literature review of journal articles

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

Examples of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

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

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

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

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 Udemy 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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

Career Feature 08 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Westlake University ‘Frontiers of Life Sciences’ International Undergraduate Summer Camp 2024

he 2024 summer camp is open to undergraduate students in their junior or senior year who are majoring in life sciences-related fields.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Call for Global Talents Recruitment Information of Nankai University

Nankai University welcomes global outstanding talents to join for common development.

Tianjin, China

Nankai University

Equipment Service Technician

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Supv-Environmental Services

Biomedical technician.

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

Quick links

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

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

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 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, word choice problems: how to use the right..., how to avoid plagiarism when using generative ai..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai....

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Search strategies and Databases
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to organise the review
• Library summary
• Emerald Infographic

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Sample Literature Review on Critical Thinking (Gwendolyn Reece, American University Library)
• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Standalone Literature Reviews

• Attitudes towards the Disability in Ireland
• Martin, A., O'Connor-Fenelon, M. and Lyons, R. (2010). Non-verbal communication between nurses and people with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Diabilities, 14(4), 303-314.

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: 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.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

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,

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

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] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

• 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.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Review Literature as Topic*

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
• About the Public Management Research Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, key claims in administrative burden research, characteristics of studies on administrative burden, qualitative analysis of key causal relationships, setting an agenda for future research, supplementary material, acknowledgment, data availability.

• < Previous

Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Aske Halling, Martin Baekgaard, Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Volume 34, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 180–195, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Based on a systematic review of 119 articles and working papers, we provide an overview of how administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions have been studied since the inception of the research agenda in 2012. We develop a new and comprehensive model of how key concepts in the framework are related, assess the evidence of the causal relationships proposed by the model, and discuss where more evidence is needed. Empirical research supports conventional claims that burdens are consequential, distributive, and constructed. However, the literature has moved further by (1) demonstrating that factors such as frontline service delivery and government communication influence experiences of burdens; (2) highlighting how factors beyond ideology influence constructions of burdens; (3) introducing the burden tolerance concept; (4) illustrating that experiences of burden influence policymakers’ and members of the publics’ burden tolerance. Based on the review, we propose an agenda for future administrative burden research. We call for studies linking experiences of burden to outcomes such as democratic behavior and take-up, and for studies connecting policymakers’ burden tolerance to actual state actions. Moreover, we argue that future studies should use qualitative methods to further explore the nature of burdens from the perspective of citizens, rely on experimental methods to establish causal links between state actions and experiences of burden, and compare burdens across contexts. Further, empirical studies should examine the tradeoffs between legitimacy and experiences of burden, and how actors outside the citizen–state interaction may influence experiences of administrative burden.

Administrative burden is defined as an individual’s experiences of policy implementation as onerous ( Burden et al. 2012 ). The concept thus emphasizes the experiences of individuals and how state actions, in the form of policies and how they are implemented in practice, influence said experiences ( Baekgaard and Tankink 2022 ). In principle, the definition applies to any individual subject to policy implementation ( Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022 , 7–8), but the concept has particularly been used in the context of citizen–state interactions ( Jakobsen et al. 2016 ).

Building on research traditions on, among others, take-up of policies and benefits ( Bhargava and Manoli 2015 ; Currie 2006 ), policy feedback ( Moynihan and Soss 2014 ; Soss 1999 ), street-level bureaucracy ( Brodkin and Majmundar 2010 ; Lipsky 1980 ), and red tape ( Bozeman and Youtie 2020 ) that all draw attention to onerous experiences with the state, administrative burden has been showcased as an important concept to create an overarching framework to understand such experiences.

However, we lack a comprehensive overview of how the field has studied administrative burden since the introduction of the concept in the seminal articles by Burden et al. (2012) and Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) , and how various research questions relate to one another. Even though the standard definition of administrative burden points to individual experiences, scholars in practice refer to different phenomena when studying administrative burden. Some focus on actions made by the state (i.e., “objective” burdens), some focus on individuals’ subjective perceptions, and some focus on individual outcomes, such as take-up of benefits or health ( Baekgaard and Tankink 2022 ). Moreover, research foci differ. Some studies focus on understanding individual experiences and outcomes and how negative experiences and outcomes can be reduced, while others focus on why policies and practices associated with burdensome experiences are enacted by policymakers or how they are implemented at the frontline.

To take stock of the current state of administrative burden research and to better connect empirical knowledge and research questions in current research, we conduct a systematic review of 119 published articles and working papers focusing on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. We limit our sample to papers specifically claiming to draw on this framework, that is, studies published between the inception of the concept and framework in Burden et al. (2012) and Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) and the beginning of 2023. To ensure reproducibility and transparency, we follow the widely used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines ( Page et al. 2021 ).

There have been a number of theoretical and conceptual articles and literature reviews about administrative burdens ( Baekgaard and Tankink 2022 ; Campbell, Pandey, and Arnesen 2022 ; Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022 ; Peeters 2020 ). However, none of these articles have systematically covered all studies on the topic or taken up the task of connecting different streams of administrative burden research in a theoretical model. Our systematic review therefore makes two contributions to administrative burden research.

The first contribution is theoretical. Using a qualitative coding of the articles and papers included in our review, we build a theoretical model of how key concepts in the administrative burden causally relate to each other. This model is based partly on theoretical arguments in the literature, partly on empirical evidence, and seeks to connect studies of very different research questions within administrative burden research to create a coherent theoretical framework. The aim is not to make a parsimonious theoretical claim but rather to construct a model of the many antecedents, moderators, and potential consequences of administrative burden experiences identified in this literature.

The second contribution is an overview of how administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions have been studied to date. We describe the methodological and contextual characteristics of the studies included in the review and connect key concepts in the administrative burden framework to identify areas of inquiry where substantial progress has been made and to point to areas where future studies could best be directed.

The next section briefly discusses the concept of administrative burden and key causal claims in the administrative burden literature. In the methods section, we describe our literature search, criteria for including studies in the review, and how studies were coded and analyzed. This is followed by our qualitative analysis of the literature. We start out by presenting a model based on the review and then classify the evidence for seven causal claims in the model. The article concludes with a discussion of limitations and proposals for a future research agenda.

Administrative burden refers to the learning, compliance, and psychological costs experienced by citizens when interacting with the state ( Herd and Moynihan 2018 ). Learning costs are the costs of learning about rights, rules, and demands associated with interacting with the state ( Barnes and Riel 2022 ). For instance, an individual eligible for the TANF program in the United States has to be aware that the program exists and how to apply for the benefits. Compliance costs are the costs of complying with specific rules in interactions with the state. In the TANF example, the applicant has to fill out an application form and demonstrate eligibility. For the unemployed, compliance costs may manifest as the costs of having to show up for meetings at public offices to demonstrate an active search for work and of updating CVs on a regular basis ( Baekgaard et al. 2021 ; Madsen nda ). Finally, psychological costs have to do with the mental discomfort of interacting with the government ( Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020 ). For instance, interactions associated with uncertainty may lead to experiences of stress, loss of autonomy, or even stigma ( Cecchini nd ).

By emphasizing the subjective costs experienced by citizens and explicitly referring to individual experiences in the definition of the concept ( Burden et al. 2012 ), the administrative burden literature makes a key distinction between what the state does (sometimes called barriers, frictions, state actions, or state constructions of burdens) and what the individual experiences. However, this does not mean that the literature is only interested in the impact of experiences. Rather, the literature makes three key claims about burdens ( Herd and Moynihan 2018 ; Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015 ) regarding what the state does, how citizens experience the actions of the state, individual differences in said experiences, and the consequences of burdensome experiences. Figure 1 summarizes the claims in a simplified model (see Baekgaard and Tankink 2022 ; Christensen et al. 2020 ; Herd and Moynihan 2018 for similar models).

Key Claims in the Administrative Burden Literature.

First, burdens are consequential. The impact of burdens is likely to extend beyond people’s experiences and influence outcomes such as civic and electoral participation, health, and take-up of benefits. This claim is rooted very much in literatures on policy feedback, benefit take-up, and applied economics. These research traditions empirically demonstrate that aspects of what the state does may have important impacts for the mobilization of citizens (e.g., Bruch, Ferree, and Soss 2010 ; Soss 1999 ), the extent to which target groups take up services and benefits for which they are eligible (e.g., Currie 2006 ), and the long-run health of citizens enrolled in welfare programs (e.g., Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond 2016 ). However, they do less to explore people’s subjective experiences of burden. In this respect, the administrative burden framework contributes to previous streams of research by creating a language for the mechanisms linking state actions to outcomes.

Second, burdens have distributive consequences and are likely to fall harder on those with fewer resources in the form of human and administrative capital ( Christensen et al. 2020 ; Masood and Nisar 2021 ), administrative literacy ( Döring 2021 ), and bureaucratic self-efficacy ( Bisgaard 2023 ). Third, while some burdensome state actions are likely unintended ( Peeters and Widlak 2023 ), or the result of unconscious biases ( Olsen, Kyhse-Andersen, and Moynihan 2020 ), other state actions are constructed and the result of deliberate political and administrative decisions, that is, politicians or bureaucrats prefer to introduce burdens to, for instance, limit fraud in public programs ( Moynihan, Herd, and Ribgy 2016 ).

Thus, the literature relies on a broad understanding of the relevant domain of inquiry. This domain is not limited to the study of experiences and outcomes among citizens and target groups. As per the third causal claim above, it also encompasses decisions and rationales for decisions made by elected politicians, administrators, and frontline personnel. In our review, we therefore rely on a broad understanding of the domain of administrative burden in citizen–state interactions where studies are relevant whenever the subject matter has to do with a state arrangement introducing burden for citizens. The studies may focus either on decisions made by politicians or bureaucrats or on the consequences of such decisions for citizens. In our analysis of the literature, we seek to develop the model presented in figure 1 further by reviewing the empirical findings in existing studies.

We adhere to the PRISMA guidelines when conducting our systematic literature review ( Page et al. 2021 ). These guidelines were developed to ensure that literature reviews are comprehensive, transparent, and well documented to minimize reporting biases and ensure reproducibility. The PRISMA checklist is available in the appendix . Below we describe the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review as well as our search and coding strategy.

Eligibility Criteria

Our focus is on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. The main inclusion criterion is that studies use the conceptual framework formulated by Burden et al. (2012) , Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) , and Herd and Moynihan (2018) , that is, refer explicitly to administrative burden and/or learning, compliance, and psychological costs. Other streams of literature in economics, sociology, political science, and public administration also deal with frictions in interactions between citizens and government. This includes, but is not limited to, literatures on red tape, sludge, ordeals, take-up of government benefits, street-level bureaucracy, and policy feedback ( Baekgaard and Tankink 2022 ; Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022 ). However, as administrative burden has developed into a sizeable subfield of its own, which in several aspects differs from related research in other disciplines ( Madsen, Mikkelsen, and Moynihan 2022 ), it is important to take stock of the current state of this particular field and explore what the literature has taught us so far.

The second inclusion criterion is that studies focus on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. This means that we exclude studies that use the administrative burden framework but focus either on companies ( Petersen, Hansen, and Houlberg 2022 ), third-party organizations ( Carey et al. 2020 ), or on the costs experienced by public employees in their interactions with the organization where they are employed ( Bozeman and Youtie 2020 ; Linos and Riesch 2020 ; Sievert, Vogel, and Feeney 2020 ). We make this decision because our goal is to understand how, why, and when citizens experience burdens in their interactions with the state. In comparison, studies on public employees burdened by work routines focus on internal organizational affairs rather than a bureaucratic relationship between the state and individual outside the formal organizational hierarchy. Also, burdens among public employees have been studied extensively in the red tape literature ( George et al. 2020 ). Nevertheless, the review still includes studies where elected politicians and frontline personnel were asked about the imposition of burdens on individuals outside the organization. Thus, the review applies a broad understanding of citizens as individuals and organizations outside the formal organizational hierarchy of the state in a given case.

The remaining inclusion criteria are more straightforward. We are interested in all English-language peer-reviewed publications and working papers from 2012 until our data collection closed in February 2023. 1 We set the start to 2012, because this is when Burden et al. (2012) wrote their seminal article that introduced and defined the term “administrative burdens.” Table 1 gives an overview of the eligibility criteria.

Overview of Eligibility Criteria

Literature Search

To identify peer-reviewed journal articles, we searched all journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index using Web of Science. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for “administrative burden,” “psychological cost,” “compliance cost,” “learning cost,” and derivatives of these terms. We limited our search to English-language articles. We also searched 12 leading public administration journals (see list of journals in appendix table A1 ) using the same terms. We then screened titles and abstracts and then full papers to identify all papers that passed our eligibility criteria. Finally, we screened the literature list of all eligible journal articles for missing records. In total, we identified 100 peer-reviewed journal articles for the systematic literature review.

To obtain a comprehensive pool of working papers, we created a list of all authors who contributed at least two articles to the literature review (see appendix table A2 ). We then contacted all authors on the list and asked them to provide any unpublished, full-length papers on administrative burdens that they had (co-)authored. We also encouraged them to let us know if they knew of other working papers on the topic. Almost all authors replied within a few days and most sent one or more working papers. Moreover, we made a call for working papers through our Twitter accounts and a similar call through a listserv for scholars interested in administrative burden research managed by Professor Donald Moynihan. Based on these steps, we collected 19 eligible working papers. 2 In total, 119 papers are included in the review (see the full list of papers in appendix table A7 ). Figure 2 summarizes the selection process.

Selection Process.

Coding Strategy

We relied on two strategies for coding the articles. First, we systematically coded several facts about the articles (year of publication, whether empirical material was collected, methods used, country covered by empirical analysis, policy area, and type of subjects) using a closed coding strategy (see appendix table A3 for a full description of coding criteria). We present this information in the first part of the results section to give an overview of the field and the types of studies conducted.

Second, we used an open coding where we focused on core concepts covered in the articles and types of causal relations covered in the papers. This is a demanding task that requires that coders have in-depth knowledge of the literature. We therefore handled all coding ourselves and met several times during the coding process to ensure consistency in the categorization of relationships and concepts. We use the qualitative coding to summarize current knowledge about the different relationships shown in figure 1 and to extend the causal model based on the findings and arguments in extant research.

Citation Analysis

This first part of the analysis covers key characteristics of the articles on administrative burdens in citizen–state interactions. Related to the discussion of eligibility criteria, we initially explore whether studies frequently cited by our 119 eligible studies are missing in the review. Table 2 shows that among the top 10 most cited papers and publications in the review, three publications do not rely on the administrative burden framework and therefore do not meet the eligibility criteria. Two of these publications ( Brodkin and Majmundar 2010 ; Lipsky 1980 ) concern street-level bureaucracy, and the third ( Bhargava and Manoli 2015 ) focuses on take-up of benefits. Thus, while there certainly are some widely cited works outside the narrow domain of administrative burden research, the field is generally dominated by internal references, suggesting that administrative burden research indeed constitutes a distinct field of its own.

