affordable alternatives [ 97 ]; impracticality of implemented strategies [ 75 , 101 ]; lack of cultural understanding in designing policy interventions [ 97 , 100 ], for example the distribution of footwear to pig farmers in a Polynesian context where footwear was not traditionally worn [ 100 ]; lack of understanding of viral ecology [ 100 ]; as well as public scepticism and distrust [ 97 , 114 ].

Additionally, policy ineffectiveness was associated with poor planning and execution of intervention strategies, including lack of clear direction [ 114 ]; incomplete or inconsistent implementation of control measures (17); limited scope of intervention [ 114 ]; and poor enforcement [ 92 ]. A lack of adequate resources to implement strategies also contributed to policy failure [ 81 ]. Adequate financial resources were necessary to hire and train staff to run surveillance and control operations [ 81 ]. Financial resources were also necessary to fund compensation mechanisms that facilitate compliance. Willingness to adopt policy-prescribed disposal practices was found to be associated with compensation levels (incentives) as a proportion of production price, dependency on income from activities driving zoonotic risk, and contact with prevention staff [ 92 ].

What are the unintended consequences of implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover?

A small number of the included studies collected data on the unintended consequences of policies to prevent zoonotic spillover (n = 18). In some instances, unintended consequences were due to disease ecology or human behaviour as a result of policy failure. For example, a study assessing the impacts of the closure of a live poultry market found that, following the closure, vendors travelled to neighbouring markets to sell their animals [ 94 ]. As a result, while cases of avian influenza decreased in the area surrounding the closed market, cases increased in these neighbouring markets, leading to the wider geographic spread of the disease. In another study, elk were provided with supplementary feeding grounds to discourage them from coming into contact with the livestock who shared their range [ 65 ]. While this intervention had the intended consequence of reducing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and livestock, the spread of brucellosis between the elk using the supplementary feeding grounds – who were gathering in larger, tighter groups for longer periods, resulting in higher within-herd transmission – and other elk populations in the area increased. This resulted in an increasing prevalence of brucellosis among the elk, potentially increasing the risk of spillover to livestock. These examples illustrate the complexity of the social and ecological systems in which these policies are implemented, further suggesting the need for a One Health approach to policies to prevent zoonotic spillover.

A key unintended consequence can be attributed to the loss of profits and livelihoods sometimes associated with policies to prevent zoonotic spillover, as described above. The losses incurred by complying with regulations made farmers, hunters and other private sector actors reluctant to report potential infections, contributing to increased unauthorized or illegal activity, and unrestrained spread of disease [ 90 , 92 , 94 , 98 , 112 , 114 ]. Studies investigated the creative ways policy enforcement was circumvented, including hiding hunting equipment on the outskirts of towns or developing informal trade markets and networks [ 97 , 98 ]. Unintended consequences identified in the included evaluations emphasize an opportunity for policymakers to improve sector compliance through public education, levying the influence of consumer attitudes on industry standards [ 104 , 113 ].

A range of study designs were used to evaluate policies. Outcome evaluations (n = 33) used time series or repeat cross-sectional data to conduct evaluations of natural experiments, though most studies did not include a control group for comparison. Outcome evaluations also used case-control and modelling approaches to assess policy impact on an outcome of interest. Process evaluations (n = 30) used cross-sectional and qualitative approaches, as well as study designs combining multiple sources of data, to understand aspects of policy implementation such as the extent to which the policy was being implemented as designed, and the responses and attitudes of stakeholders involved in policy implementation. Economic evaluations (n = 11) included cost-benefit analyses, risk-benefit analyses and modelling studies. Formative evaluations (n = 17) used modelling approaches to estimate what the impacts of a proposed policy option would be in a specific context.

Outcome variables interpreted as indicators of policy success were also numerous and represented determinants along the spillover pathway. As expected, many studies assessed impact on disease transmission, including disease prevalence and incidence, disease eradication, case numbers, and basic reproduction number in human and animal populations, as well as evidence of disease in environmental samples, such as in live animal markets or at carcass disposal sites. Studies also assessed impacts on intermediate factors indicative of successful implementation of specific policies, such as the availability of wild species in markets where a trade ban had been implemented, or knowledge and practices of stakeholders in response to an educational or information campaign.

While most studies found a reduced risk of zoonotic spillover following policy implementation, comparing the magnitude of these impacts was challenging due to the variety of study designs and outcome measures used in the included studies. However, we identified several studies which used modelling to directly compare the impacts of policy options. These studies evaluated various policy scenarios: different combinations within multi-component policy interventions [ 121 ]; culling versus vaccinating wildlife [ 122 ] and livestock [ 84 , 85 ] populations; targeting strategies to humans exclusively versus targeting humans and livestock [ 108 ]; and altering the parameters for culling and vaccination strategies, for example by modelling different ranges for culling and vaccination near infected farms [ 85 ]. These studies often highlighted trade-offs between the effectiveness of policy measures and their cost. For example, estimates of the number of infected flocks were lower when incorporating a ring cull (cull of animals on farms surrounding an outbreak) into a multi-component control strategy for highly pathogenic avian influenza [ 121 ]. However, livestock vaccination was estimated to be a highly effective strategy, with one study findings livestock vaccination to be as or more effective than a pre-emptive cull for outbreak control purposes (depending on the extent of vaccination coverage), while minimising the number of animals culled [ 85 ]. One study jointly modelled costs and benefits of strategies, and found that livestock vaccination had a higher cost-benefit ratio than a wildlife cull [ 122 ]. A final study highlighted the potential of holistic approaches, with drug administration in humans and livestock having a lower cost per disability-adjusted life year averted than intervention in humans alone [ 108 ].

Study authors noted a number of challenges encountered while evaluating policies to prevent zoonotic spillover. One study noted the difficulty of determining the impact of policies aiming to reduce spillover events between wildlife, livestock and humans, as the number of spillover events is often relatively small [ 65 ]. This highlights the importance of considering upstream determinants and risk factors as outcome measures in attempting to evaluate these policies, particularly where spillover events may happen infrequently or not at all during the period of observation. Studying changes in risk factors for spillover can provide insight on the effectiveness of different policies in tackling spillover risk.

Lack of suitable data was a frequently cited barrier to policy evaluation. As policies to prevent zoonotic spillover are often reactive, being implemented in response to an outbreak in animal populations, accessing data from before a policy was implemented was challenging. Studies highlighted the value of routinely collected data, which was often the only data available and was frequently used for policy evaluation [ 65 , 66 , 94 , 115 , 119 , 123 ]. However, in many contexts routine data on animal health is not collected [ 80 ]. Routine testing data from livestock can sometimes be used for evaluation where it exists, but it does not always provide sufficient detail for examining the potential for a policy to prevent zoonotic spillover. For example, some tests do not differentiate between current and past infection, making it difficult to identify where and when spillover occurred [ 65 ], and animal health data may not be granular enough for policy evaluation, particularly in terms of evaluating local policies [ 94 ]. Studies also highlighted instances where the private sector may own data sets reporting disease prevalence and transmission, but may be reluctant to share the data for evaluation purposes [ 121 ]. In such instances, open communication and good relationships with the private sector may be facilitators to evaluation.

Beyond the lack of baseline data, studies highlighted the difficulty in collecting information about policy compliance. As failing to comply often puts farmers and hunters at risk of fines or imprisonment, they were reluctant to disclose information about non-compliance or participation in illegal trade and sale of animals [ 86 , 92 , 97 , 112 ]. This made it difficult to determine policy effectiveness.

Quality assessment

Of the 44 quantitative evaluations, 37 were evaluated as being at moderate or higher risk of bias (see Supplementary File 4), given the possibility of bias in the assessment of intervention impact due to the presence of confounding effects. A small number of studies were determined to be at serious (n = 6) or critical (n = 1) risk of bias, for two main reasons: only having data from after the intervention was implemented; or using a case-control study model without measuring and adjusting for important potential confounders, such as the prevalence of a targeted disease prior to policy implementation. These limitations may reflect the nature of zoonotic spillover events and policy responses, which can happen quickly and leave little time for baseline data collection. Many of the included studies relied on surveillance data, but where such data sets are not available, post-test and case-control study designs may be the only options.

The quality of studies assessed with the tool developed based on Dixon-Woods’ approach [ 55 ] was high overall (n = 41, see Supplementary file 5). Most studies were rated as high in terms of clearly and comprehensively presenting their results (n = 37), analysis (n = 34), research design (n = 33), aims (n = 32) and research process (n = 28). Most studies also had a high relevance to the research question (n = 31), indicating that the research was embedded in policy, being commissioned, co-designed or conducted in partnership with government stakeholders.

We identified a range of policies targeting different parts of the spillover pathway implemented by various policy and governance sectors, including some multi-sectoral initiatives. Policies tended to rely heavily on private sector actors (including actors ranging from small-scale farmers and hunters to larger commercial operations) for implementation, suggesting that open communication and collaboration with these actors was essential for successful policy implementation. Policy success was undermined by lack of collaboration between government agencies; lack of communication between surveillance and control operations; poor understanding of the context in which policies were implemented; and inadequate financial compensation for private sector actors who lost profits and incurred additional costs by complying with policies. Where policies were ineffective, this tended to be due to unintended consequences relating to complex dynamics within the social and ecological systems where policies were implemented. Lack of appropriate data was a key obstacle to policy evaluation, and studies emphasised the importance of robust surveillance infrastructure in evaluating policies that tended to be implemented reactively, in response to an outbreak of zoonotic disease in animal or human populations.

Implications for policy and practice

The key role that the private sector and industry actors play in implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover is an important consideration for policymakers. Our findings suggest that many of these policies must be complied with by farmers – from subsistence and smallholder farmers to large corporations – as well as by other actors, such as hunters. Lack of awareness as well as financial costs of compliance among these groups present key barriers to policy success in this area. This set of stakeholders is complex as some may make very marginal profits, if any, and may struggle to afford the additional costs of implementing preventive policies. However, powerful actors and profitable industries are also involved, including large-scale farms and primary resource extraction enterprises [ 22 ]. Acknowledging the differences across these stakeholder groups, and in particular assessing their capacity to bear some of the costs related to prevention, emerges as crucial in successful policy implementation.