Top 10 Most Cited Publications by the 119 Papers Included in the Systematic Review

A related question is how well studies with different foci, research questions, and methodologies speak to one another. We conducted a bibliographical network analysis ( Perianes-Rodriguez, Waltman, and van Eck 2016 ) in which we explored citation patterns between articles. As shown in appendix table A4 , assortativity scores are generally low, suggesting that articles tend to cite each other to an almost equal extent despite different methodologies and research questions ( Newman 2003 ). Overall, the analysis suggests that the field is coherent in the sense that even the most different parts of the field tend to rely on each other’s work.

Methodological Characteristics

Of the 119 collected articles, 75% are empirical papers using qualitative or quantitative analysis of data, while 25% are theoretical papers, literature reviews, or case studies. Articles are published in 35 different journals. Most are published in public administration journals, but some are published in either health, economics, or political science journals. The most frequent appearances are in Public Administration Review with 17, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory with 16, and Journal of Behavioral Public Administration with 11 articles (see appendix table A5 for full details). Figure 3 shows a timeline of all published papers on the topic. Only nine were published between 2012 and 2017, but the publication trend changed significantly in 2018. From 2018 to 2021, the number of yearly published papers almost doubled each year from 5 in 2018 to 36 in 2021. While 2022 saw a decline in publications to 20, the overall trend still indicates that the study of administrative burden has established itself as a sizeable subfield within public administration research.

Publication Timeline.

Note: n = 100. The figure shows the year studies were made available online and does not include working papers.

Figure 4 graphs methodological characteristics of the studies. Panel A shows that more than half the empirical studies use quantitative methods. However, a substantial number of articles employ qualitative methods or case studies, meaning the field is characterized by some methodological diversity. This is also evident from panel D, where we divide the quantitative and qualitative categories into more specific subcategories. We see that studies on administrative burdens use a great variety of methods, and that studies utilize both observational and experimental data to a high extent. Studies are also relatively diverse when it comes to the origin of data, as our review includes studies from all six inhabited continents. However, studies from Western countries dominate the literature, as 82% of all studies were conducted in either the United States, Europe, or Australia (see panel B). We also coded whether papers used data from more than one country. Only three papers used data do so, and neither of them used a comparative approach where they compared burdens across contexts. Panel D shows that almost half of the studies focus on target group members. This aligns well with the fact that one purpose of the administrative burden framework is to draw attention to individuals’ experiences of policy implementation ( Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015 ). Finally, panel E shows that around 50% of all studies focused on means-tested welfare benefits. This may reflect that means-tested programs are often where citizens encounter the most requirements and therefore are likely to experience various burdens when interacting with the state.

Methodological Characteristics of Empirical Studies.

Note: Figures A-E display various charatersitics of empirical studies. Articles that fit into more than one category are coded into all relevant categories. Purely theoretical articles are not included in any of the figures.

This section presents the results of our qualitative analysis of the literature. Figure 5 provides an overview of our main findings. This model extends the theoretical model in figure 1 in four important respects. First, it proposes a more nuanced understanding of what state actions are. In line with Baekgaard and Tankink (2022 , 17), we understand state actions broadly to cover what the state does “including laws, rules, requirements, and how such are implemented by public officials and street-level bureaucrats.” This leads us to distinguish between formal (arrow 1) and informal policy designs (arrow 2). While formal policy design refers to the laws and rules enacted by politicians, that is, the rules that people will have to abide to get access to services and benefits, informal policy design concerns how these rules are implemented at the frontline and communicated more broadly. This allows us to discuss how different aspects of policies lead to experiences of administrative burdens. Second, the model extends the number of factors explaining state actions beyond political ideology by introducing the concepts of burden support and burden tolerance, that is, “the willingness of policymakers and people more generally to passively allow or actively impose state actions that result in others experiencing administrative burdens” ( Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021 , 184). As shown, support and tolerance for burdens may sometimes be influenced by the content of state actions when people become aware of actual rules and implementation (arrow 6b).

Extended Model of Causal Claims.

Third, the model proposes that other factors than political ideology and beliefs may influence burden tolerance and state actions. In particular, the model highlights the importance of target group deservingness, personal experience, and bureaucratic processes (arrow 7). Fourth, the model proposes feedback effects of citizens’ experiences of burden on how burdens are constructed by the state and how tolerant policymakers and others are of burdens to begin with (arrows 5a and 5b).

Table 3 lists the number of studies that cover each relationship. Below, we discuss each of the seven arrows in figure 5 . Our aim is not to mention all studies discussing each specific arrow but rather to summarize current knowledge about each relationship. Our discussion therefore only covers selected articles that provide knowledge on the relationship under discussion. Appendix table A6 is an extended version of table 3 and shows the articles that provide knowledge on each relationship.

Number of Papers Studying Each Causal Relationship

Arrow 1: Formal Policy Design → Experiences of Burden

With few exceptions, studies find that state barriers are associated with experiences of learning and compliance costs. Learning costs, for instance, arise when being subject to requirements ( Cook 2021 ), misinformation ( Chudnovsky and Peeters 2021a ), and having to deal with vouchers ( Barnes 2021 ), while compliance costs arise because of transportation time to vaccinator camps ( Ali and Altaf 2021 ) and completing forms ( Yates et al. 2022 ). Some studies find that learning and compliance costs arise as a consequence of (eligibility) requirements in means-tested welfare programs ( Holler and Tarshish 2022 ) and insurance programs ( Yates et al. 2022 ). Other studies find that learning and compliance costs also arise in settings such as the restoration of voting rights ( Selin 2019 ), digital government services ( Madsen, Lindgren, and Melin 2022 ), and accessing vaccinations ( Ali and Altaf 2021 ).

Studies are conducted in diverse contexts such as Pakistan, Denmark, the United States, and Argentina, suggesting there is some universality to the claim that interacting with the state is associated with experiences of learning and compliance costs. However, one paper finds that having a scheduled compulsory meeting with frontline workers causes no changes in compliance costs and is associated with experiences of less learning costs ( Baekgaard and Madsen 2023 ). Another study finds that digital self-service solutions have the potential to both increase and reduce learning and compliance costs ( Madsen, Lindgren, and Melin 2022 ).

This suggests that more research is needed on how different types of state actions reduce and impose experiences of learning and compliance costs. Such studies could build on more qualitative approaches to obtain a better understanding of the mechanisms linking state actions to experiences. Also, when it comes to understanding the costs of dealing with different state actions, qualitative methods have major advantages over other methods. With a few exceptions ( Ali and Altaf 2021 ; Baekgaard and Madsen 2023 ), most papers indeed use qualitative methods to study the relationship between barriers and learning and compliance costs, while no papers use experimental methods. This is not surprising, as it is often hard to manipulate barriers or state actions. However, in addition to more qualitative research, the literature would benefit from studies that are able to causally link state actions to experiences of learning and compliance costs. As mentioned in the next section, a few studies document how state actions causally influence experiences of psychological costs, showing that it is possible to causally study the link between state actions and experiences of administrative burdens.

There are 50% more studies on the relationship between formal policy designs and psychological costs than on the comparable relationship with learning and compliance costs discussed above, illustrating that this relationship has received high scholarly attention. The general finding from the 16 studies discussing this topic is that state actions are associated with various forms of psychological costs. Examples of psychological costs arising from state actions are autonomy loss and stress ( Baekgaard et al. 2021 ), frustration ( Cook 2021 ), stigma ( Selin 2019 ; Thomsen, Baekgaard, and Jensen 2020 ), externalization of locus of control ( Madsen and Mikkelsen 2022 ), uncertainty ( Cecchini nd ) and confusion, anger, and frustration ( Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020 ).

Studies fall in two methodological categories: qualitative studies and experiments. Qualitative studies provide in-depth knowledge about how state actions may lead to psychological costs. One example is Yates et al.’s (2022) study of burdens in Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. One interviewee mentions that it was “wearing” and “soul destroying” “to be constantly questioned about, are you disabled enough” (p. 5), showing how eligibility requirements can create psychological costs.

Experimental studies establish causal links between barriers and costs. Baekgaard et al. (2021) use survey- and field-experimental evidence to show that reductions in state compliance demands reduce stress and increase the sense of autonomy among target group members. Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza (2020) and Hattke et al. (nd) rely on laboratory experiments to show how redundant documentation requirements and simple administrative processes can cause confusion, frustration, and anger.

In general, the link between state actions and psychological costs is relatively well covered in the literature. However, studies so far have generally examined only one or a few state actions. There is a lack of studies that compare effects of different actions on psychological costs. Such studies could provide valuable knowledge on which state actions translate into psychological costs.

Arrow 2: Informal Policy Design → Experiences of Burden

Informal policy design has to do with the actions by the state that do not directly refer to the formal rules and requirements as decided by policymakers but rather how these are processed and communicated to citizens. Two aspects of informal policy design are particularly prevalent in research on administrative burden: frontline service delivery and government communication.

Frontline Service Delivery

It is no surprise that the delivery of services at the frontline of public organizations matters for experiences of burden. Lipsky (1980) alluded to this, and subsequent work has explored this question without explicitly using the concept of administrative burden (e.g., Brodkin and Majmundar 2010 ; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011 ). Studies applying the administrative burden framework show that workload matters for experiences of administrative burden. For instance, Bell and Meyer (nd) use administrative data from college financial aid programs to show that decreases in workload lead to an increase in program access for low-income students and that the increase is highest among students who have been subject to discrimination based on their race. Ali and Altaf (2021) show that citizens experience more burdens in areas with lower administrative capacity, while others find that stress and burnout ( Mikkelsen, Madsen, and Baekgaard 2023 ) and red tape ( Madsen ndb ) among frontline workers are associated with experiences of burden among their clients.

The behavior of frontline workers also matters for citizens’ experiences. Bell and Smith (2022) show that frontline workers who adopt a support role rather than a role as “compliance officer” are more likely to use their discretionary power to help students overcome administrative burdens. In a similar vein, Halling’s (nd) results suggest that frontline workers help citizens overcome burdens by circumventing rules. Finally, Barnes and Henly’s (2018) qualitative analysis shows that clients tend to blame their experiences of administrative burden on frontline employees.

Government Communication

Another part of informal policy design that has received considerable attention is how communication from the state affects individuals’ experiences of administrative burden. All these papers rely on field experiments with randomized exposure to different forms of government communication. Linos et al. (2022) show that disadvantaged groups prefer postcards over a telephone hotline to seek information about free dental care. They use focus groups to show that this is likely explained by lower psychological costs associated with postcards as participants fear uncomfortable interactions with bureaucrats. Moynihan et al. (2022) show how the framing of state categories matters for selecting into the right categories and that a more intuitive presentation of information increased the number of claimants providing adequate documentation. Simplified communication ( Linos, Reddy, and Rothstein 2022 ), destigmatizing language ( Lasky-Fink and Linos 2023 ), early communication ( Linos, Quan, and Kirkman 2020 ), postcards ( Hock et al. 2021 ), letters ( Bhanot 2021 ), and text messages ( Lopoo, Heflin, and Boskovski 2020 ) can also improve take-up.

Altogether, these field experiments show that different forms of nudges can be effective in increasing take-up of benefits among eligible individuals. Apart from the two first-mentioned studies, the studies do not measure experiences of burden directly. Instead, they measure different outcomes while theorizing that the link between communication and outcomes has to do with experiences of burden. Hence, there is a need for studies that show that reduction of administrative burdens is the process through which these nudges work.

Arrow 3: Distributive Effects

The argument that administrative burdens are distributive and can foster inequality is at the core of the administrative burden framework ( Christensen et al. 2020 ; Herd and Moynihan 2018 ). Thirty-one papers contribute knowledge on the distributional consequences of state actions. Differences in resources, attitudes, and expectations between citizens constitute one main type of distributive effects identified in the literature ( Christensen et al. 2020 ; Heinrich 2018 ; Nisar 2018 ). The other type, which has received less attention, focuses on how characteristics of the state may contribute to different experiences of burden among different parts of the population ( Griffiths 2021 ; Peeters, Renteria, and Cejudo nd ). We discuss both types next.

Citizen Factors

Studies show that possessing administrative literacy ( Döring 2021 ; Döring and Madsen 2022 ), self-efficacy ( Thomsen, Baekgaard, and Jensen 2020 ), habitus and different forms of capital ( Carey, Malbon, and Blackwell 2021 ; Masood and Nisar 2021 ) all make state barriers easier to handle, resulting in fewer experiences of burdens. All these contributions are important in documenting that possessing the necessary capital and skills is key when dealing with onerous state demands.

However, there is a considerable overlap between the different concepts. Apart from self-efficacy, all focus on a type of capital (or literacy) that makes state encounters easier to handle. Some are specific to encounters with the state (administrative literacy and capital), while others are more general forms of capital (human capital and Bourdieu’s capital concepts). Discussing differences and similarities between the concepts is beyond the scope of this article, but we note that using fewer concepts would strengthen the comparative potential across studies.

Other studies focus on how experiences of burdens are distributed across demographic and non-demographic characteristics. The general finding is that individuals from marginalized or low-resource groups tend to struggle more with state barriers. So far, studies have shown that individuals with low income or who are experiencing scarce financial resources ( Chudnovsky and Peeters 2021b ; Heinrich et al. 2022 ; Larsson 2021 ; Madsen, Baekgaard and Kvist 2022 ), ethnic minorities ( Heinrich 2018 ; Olsen, Kyhse-Andersen, and Moynihan 2020 ), women ( Kyle and Frakt 2021 ; Yates et al. 2022 ), individuals with low or no education ( Chudnovsky and Peeters 2021b ; Collie et al. 2021 ; Kyle and Frakt 2021 ), and those suffering from sickness and disabilities ( Bell et al. 2022 ; Collie et al. 2021 ; Kyle and Frakt 2021 ) experience more administrative burdens as a result of state actions.

Relatedly, a few studies discuss how citizens’ attitudes and expectations might influence how citizens engage with the state and hence lead to different impacts of state actions on experiences of burden. These attitudes and expectations may themselves stem from a variety of sources including prior interactions with the state ( Chudnovsky and Peters 2021b , 531), thus suggesting a potential feedback effect from outcomes on attitudes and expectations (see also Moynihan and Soss 2014 ). 3

Finally, a last stream of studies considers how individuals’ access to relevant third parties, actors outside the citizen–state interaction that provide help to citizens or otherwise influence interactions ( Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey 2015 ), may affect their experiences of administrative burden. A few papers explore the role of such actors. Barnes (2021, nd ) shows that retailers play a crucial role in shaping compliance costs in voucher programs such as WIC. Because citizens must redeem their vouchers in retail stores, retailers play a huge role in shaping how easy redemption is. Concrete examples are the degree to which eligible food is marked and displayed and whether store personnel are trained in handling vouchers. NGOs may also contribute to reduced learning and compliance costs by helping citizens overcome burdens ( Nisar 2018 ; Nisar and Masood nd ). Finally, (ex-)family members may influence experiences of administrative burden ( Nisar 2018 ). Cook (2021) illustrates how ex-partners may directly impose burdens on mothers in the child support benefit system in Australia. As an example, some fathers limit their child support liabilities or claim that they have already provided payments to mothers. Each time fathers make such changes or claims, mothers are required to respond, which can be associated with substantial compliance costs.