Finally, our findings highlight the importance of disease surveillance in efforts to reduce the risk of spillover events. As well as acting as an early warning system, surveillance provides a source of data to evaluate the impact of preventive policies. We found the availability of surveillance data to be a key enabling factor in evaluating policies. In addition, close collaboration between agencies responsible for disease surveillance and control efforts was key to policy success. National surveillance efforts, as well as cross-country collaboration to support global efforts, such as the United States Agency for International Development’s PREDICT program supporting surveillance in areas at high risk for zoonotic disease outbreaks [ 124 ], must be sustained and expanded. In complex areas such as the prevention of zoonotic spillover, approaches to surveillance which encompass risk factors and transmission pathways [ 125 ], as well as One Health surveillance systems which harmonise and integrate data collection and analysis from across human, animal and environmental sectors [ 126 ], are promising approaches to developing surveillance systems that support risk. This context also involves a need to strengthen surveillance capacity in remote and rural locations, as communities living in these contexts may have exposure to numerous pathogens of wildlife origin. This will require strengthening clinical and diagnostic capacity in these settings, as well as engaging with stakeholders such as community human and animal health workers and wildlife or national park rangers [ 127 ].

Comparison with existing literature

This review sought to map the range of policies implemented to reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover, and the various approaches taken to evaluation, and identify factors behind the success and failure of policy implementation and evaluation. Due to this broad scope, comparing relative effectiveness of policy interventions was challenging. Existing systematic reviews with a more specific focus could apply meta-analysis to determine which interventions were most effective. For example, a review of market-level biosecurity measures aiming to reduce the transmission of avian influenza found that reducing market size, separating poultry species, cleaning and disinfecting premises, closing markets and banning overnight storage were highly effective interventions [ 45 ]. However, our findings suggest that studies focused on the control of avian influenza dominate the literature in this space (55 out of 111 evaluated policies), and many of these are focused on market-level measures. Systematic reviews focused on other approaches to reduce spillover risk, such as on-farm biosecurity [ 47 ]; biosecurity for backyard poultry rearing [ 46 ]; and community-based interventions [ 28 ] comment on the paucity of high-quality evidence around the impacts of such approaches. By taking a broad perspective, we hope our findings will provide policy options for consideration in a number of contexts, and guide researchers in focusing their efforts on areas where evidence is lacking.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to systematically identify and document evaluations of policies aiming to prevent the spillover of zoonotic pathogens into human populations. However, because of the complex drivers of spillover events, some potentially relevant policy evaluations may be excluded where their outcome measures are too far removed from zoonotic spillover. While relevant, such evaluations will be difficult to systematically identify as they make no reference to zoonotic disease.

In addition, this review focused on policy evaluations that have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature and the grey literature published by international agencies and organisations working on these topics. Policies that have been implemented but not evaluated, or evaluated but not published in these literatures, will therefore be excluded from this review. As a result, potentially effective and important policies in the prevention of zoonotic spillover events may not have been identified. However, we hope that the findings from this review will highlight these gaps in the evaluative evidence. We also hope that this review, by extracting practical dimensions, such as study design, outcome measures and the challenges encountered in the evaluation process, will support policymakers and researchers in carrying out further policy evaluations in this space.

Unanswered questions and future research

Our findings highlight several important gaps in the evidence. First, while observational evidence emphasises the importance of upstream determinants such as environmental and ecosystem health in the increasing rate of zoonotic spillover [ 1 , 15 ], we only identified a single evaluation of a policy attempting to target one of these upstream determinants: an evaluation carried out in China to assess the impact of the Ramstar wetland protection program on avian influenza in migratory waterfowl [ 66 ]. This study found that proximity to protected wetlands reduced outbreak risk. Authors hypothesised that this effect was due to the separation of wild waterfowl and poultry populations and the diversion of wild waterfowl away from human-dominated landscapes and toward protected natural habitats. Our findings support existing calls for more quantitative and mechanistic studies of the impact of interventions supporting environmental and ecosystem health on zoonotic spillover risk [ 128 ], as well as calls for greater integration of the environment into One Health research, policy and practice [ 31 ]. Further evaluations of environment and habitat protection policies would strengthen our understanding of this area. In addition, the impact of policies to reduce deforestation or expand forest coverage, such as China’s Grain-to-Green program [ 129 ], on the spillover pathway could be evaluated. Such evaluations might consider potential unintended consequences, as these policies could promote healthier wildlife populations with better disease resistance, but may also facilitate wildlife population growth and higher rates of wildlife-human encounters [ 130 ].

There is also a lack of evaluation of policies targeting infection intensity and pathogen release in either wildlife or domesticated animals. These could include approaches such as improving animal health and welfare to make these populations more resistant to disease [ 13 ]. While arguments have been made for strengthening legal structures supporting animal welfare in order to reduce the risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission [ 131 ], there is a need to evaluate policies that take this approach.

Our review found publications evaluating a wide range of policy interventions spanning the spillover pathway, including habitat protection; trade regulations; border control and quarantine procedures; farm and market biosecurity measures; public information campaigns; and vaccination programmes for wildlife and domesticated animals, as well as human populations with occupational exposure to animals. A wide range of governance sectors implemented these policies, highlighting the prevention of zoonotic spillover as a cross-sectoral issue, though most policies were implemented by a single sector. Our findings highlight the importance of industry and private actors in implementing policies to prevent zoonotic spillover, and the need for thoughtful and effective engagement with this wide range of actors, from subsistence hunters and farmers through to industrial animal agriculture operations to address their concerns through a range of incentives. We also identified the centrality of surveillance data in evaluating policies that are often implemented reactively, and effective collaboration between surveillance and control operations as a central factor in successful policy implementation.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Analysis code for descriptive characteristics of included policies is available on GitHub.

Abbreviations

Emerging infectious disease

Morse SS, Mazet JA, Woolhouse M, Parrish CR, Carroll D, Karesh WB, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Lipkin WI, Daszak P. Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis. The Lancet. 2012;380:1956–65.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pulliam JRC, Epstein JH, Dushoff J, Rahman SA, Bunning M, Jamaluddin AA, Hyatt AD, Field HE, Dobson AP, Daszak P. Agricultural intensification, priming for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal bat-borne zoonosis. J Royal Soc Interface. 2012;9:89–101.

IPCC. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. Climate Change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In press ed. Cambridge University Press; 2022.

Brenner N, Ghosh S. Between the colossal and the catastrophic: planetary urbanization and the political ecologies of emergent Infectious Disease. Environ Plan A. 2022;54:867–910.

Gallo-Cajiao E, Lieberman S, Dolšak N, et al. Global governance for pandemic prevention and the wildlife trade. Lancet Planet Health. 2023;7:e336–45.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marco MD, Baker ML, Daszak P, et al. Opinion: sustainable development must account for pandemic risk. PNAS. 2020;117:3888–92.

Heymann DL, Dixon M. Infections at the Animal/Human interface: shifting the paradigm from emergency response to Prevention at source. In: Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M, Daszak P, Richt JA, editors. One health: the human-animal-environment interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases: Food Safety and Security, and International and National plans for implementation of one health activities. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. pp. 207–15.

Google Scholar  

United Nations Environment Programme, International Livestock Research Institute. (2020) Preventing the next pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. 82.

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2020) Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317 .

One Health theory of change. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/one-health-theory-of-change . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Vinuales J, Moon S, Moli GL, Burci G-L. A global pandemic treaty should aim for deep prevention. The Lancet. 2021;397:1791–2.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, Lloyd-Smith JO. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:502–10.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sokolow SH, Nova N, Pepin KM, et al. Ecological interventions to prevent and manage zoonotic pathogen spillover. Philosophical Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. 2019;374:20180342.

Johnson CK, Hitchens PL, Pandit PS, Rushmore J, Evans TS, Young CCW, Doyle MM. Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. 2020;287:20192736.

Allen T, Murray KA, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Morse SS, Rondinini C, Di Marco M, Breit N, Olival KJ, Daszak P. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic Diseases. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1124.

Gandy M. THE ZOONOTIC CITY: Urban Political Ecology and the pandemic imaginary. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2022;46:202–19.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hardi R, Babocsay G, Tappe D, Sulyok M, Bodó I, Rózsa L. Armillifer-infected snakes sold at Congolese Bushmeat Markets Represent an emerging zoonotic threat. EcoHealth. 2017;14:743–9.

Steve A-M, Ahidjo A, Placide M-K, et al. High prevalences and a wide genetic diversity of Simian Retroviruses in non-human Primate Bushmeat in Rural areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo. EcoHealth. 2017;14:100–14.

Weiss S, Nowak K, Fahr J, Wibbelt G, Mombouli J-V, Parra H-J, Wolfe ND, Schneider BS, Leendertz FH. Henipavirus-related sequences in Fruit Bat Bushmeat, Republic of Congo. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:1536–7.

Aguirre AA, Catherina R, Frye H, Shelley L. Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: preventing future pandemics. World Med Health Policy. 2020;12:256–65.

Nadimpalli ML, Pickering AJ. A call for global monitoring of WASH in wet markets. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4:e439–40.

Viliani F, Edelstein M, Buckley E, Llamas A, Dar O. Mining and emerging infectious Diseases: results of the Infectious Disease Risk Assessment and Management (IDRAM) initiative pilot. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2017;4:251–9.

Wegner GI, Murray KA, Springmann M, Muller A, Sokolow SH, Saylors K, Morens DM. Averting wildlife-borne Infectious Disease epidemics requires a focus on socio-ecological drivers and a redesign of the global food system. eClinicalMedicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101386 .

Daszak P. Anatomy of a pandemic. The Lancet. 2012;380:1883–4.

Joint Tripartite (FAO, OIE, WHO) and UNEP Statement. Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s definition of one health. ” OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health; 2021.

(2022) One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2289en .

Baum SE, Machalaba C, Daszak P, Salerno RH, Karesh WB. Evaluating one health: are we demonstrating effectiveness? One Health. 2017;3:5–10.

Halton K, Sarna M, Barnett A, Leonardo L, Graves N. A systematic review of community-based interventions for emerging zoonotic infectious Diseases in Southeast Asia. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2013;11:1–235.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meyer A, Holt HR, Selby R, Guitian J. Past and Ongoing Tsetse and Animal Trypanosomiasis Control Operations in five African countries: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0005247.