State Characteristics

Another possible source of distributive effects is the state itself. A key insight from this stream of research is that variations in administrative capacities to reach out to vulnerable populations may contribute to inequality in the experience of burdens. Some studies investigate how individuals may experience different burdens in states with different characteristics. The most prominent characteristic examined so far is the extent to which the state is automated and digitalized. Peeters, Renteria, and Cejudo (nd) illustrate how governments with higher information capacity are better able to “absorb” burdens, which means that citizens face fewer administrative burdens. Digital government may also create unintentional errors that contribute to considerable experiences of administrative burden. Griffiths (2021) shows how automation of benefit calculation can create burdensome experiences. For example, people with irregular pay dates risk missing out on benefits for which they are eligible because automation processes do not account for irregular cases. Likewise, Widlak and Peeters (2020) show that citizens face various administrative burdens in correcting errors made by the state, while Compton et al. (2022) show that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionally hit by administrative errors.

Other state characteristics that may influence experiences of administrative burdens are material and artificial artifacts present in physical and virtual government arenas ( Nisar and Masood nd ) and consistent application of rules ( Kaufmann, Ingrams, and Jacobs 2021 ). Finally, Johnson and Kroll (2021) theorize but find no supporting empirical evidence that representative government and shared identities between frontline employees and citizens may decrease experiences of burden.

Arrow 4: Experiences of Burden → Outcomes

According to Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) , administrative burdens are an important part of governance, “since they affect whether citizens succeed in accessing services (did I get what I want), whether public polices succeed (did a program reach the targeted group?), and the perceptions of government (was I treated fairly and with respect?)” (p. 43). However, despite the obvious importance of studying the link between experiences of burden and various outcomes, only Daigneault and Macé (2020) have done so among published papers. Based on interviews with target group members, they show that individuals experiencing compliance and learning costs are less likely to take up Quebec’s Supplement to the Work Premium program. Other papers study the link between state actions and outcomes but without subjective measures of people’s experiences of administrative burden. Notable examples are Heinrich (2016) and Jenkins and Nguyen (2022) , who convincingly, and with strong causal traction, show that various state actions influence take-up of welfare programs and might even impact long-term outcomes such as risky behaviors in adolescence ( Heinrich 2016 ; Heinrich and Brill 2015 ). These studies contribute important knowledge on how state actions influence take-up of welfare benefits but not on the relationship between subjective experiences of burden and outcomes.

Several working papers show that experiences of burden are associated with behaviors that can lead to reduced program take-up, such as compliance and autonomous motivation ( Madsen nda ), making errors on forms ( Hattke et al. nd ), and filing complaints ( Bell et al. 2022 ). While these papers make valuable contributions, none of them study actual outcomes but rather behaviors that are likely to influence take-up of benefits. The final working paper by Lasky-Fink and Linos (2023) offers a promising approach to dealing with some of the shortcomings of other research on this relationship. Contrary to the other working papers, the authors study actual take-up of welfare benefits and show that destigmatized language leads to substantially higher take-up rates. Moreover, contrary to studies linking state actions and take-up, the authors go one step further and use three survey experiments to make it probable that the mechanism linking state actions and take-up is psychological costs in the form of perceived stigma. In doing so, the working paper studies the whole causal chain from barriers over subjective experiences of administrative burdens to outcomes. This is a model for future studies to pursue because such studies will be able to show not only whether individuals experience burdens as a result of state actions, but also the extent to which these burdens subsequently influence service use or other relevant outcomes.

There is also a lack of studies that look beyond take-up and focus on other types of outcomes. In some instances, burdens may not discourage people from taking up public services, but they may still affect the adequacy and quality of services provided—in particular when citizens interact with the same public agency for a prolonged period of time ( Peeters and Campos 2021 ). Furthermore, inspired by the policy feedback literature, it has been suggested that experiences of burden may affect civic capacities such as political efficacy, trust in institutions, and civic engagement ( Christensen et al. 2020 ). However, no studies have so far examined these questions systematically.

Arrow 5: Feedback Effects: Experiences → Burden Tolerance and State Actions

While state actions are expected to trigger experiences of burdens in the original theoretical model, a few studies suggest a feedback effect, that is, experiences may influence burden tolerance and state actions. The argument is that knowledge about experiences may make policymakers and others understand the detrimental effects of state actions and hence induce less burden. This proposition finds mixed support in the three studies dealing with the question. In a survey-experimental study of Danish local politicians using a treatment cue about psychological costs experienced by target group members, Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen (2021) find no evidence of a feedback effect. Conversely, in a survey experiment, Halling and Petersen (nd) find that Danish frontline employees are more likely to reduce compliance demands in the implementation process and to help citizens who communicate psychological costs. Sievert and Bruder (2023) find mixed support in their study of the feedback effects of treatments increasing awareness of learning and compliance, costs among German citizens. While there is some evidence of feedback effects of compliance costs, exposing participants to information about learning costs does not affect burden tolerance. Finally, Gilad and Assouline (2022) do not study feedback effects directly, but rather a prerequisite of their existence, namely citizens voicing their experiences of burden. They find that citizens indeed voice their experiences to authorities but also that disadvantaged groups are less inclined to do so.

On balance, there is a need for much more research to establish the relevance of feedback effects. Such studies could investigate differences between groups of respondents (policymakers, frontline workers, citizens). They may also focus on the way in which information about experiences of burden is provided. Here, a distinction could be made between statistical and episodic information. Previous research has identified stronger effects of episodic data in other contexts ( Olsen 2017 ). Finally, studies could examine feedback effects from citizen outcomes.

Arrow 6: The Relationship Between Burden Tolerance and State Actions

The literature on burden tolerance presumes that tolerance among political decision-makers and the mass public influences the extent to which the state constructs burdens (e.g., Aarøe et al. 2021 ; Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021 ; Keiser and Miller 2020 ; Nicholson-Crotty, Miller, and Keiser 2021 ). However, none of the studies in the review study the causal influence of burden tolerance on state actions, likely due to challenges obtaining causal estimates. Nevertheless, we indicate this relationship in figure 5 with a dashed line (arrow 6a) due to the strong theoretical expectation that burden tolerance influences the extent to which the state introduces burdens in public policies.

Alternatively, it is possible that knowledge about existing barriers influences the extent to which people are supportive of burdensome barriers (arrow 6b). Two empirical studies examine this question using survey experiments among the mass public. Keiser and Miller (2020) find that information about the presence of barriers increases support for welfare programs and their recipients, in particular among conservative voters. Nicholson-Crotty, Miller, and Keiser (2021) show that information about barriers has heterogeneous effects on program approval depending on whether the target group is perceived as deserving (information about more barriers reduces approval) or undeserving (information about barriers has no significant effect). While the two studies support the idea that information about state actions may influence burden tolerance, there is certainly room for more research about how state actions may influence burden tolerance in the mass public and among decision-makers. Such studies may for instance investigate how state actions are constructed in popular debates.

Arrow 7: Factors Shaping Burden Tolerance and State Actions

This section looks into other factors that shape burden tolerance and state actions. A total of seven studies examine factors shaping burden support, while 13 studies investigate factors shaping state actions. We deal with the questions jointly, because many of the key explanations are similar for burden tolerance and state actions. Overall, explanations can be divided into four broad categories.

First, a series of studies present evidence that burdens are constructed and that political ideological beliefs influence the extent to which barriers are introduced. For instance, the studies by Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) , Moynihan, Herd, and Ribgy (2016) , and Heinrich (2018) find that more barriers are introduced in states governed by conservatives than in states governed by liberals. Likewise, a series of cross-sectional studies find strong correlations between the ideological beliefs of politicians ( Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021 ), street-level bureaucrats ( Bell et al. 2020 ), and the mass public ( Haeder, Sylvester, and Callaghan 2021 ; Halling, Herd, and Moynihan 2022 ) and their support for administrative burden policies.

Second, in accordance with the claim by Schneider and Ingram (1993) that target group construction matters to the benefits and burdens assigned to each group, target group deservingness and minority status appear to be of major importance to both burden tolerance ( Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomsen 2021 ; Haeder, Sylvester, and Callaghan 2021 ) and barriers ( Jilke, Van Dooren, and Rys 2018 ).

Third, a series of individual-specific explanations of burden tolerance have been investigated in the literature. Most factors have not been theorized very clearly, however, and have only been the subject in few empirical studies. Personal experience with benefits has been shown to be associated with less tolerance for burdensome state actions among Danish local politicians ( Baekgaard, Moynihan, and Thomse 2021 ) and a representative sample of US citizens ( Halling, Herd, and Moynihan 2022 ), while big five personality traits in the form of conscientiousness and openness to experiences have been shown to correlate with burden tolerance in the study of Aarøe et al. (2021) .

Fourth, studies of factors explaining variation in barriers find bureaucratic processes are likely to shape the barriers that citizens meet when interacting with the state. These studies are primarily based on discussions of specific exemplary cases. Peeters (2020) points out that barriers are likely to be unintentional in many cases. They can, for instance, be a result of very complex cases that make it impossible to ease application processes for citizens by means of automation ( Larsson 2021 ), or they can be unintended results of large-scale digitalization and automated decision-making processes where citizens who do not fit into predefined boxes face barriers in the implementation process ( Peeters and Widlak 2018 , 2023 ). Other studies show that bureaucratic low-trust culture and inertia may increase barriers that citizens face when interacting with government ( Bashir and Nisar 2020 ; Peeters et al. 2018 ).

Before we move on to the discussion of next steps to be taken, we note three limitations of our study. The first is publication bias. While we approached the field to include unpublished research, it is possible that some unpublished null findings have not been included or that published null findings did not show up in our literature search because publications with null findings on administrative burden hypotheses have been framed into other literatures. While we consider this a lesser concern given our extensive strategy for collecting studies, publication bias may have made evidence appear stronger than it is. The second limitation has to do with the qualitative coding of studies. While we adhere to stringent coding criteria and have conducted multiple rounds of cross-validating the coding, categorizing studies based on the kind of relationships they study is—at least for some studies—a matter of nuance and assessment. Third, the quality of the included studies is likely to vary, meaning that our review may not give an accurate picture of the strength of evidence for the many propositions studied in administrative burden research. While we have confidence in the general pattern of how different relationships have been covered, others may disagree with our coding of some studies and with the strength of evidence presented in these studies.

Limitations aside, our review points out where evidence is missing and suggests steps to be taken in future research. Next, we discuss which parts of our theoretical model warrant more empirical evidence before finishing with a discussion of new questions for future research to pursue.

More Evidence Needed

Our review points to several issues that should get more attention in future research. First, our understanding of people’s experiences is very much based on the deductive categorization of experiences as learning, compliance, and psychological costs developed in Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) . While this has laid the foundation for important research, future research could do more to supplement it with bottom-up qualitative research of what burdens are from the perspectives of those interacting with the state. Such research could also aid our understanding of what constitutes more important types of burdensome experiences and under what circumstances they arise. A good example of this kind of research is the work of Barnes (2021, nd ).

Second, it is a core claim of the administrative burden framework that what the state does is consequential for citizens’ experiences. Providing solid causal evidence about this relationship is therefore a key point for future research. Future studies could for instance rely on laboratory experiments inspired by the studies by Hattke, Hensel, and Kalucza 2020 and Hattke et al. (nd) . Another way forward may be to embed surveys and in-depth interviews as part of randomized field experiments to explore how changes in state action influence experiences and in turn outcomes. Here, the study by Lasky-Fink and Linos (2023) may also serve as an example to follow, as the authors combined their field experiment with survey experimental evidence to explore whether the impact of destigmatized language on take-up indeed was mediated by reduced perceived stigma as hypothesized by the authors.

Third, most studies examining this link are conducted among recipients of various social welfare benefits. However, experiences of burden are likely to arise in other types of interactions with the state as is evident from studies of, among others, digital government services ( Madsen, Lindgren, and Melin 2022 ) and voting rights ( Herd and Moynihan 2018 , 43–70; Selin 2019 ). To better understand the scope and importance of administrative burden, there is a need for studies that move beyond social welfare to investigate experiences of burdens in areas such as law enforcement, taxation, and regulation.

Fourth, research on how experiences of administrative burden affect outcomes such as welfare take-up, trust in government, health, and voting behavior is scarce. Most of the articles that study outcomes (primarily take-up) examine how they relate to state actions and not to experiences of burden. To get a more comprehensive picture of how burdensome encounters influence citizens’ lives, we encourage future studies to examine the link between experiences of burden and outcomes.

Fifth, the advancement of the burden tolerance concept allows researchers to examine the extent to which individuals support barriers. An important assumption is that the burden tolerance of policymakers and bureaucrats shapes the actual design of state actions, but it has never been empirically examined. Doing so would help ascertain whether burden tolerance is consequential for the actual design of polices.

Sixth, the administrative burden literature is diverse in terms of methods, policy areas, and subjects. Most studies are conducted in Western countries, but there are studies of burdens from other contexts such as Pakistan and Latin America. However, there is a general lack of comparative studies of burdens across countries and across policies, which would be valuable in terms of providing knowledge on the extent to which context matters for experiences of burden. Likewise, comparative studies of barriers or across policy areas could elucidate which types of state actions are most likely to produce experiences of burdens.

New Questions to Pursue

While we have presented a quite extensive model based on current administrative burden studies, there are still important questions that have received little to no attention in the literature. An important part of the framework formulated by Herd and Moynihan (2018) is that burdens are not inherently bad, and that they often serve legitimate purposes of protecting program integrity and avoiding fraud. While the issue of burden legitimacy has received some theoretical attention ( Doughty and Baehler 2020 ), empirical scholarship has yet to engage with it. One important question is how policymakers and citizens form preferences regarding program integrity vis à vis target group members’ onerous experiences. Studies on burden tolerance touch upon this question, but do not tackle it directly. Another question is how policymakers legitimize the existence of administrative burdens. Do they emphasize fraud protection, budget concerns, targeting the most deserving individuals, or something else? A third question that should get more attention is how actors outside the citizen–state interaction shape experiences of administrative burdens. A few studies show that various third parties such as NGOs and family members can influence experiences of burden, but the roles of these actors still warrant more attention. Further, civil society and the media may influence citizens’ experiences. For example, target group members are often negatively portrayed in the media ( Baekgaard, Herd, and Moynihan 2022 ; Schneider and Ingram 1993 ), which could increase their experiences of burden.

The administrative burden literature, while surprisingly clearly demarcated from other fields of research, has developed into a thematically and methodologically diverse research field within few years. Overall, our systematic review demonstrates that empirical research in the field generally supports the original three-fold claim made by Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) that burdens are consequential, constructed, and fall harder on groups with few resources. Yet, the review also demonstrates that the literature has moved past these claims in important ways. Based on our reading and coding of 119 articles and working papers, we build a comprehensive model of causal claims in the literature. The model illustrates different relationships that have been explored in the still nascent literature on administrative burdens, and it highlights several new theoretical insights gained since the founding work of Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey (2015) . First, experiences of administrative burdens are sometimes unrelated to how burdens are constructed by the state and instead rely on other factors such as frontline service delivery, government communication, unintended actions, and third parties. Second, the model highlights that factors beyond political ideology may affect the construction of state actions by introducing the concept of burden tolerance. Third, the model shows that factors such as personal experience with programs, personality traits, and the structure of bureaucratic processes affect individuals’ burden tolerance. Finally, the model illustrates a potential feedback effect of citizens’ experiences of administrative burden on policymakers’ burden tolerance.

Our systematic coverage of the administrative burden literature offers promising avenues for new research. First, we call for studies that causally link state actions and experiences of administrative burden, for studies that link experiences of burden to outcomes such as democratic behavior and take-up, and for studies that connect policymakers’ burden tolerance to actual state actions. Methodologically, we call for in-depth qualitative studies of how burdens are experienced by people taking part in citizen–state interactions and comparative studies. Last, we argue that important questions remain unexplored. One topic that future research should address is how policymakers, bureaucrats, and members of the public balance the legitimacy of public policies against target group members’ experiences of administrative burden. Is it acceptable to enhance experiences of administrative burdens to avoid fraud or to target the right populations? Another topic that warrants more attention is how actors outside the citizen–state interaction shape experiences of administrative burden. For example, we know that welfare recipients are often negatively constructed in the media and society ( Baekgaard, Herd, and Moynihan 2022 ; Schneider and Ingram 1993 ), yet we have limited knowledge about whether this leads to them experiencing administrative burdens to a larger extent when interacting with the state.

Supplementary data is available at the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory online.

We thank Arne Hørlück Høeg for providing excellent research assistance. We are also thankful for the great comments we received from participants at the Administrative Burden pre-conference workshop at the 2022 PMRC.

This work was supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 802244).

No new data were generated or analyzed in support of this research.

Aarøe , Lene , Martin Baekgaard , Julian Christensen , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2021 . Personality and public administration: Policymaker tolerance of administrative burdens in welfare services . Public Administration Review 81 ( 4 ): 652 – 63 .

Google Scholar

Ali , Sameen A. Mohsin , and Samia W. Altaf . 2021 . Citizen trust, administrative capacity and administrative burden in Pakistan’s immunization program . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 17 .

Baekgaard , Martin , Pamela Herd , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2022 . Of “Welfare Queens” and “Poor Carinas” social constructions, deservingness messaging, and the mental health of welfare clients . British Journal of Political Science 53 ( 2 ): 594 – 612 .

Baekgaard , Martin , and Jonas Krogh Madsen . 2023 . Anticipated administrative burden: How proximity to upcoming compulsory meetings affect welfare recipients’ experiences of administrative burden . Public Administration 1 – 19 . doi: 10.1111/padm.12928

Baekgaard , Martin , Kim Sass Mikkelsen , Jonas Krogh Madsen , and Julian Christensen . 2021 . Reducing compliance demands in government benefit programs improves the psychological well-being of target group members . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31 ( 4 ): 806 – 21 .

Baekgaard , Martin , Donald P. Moynihan , and Mette Kjaergaard Thomsen . 2021 . Why do policymakers support administrative burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and personal experience . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31 ( 1 ): 184 – 200 .

Baekgaard , Martin , and Tara Tankink . 2022 . Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 5 ( 1 ): 16 – 21 .

Barnes , Carolyn. nd . Decoupling policy and practice: The redemption costs of WIC . Working Paper.

Google Preview

Barnes , Carolyn , and Virginia Riel . 2022 . “I don’t know nothing about that”: How “learning costs” undermine COVID-related efforts to make SNAP and WIC more accessible . Administration & Society 54 ( 10 ): 1902 – 30 .

Barnes , Carolyn Y. 2021 . “It takes a while to get used to”: The costs of redeeming public benefits . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31 ( 2 ): 295 – 310 .

Barnes , Carolyn Y. , and Julia R. Henly . 2018 . ‘They are underpaid and understaffed’: How clients interpret encounters with street-level bureaucrats . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 ( 2 ): 456 – 456 .

Bashir , Mohsin , and Muhammed Azfar Nisar . 2020 . Expectation versus reality: Political expediency and implementation of information to information laws . Public Administration Quarterly 44 ( 1 ): 3 – 30 .

Bell , Elizabeth , Julian Christensen , Pamela Herd , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2022 . Health in citizen-state interactions: How physical and mental health problems shape experiences of administrative burden and reduce take-up . The American Review of Public Administration 83 ( 2 ): 385 – 400 .

Bell , Elizabeth , and Katharine Meyer . nd . Can reducing workload enhance equity at the front-lines? How street-level bureaucrats’ capacity impacts access to burdensome public programs . Working Paper.

Bell , Elizabeth , and Kylie Smith . 2022 . Working within a system of administrative burden: How street-level bureaucrats’ role perceptions shape access to the promise of higher education . Administration & Society 54 ( 2 ): 167 – 211 .

Bell , Elizabeth , Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan , Wesley Wehde , and Kylie Smith . 2020 . Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden . Public Administration Review 81 ( 4 ): 610 – 24 .

Bhanot , Syon P. 2021 . Good for you or good for us? A field experiment on motivating citizen behavior change . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 14 .

Bhargava , Saurabh , and Dayanand Manoli . 2015 . Psychological frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: Evidence from an IRS field experiment . American Economic Review 105 ( 11 ): 3489 – 529 .

Bisgaard , Mette . 2023 . Dealing with bureaucracy: measuring citizens’ bureaucratic self-efficacy . International Review of Public Administration 28 ( 1 ): 45 – 63 .

Bozeman , Barry , and Jan Youtie . 2020 . Robotic bureaucracy: Administrative burden and red tape in university research . Public Administration Review 80 ( 1 ): 157 – 62 .

Brodkin , Evelyn Z. , and Malay Majmundar . 2010 . Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 ( 4 ): 827 – 48 .

Bruch , Sarah K. , Myra Marx Ferree , and Joe Soss . 2010 . From policy to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens . American Sociological Review 75 ( 2 ): 205 – 26 .

Burden , Barry C. , David T. Canon , Kenneth R. Mayer , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2012 . The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration . Public Administration Review 72 ( 5 ): 741 – 51 .

Campbell , Jesse W. , Sanjay K. Pandey , and Lars Arnesen . 2022 . The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures . Public Administration Review 83 ( 2 ): 296 – 315 .

Carey , Gemma , Helen Dickinson , Eleanor Malbon , Megan Weier , and Gordon Duff . 2020 . Burdensome administration and its risks: Competing logics in policy implementation . Administration & Society 52 ( 9 ): 1362 – 81 .

Carey , Gemma , Eleanor Malbon , and James Blackwell . 2021 . Administering inequality? The national disability insurance scheme and administrative burdens on individuals . Australian Journal of Public Administration 80 ( 4 ): 854 – 72 .

Cecchini , Mathilde. nd . Into the unknown—The administrative burden of uncertainty in citizen-state interactions . Working Paper.

Christensen , Julian , Lene Aarøe , Martin Baekgaard , Pamela Herd , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2020 . Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions . Public Administration Review 80 ( 1 ): 127 – 36 .

Chudnovsky , Mariana , and Rik Peeters . 2021a . A cascade of exclusion: Administrative burdens and access to citizenship in the case of Argentina’s National Identity Document . International Review of Administrative Sciences 88 ( 4 ): 1068 – 85 .

———. 2021b . The unequal distribution of administrative burden: A framework and an illustrative case study for understanding variation in people’s experience of burdens . Social Policy and Administration 55 ( 4 ): 527 – 42 .

Collie , Alex , Luke Sheehan , Ashley McAllister , and Genevieve Grant . 2021 . The learning, compliance, and psychological costs of applying for the disability support pension . Australian Journal of Public Administration 80 ( 4 ): 873 – 90 .

Compton , Mallory E. , Matthew M. Young , Justin B. Bullock , and Robert Greer . 2022 . Administrative errors and race: Can technology mitigate inequitable administrative outcomes ? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33 : 512 – 28 .

Cook , Kay. 2021 . Gender, malice, obligation and the state: Separated mothers’ experiences of administrative burdens with Australia’s child support program . Australian Journal of Public Administration 80 ( 4 ): 912 – 32 .

Currie , Janet. 2006 . The take-up of social benefits . In Public policy and the distribution of income , ed. A. J. Auerbach , D. Card , and J. M. Quigley , 80 – 148 . New York : Russell Sage Foundation .

Daigneault , Pierre Marc , and Christian Macé . 2020 . Program awareness, administrative burden, and non-take-up of Québec’s supplement to the work premium . International Journal of Public Administration 43 ( 6 ): 527 – 39 .

Döring , Matthias. 2021 . How-to bureaucracy: A concept of citizens’ administrative literacy . Administration & Society 53 ( 8 ): 1155 – 77 .

Döring , Matthias , and Jonas Krogh Madsen . 2022 . Mitigating psychological costs—The role of citizens’ administrative literacy and social capital . Public Administration Review 82 ( 4 ): 671 – 81 .

Doughty , Meghan , and Karen J. Baehler . 2020 . “Hostages to compliance”: Towards a reasonableness test for administrative burdens . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 3 ( 4 ): 273 – 87 .

George , Bert , Sanjay K. Pandey , Bram Steijn , Adelien Decramer , and Mieke Audenaert . 2020 . Red tape, organizational performance and employee outcomes: Meta‐analysis, meta‐regression and research agenda . Public Administration Review 81 ( 4 ): 638 – 51 .

Gilad , Sharon , and Michaela Assouline . 2022 . Citizens’ choice to voice in response to administrative burdens . International Public Management Journal : 1 – 22 . doi: 10.1080/10967494.2022.2072988

Griffiths , Rita. 2021 . Universal credit and automated decision making: A case of the digital tail wagging the policy dog ? Social Policy and Society : 1 – 18 .

Haeder , Simon F. , Steven M. Sylvester , and Timothy Callaghan . 2021 . Lingering legacies: Public attitudes about Medicaid beneficiaries and work requirements . Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 46 ( 2 ): 305 – 55 .

Halling , Aske. nd . Taxing language: Do interpreting fees affect healthcare usage? Working Paper.

Halling , Aske , Pamela Herd , and Donald Moynihan . 2022 . How difficult should it be? Evidence of burden tolerance from a nationally representative sample . Public Management Review : 1 – 20 . doi: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2056910

Halling , Aske , and Niels Bjørn Grund Petersen . nd . Burden feedback: When citizens communicate burdens, frontline employees respond evidence from an experiment . Working Paper.

Hattke , Fabian , Judith Hattke , David Hensel , Pamela Herd , Janne Kaluzca , Donald P. Moynihan , and Rick Vogel . nd . Face-to-face with administrative burdens: Physiological measures and behavioral consequences of psychological costs . Working Paper.

Hattke , Fabian , David Hensel , and Janne Kalucza . 2020 . Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape . Public Administration Review 80 ( 1 ): 53 – 63 .

Heinrich , Carolyn J. 2016 . The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26 ( 3 ): 403 – 20 .

———. 2018 . Presidential address: “A thousand petty fortresses”: Administrative burden in US immigration policies and its consequences . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37 ( 2 ): 211 – 39 .

Heinrich , Carolyn J. , and Robert Brill . 2015 . Stopped in the name of the law: Administrative burden and its implications for cash transfer program effectiveness . World Development 72 ( August ): 277 – 95 .

Heinrich , Carolyn J. , Sayil Camacho , Kaitlin Binsted , and Shadlan Gale . 2022 . An audit test evaluation of state practices for supporting access to and promoting Covid-19 vaccinations . Social Science and Medicine 301 : 114880 .

Herd , Pamela , Thomas DeLeire , Hope Harvey , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2013 . Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of Medicaid take-up . Public Administration Review 73 ( s1 ): s69 – 81 .

Herd , Pamela , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2018 . Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means , 1st ed. New York : Russell Sage Foundation .

Hock , Heinrich , John T. Jones , Michael Levere , and David Wittenburg . 2021 . Using behavioral outreach to counteract administrative burden and encourage take-up of simplified disability payment rules . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 15 .

Holler , Roni , and Noam Tarshish . 2022 . Administrative burden in citizen-state encounters: The role of waiting, communication breakdowns and administrative errors . Social Policy and Society : 1 – 18 .

Hoynes , Hilary , Diane W. Schanzenbach , and Douglas Almond . 2016 . Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net . American Economic Review 106 ( 4 ): 903 – 34 .

Jakobsen , Morten , Oliver James , Donald P. Moynihan , and Tina Nabatchi . 2016 . JPART virtual issue on citizen-state interactions in public administration research . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29 ( 4 ): e8 – 15 .

Jenkins , Jade Marcus , and Tutrang Nguyen . 2022 . Keeping kids in care: Reducing administrative burden in state child care development fund policy . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32 ( 1 ): 23 – 40 .

Jilke , Sebastian , Wouter Van Dooren , and Sabine Rys . 2018 . Discrimination and administrative burden in public service markets: Does a public-private difference exist ? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 ( 3 ): 423 – 39 .

Johnson , Donavon , and Alexander Kroll . 2021 . What makes us tolerant of administrative burden? Race, representation, and identity . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 9 .

Kaufmann , Wesley , Alex Ingrams , and Daan Jacobs . 2021 . Being consistent matters: Experimental evidence on the effect of rule consistency on citizen red tape . American Review of Public Administration 51 ( 1 ): 28 – 39 .

Keiser , Lael R. , and Susan M. Miller . 2020 . Does administrative burden influence public support for government programs? Evidence from a survey experiment . Public Administration Review 80 ( 1 ): 137 – 50 .

Kyle , Michael Anne , and Austin B. Frakt . 2021 . Patient administrative burden in the US health care system . Health Services Research 56 ( 5 ): 755 – 65 .

Larsson , Karl Kristian. 2021 . Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens . Government Information Quarterly 38 ( 1 ): 101547 – 10 .

Lasky-Fink , Jessica , and Linos . Elizabeth . 2023 . Improving delivery of the social safety net: The role of stigma . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory .

Linos , Elizabeth , Lisa T. Quan , and Elspeth Kirkman . 2020 . Nudging early reduces administrative burden: Three field experiments to improve code enforcement . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 39 ( 1 ): 243 – 65 .

Linos , Elizabeth , Vikash Reddy , and Jesse Rothstein . 2022 . Demystifying college costs: How nudges can and can’t help . Behavioral Public Policy : 1 – 22 .

Linos , Elizabeth , and Nefara Riesch . 2020 . Thick red tape and the thin blue line: A field study on reducing administrative burden in police recruitment . Public Administration Review 80 ( 1 ): 92 – 103 .

Linos , Katerina , Melissa Carlson , Laura Jakli , Nadia Dalma , Isabelle Cohen , Afroditi Veloudaki , and Stavros Nikiforos Spyrellis . 2022 . How do disadvantaged groups seek information about public services? A randomized controlled trial of communication technologies . Public Administration Review 82 ( 4 ): 708 – 20 .

Lipsky , Michael. 1980 . Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services . New York : Russell Sage Foundation .

Lopoo , Leonard M. , Colleen Heflin , and Joseph Boskovski . 2020 . Testing behavioral interventions designed to improve on-time SNAP recertification . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 3 ( 2 ): 1 – 8 .

Madsen , Christian Østergaard , Ida Lindgren , and Ulf Melin . 2022 . The accidental caseworker—How digital self-service influences citizens’ administrative burden . Government Information Quarterly 39 ( 1 ): 101653 .

Madsen , Jonas Krogh. nda . Compliant but discouraged? How administrative burden influence unemployment benefit recipients’ job search motivation . Working Paper.

———. ndb . Frictions on both sides of the counter? A study of red tape among street-level bureaucrats and administrative burden among their clients . Working Paper.

Madsen , Jonas Krogh , Martin Baekgaard , and Jon Kvist . 2022 . Scarcity and the mindsets of social welfare recipients: Evidence from a field experiment . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33 : 675 – 87 .

Madsen , Jonas Krogh , and Kim Sass Mikkelsen . 2022 . How salient administrative burden affects job seekers’ locus of control and responsibility attribution: Evidence from a survey experiment . International Public Management Journal 25 ( 2 ): 241 – 60 .

Madsen , Jonas Krogh , Kim Sass Mikkelsen , and Donald P. Moynihan . 2022 . Burdens, sludge, ordeals, red tape, oh my! A user’s guide to the study of frictions . Public Administration 100 ( 2 ): 375 – 93 .

Masood , Ayesha , and Muhammed Azfar Nisar . 2021 . Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 31 ( 1 ): 56 – 72 .

Mikkelsen , Kim Sass , Jonas Krogh Madsen , and Martin Baekgaard . 2023 . Is stress among street level bureaucrats associated with experiences of administrative burden among clients? A multilevel study of the Danish unemployment sector . Public Administration Review 1 – 13 . doi: 10.1111/puar.13673

Moynihan , Donald , Eric Giannella , Pamela Herd , and Julie Sutherland . 2022 . Matching to categories: Learning and compliance costs in administrative processes . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32 ( 4 ): 750 – 64 .

Moynihan , Donald , and Joe Soss . 2014 . Policy feedback and the politics of administration . Public Administration Review 74 ( 3 ): 320 – 32 .

Moynihan , Donald P. , Pamela Herd , and Hope Harvey . 2015 . Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 ( 1 ): 43 – 69 .

Moynihan , Donald P. , Pamela Herd , and Elizabeth Ribgy . 2016 . Policymaking by other means: Do states use administrative barriers to limit access to Medicaid . Administration & Society 48 ( 4 ): 497 – 524 .

Newman , Mark E. J. 2003 . Mixing patterns in networks . Physical Review 67 ( 026126 ): 1 – 13 .

Nicholson-Crotty , Jill , Susan M. Miller , and Lael R. Keiser . 2021 . Administrative burden, social construction, and public support for government programs . Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 29 .

Nisar , Muhammad A. 2018 . Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in citizen-state interactions . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 ( 1 ): 104 – 19 .

Nisar , Muhammed A. , and Ayesha Masood . nd . Governance by artifacts: Theory and evidence on materiality of administrative burdens . Working Paper.

Olsen , Asmus Leth. 2017 . Human interest or hard numbers? Experiments on citizens’ selection, exposure, and recall of performance information . Public Administration Review 77 ( 3 ): 408 – 20 .

Olsen , Asmus Leth , Jonas Høgh Kyhse-Andersen , and Donald Moynihan . 2020 . The unequal distribution of opportunity: A national audit study of bureaucratic discrimination in primary school access . American Journal of Political Science , Early view version, 66 ( 3 ): 587 – 603 .

Page , Matthew J. , Joanne E. McKenzie , Patrick M. Bossuyt , Isabelle Boutron , Tammy C. Hoffmann , Cynthia D. Mulrow , Larissa Shamseer , et al.  2021 . The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ 372 : n71 .

Peeters , Rik. 2020 . The political economy of administrative burdens: A theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burden . Administration & Society 52 ( 4 ): 566 – 92 .

Peeters , Rik , and Sergio A. Campos . 2021 . Taking the bite out of administrative burdens: How beneficiaries of a Mexican social program ease administrative burdens in street-level interactions . Governance 34 ( 4 ): 1001 – 18 .

Peeters , Rik , Humberto Trujillo Jimenez , Elizabeth O’Connor , Pascual Ogarrio Rojas , Michele Gonzalez Galindo , and Daniela Morales Tenorio . 2018 . Low-trust bureaucracy: Understanding the Mexican bureaucratic experience . Public Administration and Development 38 ( 2 ): 65 – 74 .

Peeters , Rik , César Renteria , and Guillermo M. Cejudo . nd . How information capacity shapes administrative burdens: A comparison of the citizen experience of the COVID-19 vaccination programs in the United States, Mexico, and the Netherlands . Working Paper.

Peeters , Rik , and Arjan Widlak . 2018 . The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture—The case of the Dutch civil registry’s master data management system . Government Information Quarterly 35 : 175 – 83 .

——— . 2023 . Administrative exclusion in the infrastructure-level bureaucracy: The case of the Dutch daycare benefit scandal . Public Administration Review 83 ( 4 ): 863 – 877 . doi: 10.1111/puar.13615

Perianes-Rodriguez , Antonio , Ludo Waltman , and Nees Jan van Eck . 2016 . Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting . Journal of Informetrics 10 ( 4 ): 1178 – 95 .

Petersen , Ole Helby , Jesper Rosenberg Hansen , and Kurt Houlberg . 2022 . The administrative burden of doing business with the government: Learning and compliance costs in Business-Government interactions . Public Administration Review 1 – 19 . doi: 10.1111/padm.12904

Schneider , Anne , and Helen Ingram . 1993 . Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy . American Political Science Review 87 ( 2 ): 334 – 47 .

Selin , Jennifer L. 2019 . The best laid plans: How administrative burden complicates voting rights restoration . Missouri Law Review 84 ( 4 ): 1 – 38 .

Sievert , Martin , and Jonas Bruder . 2023 . Unpacking the effects of burdensome state actions on citizens’ policy perceptions . Public Administration 1 – 21 .

Sievert , Martin , Dominik Vogel , and Mary K. Feeney . 2020 . Formalization and administrative burden as obstacles to employee recruitment: Consequences for the public sector . Review of Public Personnel Administration 42 ( 1 ): 3 – 30 .

Soss , Joe. 1999 . Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action . American Political Science Review 93 ( 2 ): 363 – 80 .

Soss , Joe , Richard Fording , and Sanford F. Schram . 2011 . The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 : i203 – 32 .

Thomsen , Mette Kjaergaard , Martin Baekgaard , and Ulrich Thy Jensen . 2020 . The psychological costs of citizen coproduction . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30 ( 4 ): 656 – 73 .

Widlak , Arjan , and Rik Peeters . 2020 . Administrative errors and the burden of correction and consequence: How information technology exacerbates the consequences of bureaucratic mistakes for citizens . International Journal of Electronic Governance 12 ( 1 ): 1 – 56 .

Yates , Sophie , Gemma Carey , Eleanor Malbon , and Jen Hargrave . 2022 . “Faceless monster, secret society”: Women’s experiences navigating the administrative burden of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme . Health and Social Care in the Community 50 ( 5 ): e2308 – 17 .

As the only exception, we excluded Herd and Moynihan (2018) from the review. The main points in this book have been covered in several journal articles by the authors and including it would therefore introduce the risk of double-counting arguments.

Many of the working papers were later published. The initial number of working papers was 30.

Since this feedback effect is mainly inspired by policy feedback research, for the sake of simplicity we chose not to show this as an independent arrow in the model.

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1477-9803
• Print ISSN 1053-1858
• Copyright © 2024 Public Management Research Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

MINI REVIEW article

The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom–a critical review of the literature.

• 1 Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand
• 2 Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
• 3 Graduate Department, Xi’an Physical Education University, Xi’an, China
• 4 College of Commerce and Tourism, Hunan Vocational College for Nationalities, Yueyang, China
• 5 Graduate Department, Sehan University, Yeongam County, Republic of Korea

Objective: The purpose of this review is to identify the impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on student engagement, specifically cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, and affective engagement.

Methods: A comprehensive search of databases such as Google, Scopus, and Elsevier was conducted to identify English-language articles related to VR and classroom engagement for the period from 2014 to 2023. After systematic screening, 33 articles were finally reviewed.

Results: The use of VR in the classroom is expected to improve student engagement and learning outcomes, and is particularly effective for students with learning disabilities. However, introducing VR into middle school education poses several challenges, including difficulties in the education system to keep up with VR developments, increased demands on students’ digital literacy, and insufficient proficiency of teachers in using VR.

Conclusion: To effectively utilize VR to increase student engagement, we advocate for educational policymakers to provide training and technical support to teachers to ensure that they can fully master and integrate VR to increase student engagement and instructional effectiveness.

Introduction

In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a transformative technology in education, providing new avenues for immersive and interactive learning experiences ( Pottle, 2019 ). At its core, VR offers a departure from the tangible, allowing users to delve into an environment transcending conventional reality ( Brooks, 1999 ; Jeong et al., 2019 ). VR’s essence is captured in three pillars: presence, interactivity, and immersion ( Lee et al., 2017 ). Presence grants users access to previously unreachable 3D landscapes, facilitating a unique, experiential insight ( Poux et al., 2020 ). Interactivity kindles user curiosity, enabling dynamic engagements within the virtual milieu ( Steuer et al. 1995 ; Huvila, 2013 ; Song et al., 2023 ). Immersion pushes the boundaries of conventional experiences, reviving or manifesting phenomena outside the realm of everyday life ( Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005 ; Poux et al., 2020 ).

The introduction of VR in education might increase student engagement, which is closely related to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of the engagement model ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Cognitive engagement underscores the depth of students’ attention, comprehension, and retention ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Behavioral engagement is observable, characterized by consistent attendance and active classroom participation ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Affective engagement delves into the emotional realm, encompassing motivation, passion, and learning efficacy ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ).

Existing literature emphasizes the importance of virtual reality technology in promoting full student engagement in cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions, and states that the application of virtual reality technology in education has become a trend ( Mystakidis et al., 2021 ). Some literature shows that higher education institutions are increasingly adopting VR, with adoption rates as high as 46% at US universities and 96% at United Kingdom universities ( United Kingdom Authority, 2019 ; Agbo et al., 2021 ). In addition, the establishment of dedicated VR laboratories at leading universities such as Harvard University and Colorado State University underscores the commitment to using VR for educational innovation and advancement ( Reid, 1987 ; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995 ). This literature shows that the widespread use of VR in education has attracted the attention of a growing number of researchers and educators, with a particular interest in the impact of VR in the classroom in terms of students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement.

It is worth noting that although existing literature begins to discuss the impact of VR on student engagement, there are still shortcomings in determining the impact of VR on various dimensions of student engagement, which may limit our overall understanding of the topic. Therefore, further discussion is needed to more specifically identify the impact of VR on the various dimensions of student engagement to gain a more comprehensive and concrete understanding. To accomplish this, this review is guided by the following three questions: (1) What are the positive impacts of VR in education? (2) What are the challenges of VR in education? (3) What interventions can address these challenges? With this in mind, the article will first discuss the positive impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement to help readers understand its potential in education. It will then discuss the challenges facing VR to make constructive recommendations to address the problems in education.

Searching strategy

In our methods, we used critical review. According to Grant and Booth (2009) “an effective critical review presents, analyses and synthesizes material from diverse sources”(p.93). Critical perspectives were used to assess the potential of VR in reforming educational practices and improving teaching and learning outcomes. The purpose of this article was to collect literature on the impact of VR on student engagement. Therefore, this article summarizes the previous studies as follows. First, information was obtained from Google, Scopus, and Elsevier databases: “virtual reality,” “cognitive engagement,” “affective engagement,” “behavioral engagement” and “learning outcomes.” The search was limited to articles published between January 2014 and December 2023 in English. The first search used all combinations of the above keywords and, after an initial review, produced 97 potentially relevant articles (Google: 92, Scopus: 3, Elsevier: 2).

In the second phase, secondary terms such as “affect,” “challenge,” and “education” were added, reducing the number of studies to 63 (Google:60, Scopus:1, Elsevier:2). Of these, 34 did not meet the criteria and were excluded. They were excluded because their target audience was teachers and did not discuss the impact of VR on student engagement from the student’s perspective. In the final stage, another 53 articles were excluded because they were repetitive and their purpose was to discuss either technology or engagement, or both. Finally, their full texts were reviewed to determine if their work fits the focus of this article 20 articles (Google: 17, Scopus: 1, Elsevier: 2) qualified for final review, covered a sample on the impact of VR on student engagement, and were included in the analysis.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To ensure the quality of the literature, we selected only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English in the last decade. The main purpose of this article was to review the impact of VR on student engagement. Therefore, we selected only review articles on the impact of VR on student engagement in educational settings. Articles that were not written in English did not discuss the impact on engagement from a student perspective, and were published beyond the previously established time and language were excluded. In addition, a selection of articles was identified and assessed by manually searching the references of articles related to the topic, of which 13 met the eligibility criteria. Therefore, 13 additional articles were added to the 20 identified. In total, 33 articles that met these eligibility criteria were included and reviewed here. Full-text versions of the articles were obtained, with each article being reviewed and confirmed as appropriate by the authors. Finally, to maximize transparency and traceability, we list the rationale and relevant evidence for all articles included (see Table 1 ). The process of article selection followed the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ; see Figure 1 ). Figure 1 illustrates the process of article selection.

Table 1 . Publications reviewed in full text with reasons for inclusion or exclusion.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram for article selection.