Howlett M, Cashore B. Conceptualizing Public Policy. In: Engeli I, Allison CR, editors. Comparative Policy studies: conceptual and methodological challenges. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014. pp. 17–33.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barrett MA, Bouley TA. Need for enhanced environmental representation in the implementation of one health. EcoHealth. 2015;12:212–9.

Barbrook-Johnson P, Proctor A, Giorgi S, Phillipson J. How do policy evaluators understand complexity? Evaluation. 2020;26:315–32.

Saunders-Hastings P, Crispo JAG, Sikora L, Krewski D. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic Influenza transmission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemics. 2017;20:1–20.

Bin Nafisah S, Alamery AH, Al Nafesa A, Aleid B, Brazanji NA. School closure during novel Influenza: a systematic review. J Infect Public Health. 2018;11:657–61.

Viner RM, Russell SJ, Croker H, Packer J, Ward J, Stansfield C, Mytton O, Bonell C, Booy R. School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. 2020;4:397–404.

Juneau C-E, Pueyo T, Bell M, Gee G, Collazzo P, Potvin L. (2020) Evidence-Based, cost-effective interventions to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. medRxiv 2020.04.20.20054726.

MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of Infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ. 2015;350:h694.

Smith SMS, Sonego S, Wallen GR, Waterer G, Cheng AC, Thompson P. Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of Influenza in adults: a systematic review. Respirology. 2015;20:896–903.

Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L et al. (2011) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD006207.

Astbury CC, Lee KM, Aguiar R, et al. Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: protocol for a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e058437.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

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

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.

Zhou X, Wang Y, Liu H, Guo F, Doi SA, Smith C, Clements ACA, Edwards J, Huang B, Soares Magalhães RJ. Effectiveness of Market-Level Biosecurity at reducing exposure of Poultry and humans to Avian Influenza: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2018;218:1861–75.

Conan A, Goutard FL, Sorn S, Vong S. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: a systematic review. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8:240.

Youssef DM, Wieland B, Knight GM, Lines J, Naylor NR. The effectiveness of biosecurity interventions in reducing the transmission of bacteria from livestock to humans at the farm level: a systematic literature review. Zoonoses Public Health. 2021;68:549–62.

Shi N, Huang J, Zhang X, Bao C, Yue N, Wang Q, Cui T, Zheng M, Huo X, Jin H. Interventions in live poultry markets for the Control of Avian Influenza: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2020;221:553–60.

Cupertino MC, Resende MB, Mayer NA, Carvalho LM, Siqueira-Batista R. Emerging and re-emerging human infectious Diseases: a systematic review of the role of wild animals with a focus on public health impact. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2020;13:99.

Clifford Astbury C, Demeshko A, McLeod R, Wiktorowicz M, Gallo Caijao E, Cullerton K, Lee KM, Viens AM, Penney TL. (2023) Governance of the wildlife trade and prevention of emerging zoonoses: a mixed methods network analysis of global organisations. [In preparation].

Covidence - Better. systematic review management. https://www.covidence.org/home . Accessed 17 Jul 2020.

Effective Public Health Practice Project. (2009) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. 4.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

Clifford Astbury C, McGill E, Egan M, Penney TL. Systems thinking and complexity science methods and the policy process in non-communicable Disease prevention: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e049878.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.

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

(2021) Dedoose Version 8.3.47, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Park H, Chun MS, Joo Y. Traumatic stress of frontline workers in culling livestock animals in South Korea. Animals. 2020;10:1–11.

Programme UNE. Effectiveness of policy interventions relating to the illegal and unsustainable. Wildlife Trade - Policy Brief; 2019.

Cito F, Narcisi V, Danzetta ML, Iannetti S, Sabatino DD, Bruno R, Carvelli A, Atzeni M, Sauro F, Calistri P. Analysis of Surveillance systems in Place in European Mediterranean Countries for West Nile Virus (WNV) and Rift Valley Fever (RVF). Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013;60:40–4.

Schwind JS, Goldstein T, Thomas K, Mazet JA, Smith WA, PREDICT Consortium. Capacity building efforts and perceptions for wildlife surveillance to detect zoonotic pathogens: comparing stakeholder perspectives. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:684.

Reisen WK, Kramer VL, Barker CM. CALIFORNIA STATE MOSQUITO-BORNE VIRUS SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE PLAN: A RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION USING CONDITIONAL SIMULATIONS *. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;68:508–18.

Smith GC, Cheeseman CL. A mathematical model for the control of Diseases in wildlife populations: culling, vaccination and fertility control. Ecol Model. 2002;150:45–53.

Brennan A, Cross PC, Portacci K, Scurlock BM, Edwards WH. Shifting brucellosis risk in livestock coincides with spreading seroprevalence in elk. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0178780.

Wu T, Perrings C, Shang C, Collins JP, Daszak P, Kinzig A, Minteer BA. Protection of wetlands as a strategy for reducing the spread of avian Influenza from migratory waterfowl. Ambio. 2020;49:939–49.

Basinski AJ, Nuismer SL, Remien CH. A little goes a long way: weak vaccine transmission facilitates oral vaccination campaigns against zoonotic pathogens. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13:e0007251.

Selhorst T. (1999) An evaluation of the efficiency of rabies control strategies in fox (Vulpes 6ulpes) populations using a computer simulation program. Ecol Model 12.

Shwiff SA, Sterner RT, Hale R, Jay MT, Sun B, Slate D. Benefit cost scenarios of potential oral rabies vaccination for Skunks in California. J Wildl Dis. 2009;45:227–33.

García-Díaz P, Ross JV, Woolnough AP, Cassey P. Managing the risk of wildlife Disease introduction: pathway‐level biosecurity for preventing the introduction of alien ranaviruses. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:234–41.

Hassim A, Dekker EH, Byaruhanga C, Reardon T, van Heerden H. A retrospective study of anthrax on the Ghaap Plateau, Northern Cape province of South Africa, with special reference to the 2007–2008 outbreaks. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2017;84:a1414.

Knight-Jones TJD, Gibbens J, Wooldridge M, Staerk KDC. Assessment of Farm-Level Biosecurity Measures after an outbreak of Avian Influenza in the United Kingdom. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2011;58:69–75.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Karabozhilova I, Wieland B, Alonso S, Salonen L, Häsler B. Backyard chicken keeping in the Greater London Urban Area: welfare status, biosecurity and Disease control issues. Br Poult Sci. 2012;53:421–30.

Manyweathers J, Field H, Jordan D, Longnecker N, Agho K, Smith C, Taylor M. Risk mitigation of emerging zoonoses: Hendra Virus and Non-vaccinating Horse Owners. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:1898–911.

Kung N, McLaughlin A, Taylor M, Moloney B, Wright T, Field H. Hendra virus and horse owners - risk perception and management. PLoS ONE. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080897 .

Rasouli J, Holakoui K, Forouzanfar MH, Salari S, Bahoner, Rashidian A. Cost effectiveness of livestock vaccination for brucellosis in West-Azerbayjan province. Urmia Med J. 2009;20:Pe13–En77.

El Masry I, Rijks J, Peyre M, Taylor N, Lubroth J, Jobre Y. Modelling Influenza A H5N1 vaccination strategy scenarios in the household poultry sector in Egypt. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2014;46:57–63.

Mroz C, Gwida M, El-Ashker M, Ziegler U, Homeier-Bachmann T, Eiden M, Groschup MH. Rift valley Fever virus Infections in Egyptian cattle and their prevention. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:2049–58.

Pinsent A, Pepin KM, Zhu H, Guan Y, White MT, Riley S. (2017) The persistence of multiple strains of avian influenza in live bird markets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170715.

Abbas B, Yousif MA, Nur HM. Animal health constraints to livestock exports from the Horn of Africa: -EN- -FR- restrictions sanitaires imposées aux exportations de bétail à partir de la corne de l’Afrique -ES- limitaciones zoosanitarias a las exportaciones de ganado desde El Cuerno De África. Rev Sci Tech OIE. 2014;33:711–21.

Naletoski I, Kirandziski T, Mitrov D, Krstevski K, Dzadzovski I, Acevski S. Gaps in brucellosis eradication campaign in Sheep and goats in Republic of Macedonia: lessons learned. Croat Med J. 2010;51:351–6.

Weaver JT, Malladi S, Bonney PJ, Patyk KA, Bergeron JG, Middleton JL, Alexander CY, Goldsmith TJ, Halvorson DA. A Simulation-based evaluation of Premovement active surveillance Protocol options for the Managed Movement of Turkeys to Slaughter during an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian Influenza in the United States. Avian Dis. 2016;60:132–45.

Andronico A, Courcoul A, Bronner A, Scoizec A, Lebouquin-Leneveu S, Guinat C, Paul MC, Durand B, Cauchemez S. Highly pathogenic avian Influenza H5N8 in south-west France 2016–2017: a modeling study of control strategies. Epidemics. 2019;28:100340.

Backer JA, van Roermund HJW, Fischer EAJ, van Asseldonk MAPM, Bergevoet RHM. Controlling highly pathogenic avian Influenza outbreaks: an epidemiological and economic model analysis. Prev Vet Med. 2015;121:142–50.

Backer JA, Hagenaars TJ, van Roermund HJW, de Jong MCM. Modelling the effectiveness and risks of vaccination strategies to control classical swine Fever epidemics. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6:849–61.

Fournie G, Guitian FJ, Mangtani P, Ghani AC. Impact of the implementation of rest days in live bird markets on the dynamics of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian Influenza. J R Soc Interface. 2011;8:1079–89.

Kung NY, Guan Y, Perkins NR, Bissett L, Ellis T, Sims L, Morris RS, Shortridge KF, Peiris JSM. The impact of a monthly Rest Day on Avian Influenza Virus isolation rates in Retail Live Poultry markets in Hong Kong. Avian Dis. 2003;47:1037–41.

Horigan V, Gale P, Adkin A, Brown I, Clark J, Kelly L. A qualitative risk assessment of cleansing and disinfection requirements after an avian Influenza outbreak in commercial poultry. Br Poult Sci. 2019;60:691–9.

Yuan J, Lau EHY, Li K, et al. Effect of live Poultry Market Closure on Avian Influenza A(H7N9) virus activity in Guangzhou, China, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:1784–93.

Fournie G, Guitian J, Desvaux S, Cuong VC, Dung DH, Pfeiffer DU, Mangtani P, Ghani AC. Interventions for avian Influenza A (H5N1) risk management in live bird market networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:9177–82.