The review found that the number of publications increased each year from 2014 to 2023, indicating the continued interest of researchers in exploring the impact of VR on student engagement. When reviewing the impact of VR on student engagement, Wang and Degol’s (2014) article had the most citations at 450, suggesting that the article had a strong impact in the area of student use of VR in the classroom. The majority of articles had only 10 or fewer citations, which may have indicated that these articles were relatively new or had less impact in the field. It was worth noting that more recently published articles, such as Rzanova et al. (2023) , did not have enough time to accumulate citations, so their impact on the field may not have been fully reflected in current citations.

To summarize, the differences in the number of citations for these articles highlighted their different levels of influence in the area of VR’s impact on student engagement. However, there were some limitations to the review methods. For example, some articles might not have fully reflected their impact on the field in the current citations due to their short time frames, which might have resulted in less comprehensive findings. Furthermore, the literature included was small, and in the future consideration would be given to expanding the search of literature and databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science databases, as well as expanding the search with keywords, such as “students’ attitudes toward VR.” In addition, the inclusion and exclusion criteria might have limited the generalizability of the results of the review, and therefore more caution was needed when generalizing the results of the review.

The positive impact of VR on education

This section will discuss the impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement participation. It is important in the field of education. Radianti et al. (2020) noted that student engagement in educational settings was critical to learning outcomes and classroom climate. Yuan and Wang (2021) further noted that the combined effects of cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement could directly impact student learning outcomes and classroom contextual experiences. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the impact of VR on these three dimensions of engagement can provide valuable insights into educational practices and help educators better optimize classroom environments and teaching methods.

First, Papanastasiou et al. (2019) noted that VR immersive learning experiences promoted students’ cognitive engagement and aided in understanding complex and abstract knowledge. That is, through immersive learning, students can understand and remember what they have learned in greater depth and increase cognitive engagement. Pellas (2016) also found that VR encouraged students to learn through self-directed inquiry and move away from traditional teacher-centered instruction. Pellas (2016) further explained that, through VR scenario reenactments and simulations, students could engage in real-world unavailable learning experiences such as exploring historical sites and visiting distant planets. This means that such learning experiences enable students to explore knowledge in deeper and more varied ways, thus increasing cognitive engagement. Similarly, Maples-Keller et al. (2017) showed that VR was beneficial in engaging different types of students in learning, particularly for at-risk students, including those with learning difficulties, anxiety disorders, and other mental illnesses. VR provided personalized and adaptive learning environments that helped students improve cognitive engagement and achievement ( Maples-Keller et al., 2017 ). In summary, VR facilitates understanding of complex knowledge and promotes cognitive engagement for different types of students through immersive learning experiences and self-directed inquiry learning.

Secondly, Pirker and Dengel (2021) demonstrated that VR could promote student behavioral engagement. They discussed the potential of immersive VR in education through an in-depth analysis of 64 articles. They showed that “learning tasks in 3-D VLEs can foster intrinsic motivation for and engagement with the learning content” (p.77). Sun and Peng (2020) also suggested that by combining classical educational concepts with VR, such as Confucianism’s promotion of teaching for fun, students were better able to engage in learning activities. For example, Rzanova et al. (2023) found that the use of VR in the teaching of poetry to create the scenarios depicted in the verses enabled students to actively participate in classroom activities. Similarly, Freina and Ott (2015) also found that by simulating real school escape scenarios in VR, students could take on different roles to perform escape drills, and this sense of behavioral engagement can help students better master escape techniques and enhance safety awareness. These articles seem to echo that VR helps to enhance student behavioral engagement.

It is worth noting that there is debate about whether VR has a positive impact on student behavioral engagement. Proponents noted that students’ hands-on experience and exploration in virtual environments stimulated interest and behavioral engagement ( Wong et al., 2010 ; Allcoat and Von Mühlenen, 2018 ). This view suggests that VR provides an immersive learning experience that enhances students’ motivation and promotes deeper engagement in classroom activities. However, contrary findings exist, suggesting that the use of VR may have some negative effects. For example, students might have become addicted to the virtual world and neglected their real-life tasks and responsibilities, thus affecting their behavior in the classroom ( Cheng et al., 2015 ; Greenwald et al., 2018 ; Makransky et al., 2019 ). In addition, some other scholars noted that there might have been a gap between learning experiences in virtual environments and real-world learning experiences, which might have affected students’ ability to acquire and apply knowledge ( Makransky and Petersen, 2021 ). These conflicting results remind us that these complexities and diversities need to be taken into account when evaluating the role of VR technology in improving student engagement in the classroom.

Finally, scholars such as Wu et al. (2013) , Schutte and Stilinović (2017) , and Yuen et al. (2011) found that VR helped to promote student affective engagement. For example, Schutte and Stilinović (2017) found that contexts provided by VR for children with emotional impairments or disabilities taught them skills in communicating with people and managing their emotions, thus fostering empathy. This implies that VR may stimulate affective engagement. Wu et al. (2013) and Yuen et al. (2011) also found that VR provided opportunities for affective interaction, enabling students to interact with characters in the virtual environment. In language learning, for example, practicing through conversations with virtual characters could help students improve their oral expression ( Dhimolea et al., 2022 ). This means that affective interactions may increase students’ affective engagement with the learning content. Similarly, Misak (2018) noted that VR allowed students to role-play in virtual literature and experience the affective portrayed in the story. In other words, affective experiences may deepen students’ understanding of literary works and increase affective engagement. This literature seems to reflect that VR can promote student affective engagement.

In general, VR positively impacts students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement. In terms of cognitive engagement, VR can facilitate students’ cognitive engagement with learning materials and better understanding of abstract and complex knowledge by creating immersive situations. In terms of behavioral engagement, VR stimulates active student engagement and action through interactive learning. Although there is debate about whether VR has a positive impact on student behavioral engagement, literature has demonstrated the positive impact of VR on student behavioral engagement. In terms of affective engagement, VR promotes students’ emotional engagement by triggering affective resonance through affective experience and affective interaction. This full engagement helps students improve their learning and develop empathy.

The following section discusses the challenges faced when introducing VR in education. Through understanding these challenges, we can better understand the problems in the education system and make some constructive suggestions to help address them.

The challenge of VR in education

Despite the positive impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement, there are still two challenges to introducing VR into middle education, namely the difficulty of the educational system in keeping up with VR developments and the lack of teacher proficiency in VR use ( Islam et al., 2015 ; Zhong, 2017 ; Abich et al., 2021 ). For example, Islam et al. (2015) observed that the pace of technological advancement, including VR, outpaced the ability of the education system to adapt. This phenomenon is due to the slow reform of the education system, which takes time for the acceptance and adoption of emerging technologies ( Islam et al., 2015 ). To this end, the education sector may take longer to standardize the syllabus, resulting in students not having immediate access to VR ( Zhong, 2017 ). In other words, students may not have the opportunity to experience VR in the classroom until the education department completes the standardization process. Sahlberg (2016) further stated that while reform and standardization in the education sector took time, once VR and the education system evolved in tandem, students benefited from an education that matched the VR of the day.

Other scholars observed that VR education faced several challenges in developing digital literacy in students ( Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai, 2006 ; Sahlberg, 2016 ). According to Reddy et al. (2020) , “digital literacy is a set of skills required by 21st Century individuals to use digital tools to support the achievement of goals in their life situations” (p. 66). Digital literacy encompasses the assessment of digital technologies, critical thinking, and the ability to create and express oneself digitally ( Reddy et al., 2020 ). For example, Tsivitanidou et al. (2021) and Necci et al. (2015) emphasized the need for students to identify the differences between the results of simulation experiments and real experiments and to assess the reliability and accuracy of simulation experiments. In other words, students need to judge the plausibility of the results of simulation experiments and interpret and evaluate those results in real-world situations.

Similarly, Farmer and Farmer (2023) found that digital literacy required students to master VR painting and sculpting tools to create art. This involved learning to select appropriate colors and textures and creating three-dimensional effects with VR tools ( Skulmowski et al., 2021 ). Meanwhile, Andone et al. (2018) further noted that students also needed to learn to share and present their work to others in virtual reality. This observation seems to reflect the high demand for students’ creativity, technical skills, and expressive abilities when introducing VR into education. In sum, while the development of VR education benefits students’ learning in conjunction with VR, there are challenges to students’ digital literacy and the technological adaptability of the education system.

In addition, teachers’ lack of proficiency in the use of VR is another major challenge in introducing VR into middle education. For example, Abich et al. (2021) found that teachers might lack proficiency in the operation and application of VR, which might result in teachers not being able to fully utilize VR to supplement instruction. Jensen and Konradsen (2018) claimed that “for HMDs to become a relevant tool for instructors they must have the ability to produce and edit their content” (p.1525). This means that teachers need to spend time familiarizing themselves with HMDs and related software to create, edit, and customize content to meet their specific instructional needs. Similarly, Fransson et al. (2020) discussed the challenges of teachers operating VR equipment and software. They interviewed 28 teachers to understand teachers’ challenges with implementing helmet display VR in educational settings. Fransson et al. (2020) indicated that there might be a technological threshold and learning curve for teachers in controlling and operating VR devices, which might affect the effective use of VR for teaching and learning.

While teachers may lack familiarity with VR, there are solutions to this challenge. For example, Alfalah (2018) noted that proper training and support could help teachers make the most of VR to supplement instruction. That is, teacher training can provide teachers with the technical knowledge and operational skills they need to familiarize themselves with how VR equipment and software work. To this end, Alfalah (2018) found the impact of providing teachers with VR training in schools. They used a quantitative approach by distributing a questionnaire online to 30 IT teachers. Alfalah (2018) indicated that “technology training may be maximized for the integration of VR technology” (P.2634). This finding seems to reflect that proper teacher training and support can be effective in helping teachers overcome the operational and application of VR technology’s difficulties.

In sum, prior literature has shown that introducing VR into middle school education faces several challenges. First, the rapid development of technology makes the educational system keep up with VR, resulting in a disconnect between the educational curriculum and VR. Second, there may be a lack of proficiency in students’ digital literacy and teachers’ handling and application of VR. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. With proper training and support, teachers can make full use of VR to supplement their teaching and learning to realize the potential of VR in education. It is worth noting that through the literature we have found that in practice, due to the rapid development of technology and the limitations of the educational system, achieving a complete balance may take some time and effort. Therefore, considering how to address the gap between the speed of VR development and the education system to better integrate and apply VR in education makes sense.

This article describes the impact of VR on student cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement and the challenges posed by VR education. The literature review finds that using VR in the classroom can positively impact student engagement and learning outcomes. An interesting finding is that VR can be a promising tool for providing education to students with learning disabilities. For example, the previous literature review section describes how for students with learning difficulties, anxiety disorders, and other mental illnesses, VR can provide personalized and adaptive learning environments that can help students improve cognitive engagement and academic performance. And, for children with emotional disorders or disabilities, VR provides contexts that can teach them skills for communicating with others and managing their emotions, thereby developing empathy and stimulating affective engagement.

However, the potential problems with incorporating VR in middle education are the difficulty of the education system in keeping up with VR developments, the higher demands of student digital literacy, and the lack of teacher proficiency in the use of VR. These challenges require educational policymakers to provide training and technical support to teachers to ensure that they can fully master and integrate VR to improve student engagement and teaching effectiveness.

Author contributions

XL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZNY: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZY: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MZ: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the General Topics of China’s Hunan Province Social Science Achievement Evaluation Committee Fund [Grant no. XSP2023JYC123].

Acknowledgments

We are deeply appreciative of the editors and reviewers of this journal for their unwavering dedication and contributions that have shaped the publication of this article. Their constructive feedback and invaluable insights were instrumental in bringing this piece to fruition. We extend our heartfelt thanks to the readers with a keen interest in virtual reality technology. It is our sincere hope that this article will inspire enriched discussions within the academic community about the potential and nuances of using virtual reality in educational contexts.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abich, J., Parker, J., Murphy, J. S., and Eudy, M. (2021). A review of the evidence for training effectiveness with virtual reality technology. Virtual Reality 25, 919–933. doi: 10.1007/s10055-020-00498-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agbo, F. J., Sanusi, I. T., Oyelere, S. S., and Suhonen, J. (2021). Application of virtual reality in computer science education: a systemic review based on bibliometric and content analysis methods. Educ. Sci. 11, 1–23. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030142

Alfalah, S. F. (2018). Perceptions toward adopting virtual reality as a teaching aid in information technology. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 2633–2653. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9734-2

Allcoat, D., and Von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: effects on performance, emotion, and engagement. Res. Learn. Technol. 26, 1–13. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v26.2140

Andone, D., Vert, S., Frydenberg, M., and Vasiu, R. (2018). Open virtual reality project to improve students’ skills. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , 6–10. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2018.00008

Aviram, A., and Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: three scenarios for the next steps. Eur. J. Open Distance E Learn 9, 1–11.

Google Scholar

Brooks, F. P. (1999). What's real about virtual reality? Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Comput. Graph. Appl. 19, 16–27. doi: 10.1109/38.799723

Cheng, M.-T., Chen, J.-H., Chu, S.-J., and Chen, S.-Y. (2015). The use of serious games in science education: a review of selected empirical research from 2002 to 2013. J. Comput. Educ. 2, 353–375. doi: 10.1007/s40692-015-0039-9

Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., and Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends 66, 810–824. doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00717-w

Fransson, G., Holmberg, J., and Westelius, C. (2020). The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K-12 schools from a teacher perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25, 3383–3404. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10119-1

Freina, L., and Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. Int. Sci. Conf. E Learn. Softw. Educ. 1, 10–1007. doi: 10.12753/2066-026x-15-020

Grant, M. J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greenwald, S. W., Corning, W., Funk, M., and Maes, P. (2018). Comparing learning in virtual reality with learning on a 2D screen using electrostatics activities. J. Comput. Sci. 24, 220–245. doi: 10.3217/jucs-024-02-0220

Huvila, I. (2013). Sorting out the metaverse and how the metaverse is sorting us out . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Islam, N., Beer, M., and Slack, F. (2015). E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher education. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 3, 102–112. doi: 10.11114/jets.v3i5.947

Jensen, L., and Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 1515–1529. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0

Jeong, K., Kim, J., Kim, M., Lee, J., and Kim, C. (2019). Asymmetric interface: user interface of asymmetric virtual reality for new presence and experience. Symmetry 12, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/sym12010053

Lee, J., Kim, M., and Kim, J. (2017). A study on immersion and VR sickness in walking interaction for immersive virtual reality applications. Symmetry 9, 1–17. doi: 10.3390/sym9050078

Leidner, D. E., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: a theoretical view. Manag. Inf. Serv. Q. 19, 265–291. doi: 10.2307/249596

Makransky, G., and Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive-affective model of immersive learning: a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 937–958. doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., and Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn. Instr. 60, 225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

Maples-Keller, J. L., Bunnell, B. E., Kim, S.-J., and Rothbaum, B. O. (2017). The use of virtual reality technology in the treatment of anxiety and other psychiatric disorders. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 25, 103–113. doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000138

Misak, J. (2018). A (virtual) bridge not too far: teaching narrative sense of place with virtual reality. Comput. Compos. 50, 39–52. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2018.07.007

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G.PRISMA Group* (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Mystakidis, S., Berki, E., and Valtanen, J. P. (2021). Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: a systematic literature review. Appl. Sci. 11, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/app11052412

Necci, A., Cozzani, V., Spadoni, G., and Khan, F. (2015). Assessment of domino effect: state of the art and research needs. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 143, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.017

Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., and Papanastasiou, E. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher, and tertiary education students’twenty-first-century skills. Virtual Reality 23, 425–436. doi: 10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2

Pellas, N. (2016). “Unraveling a progressive inquiry script in persistent virtual worlds: theoretical foundations and decision processes for constructing a socio-cultural learning framework” in Web design and development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (Pennsylvania, US: IGI Global), 610–647.