Samaan G, Hendrawati F, Taylor T, Pitona T, Marmansari D, Rahman R, Lokuge K, Kelly PM. Application of a healthy food markets guide to two Indonesian markets to reduce transmission of avian Flu. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90:295–300.

Huang Z, Wang J, Zuo A. Chinese farmers’ willingness to accept compensation to practice safe disposal of HPAI infected chicken. Prev Vet Med. 2017;139:67–75.

Graiver DA, Topliff CL, Kelling CL, Bartelt-Hunt SL. Survival of the avian Influenza virus (H6N2) after land disposal. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:4063–7.

Li Y, Wang Y, Shen C, Huang J, Kang J, Huang B, Guo F, Edwards J. Closure of live bird markets leads to the spread of H7N9 Influenza in China. PLoS ONE. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208884 .

Ma J, Yang N, Gu H, Bai L, Sun J, Gu S, Gu J. Effect of closure of live poultry markets in China on prevention and control of human Infection with H7N9 avian Influenza: a case study of four cities in Jiangsu Province. J Public Health Policy. 2019;40:436–47.

Chen Y, Cheng J, Xu Z, Hu W, Lu J. Live poultry market closure and avian Influenza A (H7N9) Infection in cities of China, 2013–2017: an ecological study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05091-7 .

Bonwitt J, Dawson M, Kandeh M, Ansumana R, Sahr F, Brown H, Kelly AH. Unintended consequences of the `bushmeat ban’ in West Africa during the 2013–2016 Ebola virus Disease epidemic. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:166–73.

Brooks-Moizer F, Roberton SI, Edmunds K, Bell D. Avian Influenza H5N1 and the wild Bird Trade in Hanoi, Vietnam. Ecol Soc. 2009;14:28.

Cardador L, Tella JL, Anadon JD, Abellan P, Carrete M. The European trade ban on wild birds reduced invasion risks. Conserv Lett. 2019;12:e12631.

Guerrier G, Foster H, Metge O, Chouvin C, Tui M. Cultural contexts of swine-related Infections in Polynesia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19:595–9.

Massey PD, Polkinghorne BG, Durrheim DN, Lower T, Speare R. Blood, guts and knife cuts: reducing the risk of swine brucellosis in feral pig hunters in north-west New South Wales, Australia. Rural Remote Health. 2011;11:1793.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lauterbach SE, Nelson SW, Martin AM, Spurck MM, Mathys DA, Mollenkopf DF, Nolting JM, Wittum TE, Bowman AS. (2020) Adoption of recommended hand hygiene practices to limit zoonotic Disease transmission at agricultural fairs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105116 .

Stewart RJ, Rossow J, Conover JT, et al. Do animal exhibitors support and follow recommendations to prevent transmission of variant Influenza at agricultural fairs? A survey of animal exhibitor households after a variant Influenza virus outbreak in Michigan. Zoonoses Public Health. 2018;65:195–201.

Lin X, Zhang D, Wang X, Huang Y, Du Z, Zou Y, Lu J, Hao Y. Attitudes of consumers and live-poultry workers to central slaughtering in controlling H7N9: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:517.

Huot C, De Serres G, Duval B, Maranda-Aubut R, Ouakki M, Skowronski DM. The cost of preventing rabies at any cost: post-exposure prophylaxis for occult bat contact. Vaccine. 2008;26:4446–50.

De Serres G, Skowronski DM, Mimault P, Ouakki M, Maranda-Aubut R, Duval B. Bats in the bedroom, bats in the Belfry: reanalysis of the rationale for rabies postexposure Prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1493–9.

Vivancos R, Showell D, Keeble B, Goh S, Kroese M, Lipp A, Battersby J. Vaccination of Poultry workers: delivery and uptake of Seasonal Influenza immunization. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:126–30.

Okello AL, Thomas LF. Human taeniasis: current insights into prevention and management strategies in endemic countries. RISK MANAG HEALTHC POLICY. 2017;10:107–16.

Mendez D, Buttner P, Speare R. Hendra virus in Queensland, Australia, during the winter of 2011: veterinarians on the path to better management strategies. Prev Vet Med. 2014;117:40–51.

Häsler B, Howe KS, Hauser R, Stärk KDC. A qualitative approach to measure the effectiveness of active avian Influenza virus surveillance with respect to its cost: a case study from Switzerland. Prev Vet Med. 2012;105:209–22.

Brinkley C, Kingsley JS, Mench J. A Method for Guarding Animal Welfare and Public Health: tracking the rise of Backyard Poultry ordinances. J Community Health. 2018;43:639–46.

Turkson PK, Okike I. Assessment of practices, capacities and incentives of poultry chain actors in implementation of highly pathogenic avian Influenza mitigation measures in Ghana. Vet Med Sci. 2016;2:23–35.

Akunzule AN, Koney EBM, Tiongco M. Economic impact assessment of highly pathogenic avian Influenza on the poultry industry in Ghana. Worlds Poult Sci J. 2009;65:517–27.

Hunter C, Birden HH, Toribio J-A, Booy R, Abdurrahman M, Ambarawati AIGAA, Adiputra N. (2014) Community preparedness for highly pathogenic avian Influenza on Bali and Lombok, Indonesia. Rural Remote Health 14.