Pirker, J., and Dengel, A. (2021). The potential of 360 virtual reality videos and real VR for education—a literature review. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 41, 76–89. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3067999

Pottle, J. (2019). Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthcare J. 6, 181–185. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2019-0036

Poux, F., Valembois, Q., Mattes, C., Kobbelt, L., and Billen, R. (2020). Initial user-centered design of a virtual reality heritage system: applications for digital tourism. Remote Sens. 12, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/rs12162583

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., and Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 147, 103778–103729. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

Reddy, P., Sharma, B., and Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: a review of literature. Int. J. Technoethics (IJT) 11, 65–94. doi: 10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of English as a second language (ESL) students. Teach. Engl. Speakers Other Lang. Q. 21, 87–111. doi: 10.2307/3586356

Rzanova, S., Yushchik, E., Markova, S., and Sergeeva, A. (2023). Impact of virtual reality technologies in the context of the case method on engineering students’ competencies. Educ. Inf. Technol. 7, 1–19. doi: 10.56028/aetr.7.1.7.2023

Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In: K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, and A. Verger The Handbook of Global Education Policy . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 128–144.

Sanchez-Vives, M. V., and Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332–339. doi: 10.1038/nrn1651

Schutte, N. S., and Stilinović, E. J. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motiv. Emot. 41, 708–712. doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7

Skulmowski, A., Nebel, S., Remmele, M., and Rey, G. D. (2021). Is a preference for realism really naive after all? A cognitive model of learning with realistic visualizations. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09638-1

Song, C., Shin, S. Y., and Shin, K. S. (2023). Optimizing foreign language learning in virtual reality: a comprehensive theoretical framework based on constructivism and cognitive load theory. Appl. Sci. 13, 1–31. doi: 10.3390/app132312557

Steuer, J., Biocca, F., and Levy, M. R. (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality , New York: Routledge

Sun, S. Y., and Peng, L. H. (2020). Study of the virtual reality education and digitalization in China. J. Physics 1456, 012042–012047. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1456/1/012042

Tsivitanidou, O. E., Georgiou, Y., and Ioannou, A. (2021). A learning experience in inquiry-based physics with immersive virtual reality: student perceptions and an interaction effect between conceptual gains and attitudinal profiles. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 841–861. doi: 10.1007/s10956-021-09924-1

United Kingdom Authority. (2019). VR and AR attract education sector interest . Available at: https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/vr-and-ar-attract-education-sector-interest/ .

Wang, M. T., and Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: knowledge and research need in student engagement. Child Dev. Perspect. 8, 137–143. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12073

Wong, B. M., Etchells, E. E., Kuper, A., Levinson, W., and Shojania, K. G. (2010). Teaching quality improvement and patient safety to trainees: a systematic review. Acad. Med. 85, 1425–1439. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e2d0c6

Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., and Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 62, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

Yuan, H., and Wang, Z. (2021). A review of research on technology enhancing Chinese learning . 2021 international conference on internet, education and information technology (IEIT), pp. 462–467.

Yuen, S. C.-Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., and Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: an overview and five directions for augmented reality (AR) in education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exchange 4, 119–140. doi: 10.18785/jetde.0401.10

Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exchange 10, 27–40. doi: 10.18785/jetde.1001.03

Keywords: virtual reality technology, cognitive engagement, affective engagement, behavioral engagement, learning outcomes

Citation: Lin XP, Li BB, Yao ZN, Yang Z and Zhang M (2024) The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom–a critical review of the literature. Front. Psychol . 15:1360574. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574

Received: 23 December 2023; Accepted: 22 March 2024; Published: 10 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Lin, Li, Yao, Yang and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Zhi Yang, [email protected] ; Mingshu Zhang, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2022

Psychiatric and medical comorbidities of eating disorders: findings from a rapid review of the literature

• Ashlea Hambleton 1 ,
• Genevieve Pepin 2 ,
• Anvi Le 3 ,
• Danielle Maloney 1 , 4 ,
• National Eating Disorder Research Consortium ,
• Stephen Touyz 1 , 4 &
• Sarah Maguire 1 , 4  

Journal of Eating Disorders volume  10 , Article number:  132 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

40 Citations

65 Altmetric

Metrics details

Eating disorders (EDs) are potentially severe, complex, and life-threatening illnesses. The mortality rate of EDs is significantly elevated compared to other psychiatric conditions, primarily due to medical complications and suicide. The current rapid review aimed to summarise the literature and identify gaps in knowledge relating to any psychiatric and medical comorbidities of eating disorders.

This paper forms part of a rapid review) series scoping the evidence base for the field of EDs, conducted to inform the Australian National Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy 2021–2031, funded and released by the Australian Government. ScienceDirect, PubMed and Ovid/Medline were searched for English-language studies focused on the psychiatric and medical comorbidities of EDs, published between 2009 and 2021. High-level evidence such as meta-analyses, large population studies and Randomised Control Trials were prioritised.

A total of 202 studies were included in this review, with 58% pertaining to psychiatric comorbidities and 42% to medical comorbidities. For EDs in general, the most prevalent psychiatric comorbidities were anxiety (up to 62%), mood (up to 54%) and substance use and post-traumatic stress disorders (similar comorbidity rates up to 27%). The review also noted associations between specific EDs and non-suicidal self-injury, personality disorders, and neurodevelopmental disorders. EDs were complicated by medical comorbidities across the neuroendocrine, skeletal, nutritional, gastrointestinal, dental, and reproductive systems. Medical comorbidities can precede, occur alongside or emerge as a complication of the ED.

Conclusions

This review provides a thorough overview of the comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions co-occurring with EDs. High psychiatric and medical comorbidity rates were observed in people with EDs, with comorbidities contributing to increased ED symptom severity, maintenance of some ED behaviours, and poorer functioning as well as treatment outcomes. Early identification and management of psychiatric and medical comorbidities in people with an ED may improve response to treatment and overall outcomes.

Plain English Summary

The mortality rate of eating disorders is significantly elevated compared to other psychiatric conditions, primarily due to medical complications and suicide. Further, individuals with eating disorders often meet the diagnostic criteria of at least one comorbid psychiatric or medical disorder, that is, the individual simultaneously experiences both an ED and at least one other condition. This has significant consequences for researchers and health care providers – medical and psychiatric comorbidities impact ED symptoms and treatment effectiveness. The current review is part of a larger Rapid Review series conducted to inform the development of Australia’s National Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy 2021–2031. A Rapid Review is designed to comprehensively summarise a body of literature in a short timeframe, often to guide policymaking and address urgent health concerns. The Rapid Review synthesises the current evidence base and identifies gaps in eating disorder research and care. This paper gives a critical overview of the scientific literature relating to the psychiatric and medical comorbidities of eating disorders. It covers recent literature regarding psychiatric comorbidities including anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance use disorders, trauma and personality disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders. Further, the review discusses the impact and associations between EDs and medical comorbidities, some of which precede the eating disorder, occur alongside, or as a consequence of the eating disorder.

Introduction

Eating Disorders (EDs) are often severe, complex, life-threatening illnesses with significant physiological and psychiatric impacts. EDs impact individuals across the entire lifespan, affecting all age groups (although most often they emerge in childhood and adolescence), genders, socioeconomic groups and cultures [ 1 ]. EDs have some of the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric illnesses and carry a significant personal, interpersonal, social and economic burdens [ 2 , 3 ].

Adding to the innate complexity of EDs, it is not uncommon for people living with an ED to experience associated problems such as psychological, social, and functional limitations [ 2 ] in addition to psychiatric and medical comorbidities [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Comorbidity is defined as conditions or illnesses that occur concurrently to the ED. Evidence suggests that between 55 and 95% of people diagnosed with an ED will also experience a comorbid psychiatric disorder in their lifetime [ 4 , 6 ]. Identifying psychiatric comorbidities is essential because of their potential impact on the severity of ED symptomatology, the individual’s distress and treatment effectiveness [ 7 , 8 ].

The mortality rate of EDs is significantly higher than the general population, with the highest occurring in Anorexia Nervosa (AN) due to impacts on the cardiovascular system [ 9 ] and suicide. [ 10 ] Mortality rates are also heightened in Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and Other Specified Feeding and Eating Disorder (OSFED) [ 11 ]. Suicide rates are elevated across the ED spectrum, and higher rates are observed in patients with a comorbid psychiatric disorder [ 10 , 12 ]. Of concern, the proportion of people with an ED not accessing treatment is estimated to be as high as 75% [ 13 ], potentially a consequence of comorbidities which impact on motivation, the ability to schedule appointments or require clinical prioritisation (i.e., self-harm or suicidal behaviours) [ 14 ]. Further, for many of those diagnosed with an ED who access treatment, recovery is a lengthy process. A longitudinal study found approximately two-thirds of participants with AN or BN had recovered by 22 years follow-up [ 15 ]. Although recovery occurred earlier for those with BN, illness duration was lengthy for both groups with quality of life and physical health impacts [ 15 ]. Further, less is known regarding the illness trajectory for those who do not receive treatment.

Medical comorbidities associated with EDs can range from mild to severe and life-threatening, with complications observed across all body systems, including the cardiac, metabolic and gastrointestinal, and reproductive systems [ 5 ]. These comorbidities and complications can place people at increased risk of medical instability and death [ 5 ]. Therefore, understanding how co-occurring medical comorbidities and complications impact EDs is critical to treatment and recovery.

In addition to ED-associated medical comorbidities, EDs often present alongside other psychiatric conditions. Psychiatric comorbidities in people with EDs are associated with higher health system costs, emergency department presentations and admissions [ 16 ]. Comorbidities may precede the onset of the ED, be co-occurring, or result from symptoms and behaviours associated with the ED [ 17 , 18 ]. Individuals with an ED, their carers and care providers often face a complex and important dilemma; the individual with an ED requires treatment for their ED but also for their psychiatric comorbidities, and it can be difficult for treatment providers to determine which is the clinical priority [ 19 ]. This is further complicated by the fact that EDs and comorbidities may have a reciprocal relationship, whereby the presence of one impact the pathology, treatment and outcomes of the other.

The current Rapid Review (RR) forms part of a series of reviews commissioned by the Australian Federal Government to inform the Australian National Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy 2021–2031 [ 20 ]. In response to the impact of psychiatric and medical comorbidities on outcomes, this rapid review summarises the recent literature on the nature and implications of psychiatric and medical comorbidities associated with EDs.

The Australian Government Commonwealth Department of Health funded the InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders (IOI) to develop the Australian Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy 2021–2031 [ 20 ] under the Psych Services for Hard to Reach Groups initiative (ID 4-8MSSLE). The strategy was developed in partnership with state and national stakeholders including clinicians, service providers, researchers, and experts by lived experience (both consumers and families/carers). Developed through a two-year national consultation and collaboration process, the strategy provides the roadmap to establishing EDs as a national research priority and is the first disorder-specific strategy to be developed in consultation with the National Mental Health Commission. To inform the strategy, IOI commissioned Healthcare Management Advisors (HMA) to conduct a series of RRs to assess all available peer-reviewed literature on all DSM-5 listed EDs.

A RR Protocol [ 21 ] was utilised to allow swift synthesis of the evidence in order to guide public policy and decision-making [ 22 ]. This approach has been adopted by several leading health organisations including the World Health Organisation [ 17 ] and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Rapid Response Service [ 18 ], to build a strong evidence base in a timely and accelerated manner, without compromising quality. A RR is not designed to be as comprehensive as a systematic review—it is purposive rather than exhaustive and provides actionable evidence to guide health policy [ 23 ].

The RR is a narrative synthesis adhering to the PRISMA guidelines [ 24 ]. It is divided by topic area and presented as a series of papers. Three research databases were searched: ScienceDirect, PubMed and Ovid/Medline. To establish a broad understanding of the progress made in the field of EDs, and to capture the largest evidence base from the past 12 years (originally 2009–2019, but expanded to include the preceding two years), the eligibility criteria for included studies were kept broad. Therefore, included studies were published between 2009 and 2021, written in English, and conducted within Western healthcare systems or health systems comparable to Australia in terms of structure and resourcing. The initial search and review process was conducted by three reviewers between 5 December 2019 and 16 January 2020. The re-run for the years 2020–2021 was conducted by two reviewers at the end of May 2021.

The RR had a translational research focus with the objective of identifying evidence relevant to developing optimal care pathways. Searches therefore used a Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) approach to identify literature relating to population impact, prevention and early intervention, treatment, and long-term outcomes. Purposive sampling focused on high-level evidence studies encompassing meta-analyses; systematic reviews; moderately sized randomised controlled studies (RCTs) (n > 50); moderately sized controlled-cohort studies (n > 50); and population studies (n > 500). However, the diagnoses ARFID and UFED necessitated less stringent eligibility criteria due to a paucity of published articles. As these diagnoses are newly captured in the DSM-5 (released in 2013, within the allocated search timeframe), the evidence base is still emerging, and few studies have been conducted. Thus, smaller studies (n =  ≤ 20) and narrative reviews were also considered and included. Grey literature, such as clinical or practice guidelines, protocol papers (without results) and Masters’ theses or dissertations, were excluded. Other sources (which may not be replicable when applying the current methodology) included the personal libraries of authors, yielding two additional studies (see Additional file 1 ). This extra step was conducted in line with the PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews [ 25 ].

Full methodological details including eligibility criteria, search strategy and terms and data analysis are published in a separate protocol paper, which included a total of 1320 studies [ 26 ] (see Additional file 1 : Fig. S1 for PRISMA flow diagram). Data from included studies relating to psychiatric and medical comorbidities of EDs were synthesised and are presented in the current review. No further analyses were conducted.

The search included articles published in the period January 2009 to May 2021. The RR identified 202 studies for inclusion. Of these, 58% related to psychiatric comorbidities (n = 117) and 42% to medical comorbidities (n = 85). A full list of the studies included in this review and information about population, aims and results can be found in Additional file 2 : Tables S3, S4. Results are subdivided into two categories: (1) psychiatric comorbidities and (2) medical complications. Tables 1 and 2 provide high-level summaries of the results.