Tustin J, Laberge K, Michel P, et al. A National Epidemic of Campylobacteriosis in Iceland, lessons learned. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:440–7.

Oladokun AT, Meseko CA, Ighodalo E, John B. Ekong PS Effect of intervention on the control of highly pathogenic avian Influenza in Nigeria. 8.

Manyweathers J, Field H, Longnecker N, Agho K, Smith C, Taylor M. Why won’t they just vaccinate? Horse owner risk perception and uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:103.

Zhu G, Kang M, Wei X, Tang T, Liu T, Xiao J, Song T, Ma W. Different intervention strategies toward live poultry markets against avian Influenza A (H7N9) virus: model-based assessment. Environ Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110465 .

Chowell G, Simonsen L, Towers S, Miller MA, Viboud C. Transmission potential of Influenza A/H7N9, February to May 2013, China. BMC Med. 2013;11:214.

Bodenham RF, Mtui-Malamsha N, Gatei W, et al. Multisectoral cost analysis of a human and livestock anthrax outbreak in Songwe Region, Tanzania (December 2018–January 2019), using a novel Outbreak Costing Tool. One Health. 2021;13:100259.

Lewis N, Dorjee S, Dube C, VanLeeuwen J, Sanchez J. Assessment of Effectiveness of Control Strategies against Simulated Outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ontario, Canada. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017;64:938–50.

Anderson A, Shwiff S, Gebhardt K, Ramírez AJ, Shwiff S, Kohler D, Lecuona L. Economic evaluation of Vampire Bat ( Desmodus rotundus) rabies Prevention in Mexico. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2014;61:140–6.

Walker PGT, Cauchemez S, Metras R, Dung DH, Pfeiffer D, Ghani AC. A bayesian Approach to quantifying the effects of Mass Poultry Vaccination upon the spatial and temporal dynamics of H5N1 in Northern Vietnam. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010;6:e1000683.

PREDICT Project. In: PREDICT Project. https://p2.predict.global. Accessed 9 Sep 2022.

Loh EH, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Olival KJ, Bogich TL, Johnson CK, Mazet JAK, Karesh W, Daszak P. Targeting transmission pathways for emerging zoonotic Disease Surveillance and Control. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2015;15:432–7.

Bordier M, Uea-Anuwong T, Binot A, Hendrikx P, Goutard FL. Characteristics of one health surveillance systems: a systematic literature review. Prev Vet Med. 2020;181:104560.

Worsley-Tonks KEL, Bender JB, Deem SL, et al. Strengthening global health security by improving Disease surveillance in remote rural areas of low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health. 2022;10:e579–84.

Reaser JK, Witt A, Tabor GM, Hudson PJ, Plowright RK. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic Disease outbreaks: when ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor Ecol. 2021;29:e13357.

Chen HL, Lewison RL, An L, Tsai YH, Stow D, Shi L, Yang S. Assessing the effects of payments for ecosystem services programs on forest structure and species biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. 2020;29:2123–40.

Chen Y, Marino J, Tao Q, Sullivan CD, Shi K, Macdonald DW. Predicting hotspots of human-elephant conflict to inform mitigation strategies in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. PLoS ONE. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162035 .

Whitfort A. COVID-19 and Wildlife Farming in China: legislating to Protect Wild Animal Health and Welfare in the wake of a global pandemic. J Environ Law. 2021;33:57–84.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

CCA, JC and TLP acknowledge internal research support from York University. MW and CCA acknowledge internal research support from the Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research. KML acknowledges funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through a Health System Impact Fellowship. AY is funded by the BBSRC through the Mandala project (grant number BB/V004832/1). AMV acknowledges support from York University through a York Research Chair in Population Health Ethics & Law. This review was undertaken as part of a project funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Grant Reference Number VR5-172686. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee, Ryan Mcleod, Asma Atique, Janielle Clarke, Anastassia Demeshko, A. M. Viens, Mary Wiktorowicz & Tarra L. Penney

Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee, Raphael Aguiar, Mary Wiktorowicz & Tarra L. Penney

Global Strategy Lab, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, A. M. Viens & Tarra L. Penney

Applied Microbiology for Health and Environment Research Group, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines

Marilen Balolong & Kathleen Chelsea Togño

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ronald Labonté & Arne Ruckert

School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Priyanka Sibal

School of Public Health, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo

Marc K. Yambayamba

Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: CCA, KLM and TLP. Acquisition of data: CCA, KLM and AY. Analysis and interpretation of data: CCA, KML, RM, JC, AD and PS. Drafting of the manuscript: CCA and RM. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: KML, RA, AA, MB, JC, AD, RL, AR, PS, KCT, AMV, MW, MKY, AY and TLP. Obtaining funding: TLP and MW.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarra L. Penney .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. RL is a co-editor-in-chief of Globalization and Health.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clifford Astbury, C., Lee, K.M., Mcleod, R. et al. Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence. Global Health 19 , 82 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00986-x

Download citation

Received : 05 May 2023

Accepted : 01 November 2023

Published : 08 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00986-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Zoonotic spillover
• Public policy
• Emerging zoonoses
• Deep prevention

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]