Psychiatric comorbidities

The study of psychiatric comorbidities can assist with developing models of ED aetiology, conceptualising psychopathology and has relevance for treatment development and outcomes. Given that common psychological factors are observed across psychiatric disorders [ 87 ], it is not surprising that there are high prevalence rates of co-occurring psychiatric conditions with EDs. Comorbidity rates of EDs and other psychiatric conditions are elevated further in ethnic/racial minority groups [ 88 ]. When looking at the evidence from studies conducted with children and young people, one study of children with ARFID found that 53% of the population had a lifetime comorbid psychiatric disorder [ 89 ]. It emerged from the RR that research regarding psychiatric comorbidities generally focussed on the prevalence rates of comorbidities among certain ED subgroups, with some also exploring implications for treatment and ED psychopathology.

Anxiety disorders

Research indicates that EDs and anxiety disorders frequently co-occur [ 8 , 27 ]. The high prevalence rates of anxiety disorders in the general population are also observed in people with EDs; with a large population study finding anxiety disorders were the most frequently comorbid conditions reported [ 8 ]. In a study of women presenting for ED treatment, 65% also met the criteria for at least one comorbid anxiety disorder [ 28 ]. Of note, 69% of those endorsing the comorbidity also reported that the anxiety disorder preceded the onset of the ED [ 28 ]. Another study explored anxiety across individuals with an ED categorised by three weight ranges (individuals whose weight is in the ‘healthy weight’ range, individuals in the ‘overweight’ range and individuals in the ‘obese’ range). While anxiety was elevated across all groups, the authors did note that individuals in the overweight group reported significantly higher rates of anxiety than individuals within the healthy weight group [ 90 ]. One study that explored temperamental factors provided some insight into factors that may mediate this association; anxiety sensitivity (a predictor of anxiety disorders) was associated with greater ED severity among individuals in a residential ED treatment facility [ 29 ]. Further, this association was mediated by a tendency to engage in experiential avoidance—the authors noting that individuals with greater ED symptoms were more likely to avoid distressing experiences [ 29 ].

Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD)

Studies have noted the potential genetic links between EDs and GAD, noting that the presence of one significantly increases the likelihood of the other [ 8 , 30 ]. Further, there appears to be a relationship between the severity of ED behaviours and the co-occurrence of GAD, with comorbidity more likely when fasting and excessive exercise are present, as well as a lower BMI [ 30 ]. The authors noted the particularly pernicious comorbidity of EDs (specifically AN) and GAD may be amplified by the jointly anxiolytic and weight loss effects of food restriction and excessive exercise [ 30 ].

Social anxiety

A meta-analysis of 12 studies found higher rates of social anxiety across all ED diagnoses, with patients with BN demonstrating the highest rate of comorbidity at 84.5%, followed by both BED and AN-BP both at 75% [ 31 ]. High levels of social anxiety were also associated with more severe ED psychopathology [ 31 ] and higher body weight [ 91 ]. This particular comorbidity may also impact on access to treatment for the ED; a large follow-up study of adolescents found that self-reported social phobia predicted not seeking treatment for BN symptoms [ 32 ]. Interestingly, two studies noted that anxiety symptoms improved following psychological treatments that targeted ED symptoms, possibly due to a shared symptom profile [ 29 , 31 ].

Obsessive–compulsive disorder

Similarities between the symptoms of Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and EDs, such as cognitive rigidity, obsessiveness, detail focus, perfectionism and compulsive routines have long been reported in the literature [ 34 ]. Given the symptom overlap, a meta-analysis sought to clarify the lifetime and current (that is, a current diagnosis at the time of data collection) comorbidity rates of OCD and EDs, noting the lifetime comorbidity rate was 18% and current comorbidity rate was 15% [ 33 ]. However, the authors noted that this prevalence may double over longer periods of observation, with some follow-up data demonstrating comorbidity rates of 33% [ 33 ]. Prevalence rates of OCD seemed to be highest among people with AN (lifetime = 19% and current = 14%) compared to other ED subtypes. In addition to the symptom crossover, this RR found evidence of a complex relationship between OCD and EDs, including a potential association between OCD and greater ED severity [ 34 ].

Network analysis found that doubts about simple everyday things and repeating things over and over bridged between ED and OCD symptoms. Further, a pathway was observed between restricting and checking compulsions and food rigidity as well as binge eating and hoarding. However, as the data was cross-sectional, directional inferences could not be made [ 36 ]. An earlier study explored how changes in OCD symptoms impact ED symptoms among an inpatient sample [ 35 ]. As was hypothesised, decreases in OCD symptoms accounted for significant variance in decreases in ED symptoms, and this effect was strongest among ED patients with comorbid OCD. The study also found that irrespective of whether patients had comorbid OCD or not, when ED symptoms improved, so did symptoms of OCD [ 35 ]. The authors concluded that perhaps there is a reciprocal relationship between OCD and ED symptoms, whereby symptoms of both conditions interact in a synergistic, bidirectional manner, meaning that improvement in one domain can lead to improvement in another [ 35 ]. These findings were somewhat supported in a study by Simpson and colleagues (2013), which found exposure and response prevention (a specialised OCD treatment) resulted in a significant reduction in OCD severity, as was expected, and an improvement in ED symptoms. In their study, individuals with BN showed more improvement than those with AN–nevertheless, BMI still increased among those underweight [ 92 ].

Mood disorders

Depression and major depressive disorder (mdd).

This RR also found high levels of comorbidity between major depression and EDs. A longitudinal study of disordered eating behaviours among adolescents found that disordered eating behaviours and depressive symptoms developed concurrently [ 37 ]. Among the sample, over half the adolescent sample had a depressive disorder. Prevalence rates were similar for AN (51.5%) and BN (54%) [ 37 ]. The study also explored the neurological predictors of comorbid depression in individuals with EDs, noting that lower grey matter volumes in the medial orbitofrontal, dorsomedial, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices predicted the concurrent development of purging and depressive symptoms [ 37 ]. The results suggested that alterations in frontal brain circuits were part of a neural aetiology common to EDs and depression [ 37 ].

This RR found much support for a strong relationship between depression and ED symptomatology. In a study of patients with AN, comorbid MDD was associated with a greater AN symptom severity [ 93 ], and this relationship between the symptoms of MDD and AN was bidirectional in a study of adolescents undergoing treatment for AN, whereby dietary restraint predicted increased guilt and hostility (symptoms of low mood) and fear predicted further food restriction [ 94 ]. Further studies noted the association between BN, BED and NES, with a higher prevalence of depression and more significant depression symptoms [ 95 , 96 , 97 ]. However, other studies have failed to find support for this association–for example, a Swedish twin study found no association between NES and other mental health disorders [ 98 ].

The impact of the relationship between depression and EDs on treatment outcomes was variable across the studies identified by the RR. One study noted the impact of depression on attrition; patients with BN and comorbid depression attending a university clinic had the highest rates of treatment drop-out [ 99 ]. However, in a sample of patients with AN, the comorbidity of depression (or lack of) did not impact treatment outcome and the severity of depression was not associated with changes in ED symptoms [ 100 ]. This finding was supported in another study of inpatients with AN; pre-treatment depression level did not predict treatment outcome or BMI [ 101 ].

Bipolar disorders

Notable comorbidity rates between bipolar disorders (BD) and EDs were reported in the literature reviewed, however evidence about the frequency of this association was mixed. Studies noted comorbidity rates of BD and EDs ranging between 1.9% to as high as 35.8% [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. In order to better understand the nature of comorbidity, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found BD (including bipolar 1 disorder and bipolar 2 disorder) and ED comorbidity varied across different ED diagnostic groups (BED—12.5%, BN—7.4%, AN—3.8%) [ 102 ]. However, the authors noted the scant longitudinal studies available, particularly in paediatric samples. An analysis of comorbidity within a sample of patients with BD identified that 27% of participants also met criteria for an ED; 15% had BN, 12% had BED, and 0.2% had AN [ 103 ]. Two other studies noted considerable comorbidity rates of BD; 18.6% for binge eating [ 104 ] and 8.8% for NES [ 105 ]. Some studies suggested the co-occurrence of BD and EDs were seen most in people with AN-BP, BN and BED—all of which share a binge and/or purge symptom profile [ 38 , 106 ]. Specifically, BED and BN were the most common co-occurring EDs with BD [ 40 ], however, these EDs are also the most prevalent in the population. Therefore, it is unclear if this finding is reflective of the increased prevalence of BN and BED, or if it reflects a shared underlying psychopathology between BD and these EDs [ 40 ].

Comorbid ED-BD patients appear to experience increased ED symptom severity, poorer daily and neuropsychological functioning than patients with only a ED or BD diagnosis [ 107 ]. In an effort to understand which shared features in ED-BD relate to quality of life, one study assessed an adult sample with BD [ 108 ]. Binge eating, restriction, overevaluation of weight and shape, purging and driven exercise were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, quality of life and mood regulation [ 108 ]. Additionally, a study of patients undergoing treatment for BD noted patients with a comorbid ED had significantly poorer clinical outcomes and higher scores of depression [ 109 ]. Further, quality of life was significantly lower among patients with comorbid ED-BD [ 109 ]. The comorbidity of ED and BD has implications for intervention and clinical management, as at least one study observed higher rates of alcohol abuse and suicidality among patients with comorbid ED and BD compared to those with BD only [ 40 ].

Personality disorders

This RR identified limited research regarding the comorbidity between personality disorders (PD) and EDs. A meta-analysis sought to summarise the proportion of comorbid PDs among patients with AN and BN [ 41 ]. There was a heightened association between any type of ED and PDs, and this was significantly different to the general population. For specific PDs, the proportions of paranoid, borderline, avoidant, dependant and obsessive–compulsive PD were significantly higher in EDs than in the general population. For both AN and BN, Cluster C PDs (avoidant, dependant and obsessive–compulsive) were most frequent. The authors noted that the specific comorbidity between specific EDs and PDs appears to be associated with common traits—constriction/perfectionism and rigidity is present in both AN and obsessive–compulsive PD (which had a heightened association), as was the case with impulsivity, a characteristic of both BN and borderline PD [ 41 ]. This symptom association was also observed in a study of adolescents admitted to an ED inpatient unit whereby a significant interaction between binge-purge EDs (AN-BP and BN), childhood emotional abuse (a risk factor for PD) and borderline personality style was found [ 110 ].

This comorbidity may be associated with greater patient distress and have implications for patient outcomes [ 41 , 42 ]. Data from a nine-year observational study of individuals with BN reported that comorbidity with a PD was strongly associated with elevated mortality risk [ 111 ]. In terms of treatment outcomes, an RCT compared the one- and three-year treatment outcomes of four subgroups of women with BN, defined by PD complexity; no comorbid PD (health control), personality difficulties, simple PD and complex PD [ 112 ]. At pre-treatment, the complex PD group had greater ED psychopathology than the other three groups. Despite this initial difference, there were no differences in outcomes between groups at one-year and three-year follow up [ 112 ]. The authors suggested this result could be due to the targeting of the shared symptoms of BN and PD by the intervention delivered in this study, and that as ED symptoms improve, so do PD symptoms [ 112 ]. Suggesting that beyond symptom overlap, perhaps some symptoms attributed to the PD are better explained by the ED. This was consistent with Brietzke and colleagues’ (2011) recommendation that for individuals with ED and a comorbid PD, treatment approaches should target both conditions where possible [ 113 ].

Substance use disorders

Comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) are also often noted in the literature as an issue that complicates treatment and outcomes of EDs [ 114 ]. A meta-analysis reported the lifetime prevalence of EDs and comorbid SUD was 27.9%, [ 43 ] with a lifetime prevalence of comorbid illicit drug use of 17.2% for AN and 18.6% for BN [ 115 ]. Alcohol, caffeine and tobacco were the most frequently reported comorbidities [ 43 ]. Further analysis of SUDs by substance type in a population-based twin sample indicated that the lifetime prevalence of an alcohol use disorder among individuals with AN was 22.4% [ 115 ]. For BN, the prevalence rate was slightly higher at 24.0% [ 115 ].

The comorbidity of SUD is considered far more common among individuals with binge/purge type EDs, evidenced by a meta-analysis finding higher rates of comorbid SUD among patients with AN-BP and BN than AN-R [ 44 ]. This trend was also observed in population data [ 116 ]. Further, a multi-site study found that patients with BN had higher rates of comorbid SUD than patients with AN, BED and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specific (EDNOS) (utilised DSM-IV criteria) [ 117 ]. Behaviourally, there was an association between higher frequencies of binge/purge behaviours with high rates of substance use [ 117 ]. The higher risk of substance abuse among patients with binge/purge symptomology was also associated with younger age of binge eating onset [ 118 ]. A study explored whether BN and ED subtypes with binge/purge symptoms predicted adverse outcomes and found that adolescent girls with purging disorder were significantly more likely to use drugs or frequently binge drink [ 119 ]. This association was again observed in a network analysis of college students, whereby there was an association between binge drinking and increased ED cognitions [ 120 ].

Psychosis and schizophrenia

The RR identified a small body of literature with mixed results regarding the comorbidity of ED and psychosis-spectrum symptoms. A study of patients with schizophrenia found that 12% of participants met full diagnostic criteria for NES, with a further 10% meeting partial criteria [ 45 ]. Miotto and colleagues’ (2010) study noted higher rates of paranoid ideation and psychotic symptoms in ED patients than those observed in healthy controls [ 121 ]. However, the authors concluded that these symptoms were better explained by the participant's ED diagnosis than a psychotic disorder [ 121 ]. At a large population level, an English national survey noted associations between psychotic-like experiences and uncontrolled eating, food dominance and potential EDs [ 122 ]. In particular, these associations were stronger in males [ 122 ]. However, the true comorbidity between psychotic disorders and ED remains unclear and further research is needed.

Body dysmorphic disorder

While body image disturbances common to AN, BN and BED are primarily related to weight and shape concerns, individuals with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) have additional concerns regarding other aspects of their appearance, such as facial features and skin blemishes [ 46 , 123 ]. AN and BDD share similar psychopathology and both have a peak onset period in adolescence, although BDD development typically precedes AN [ 46 ]. The prevalence rates of BDD among individuals with AN are variable. In one clinical sample of female AN patients, 26% met BDD diagnostic criteria [ 124 ]. However, much higher rates were observed in another clinical sample of adults with AN, where 62% of patients reported clinically significant 'dysmorphic concern' [ 125 ].

As the RR has found with other mental health comorbidities, BDD contributes to greater symptom severity in individuals with AN, making the disorder more difficult to treat. However, some research suggested that improved long-term outcomes from treatments for AN are associated with the integration of strategies that address dysmorphic concerns [ 124 , 126 ]. However, there remains little research on the similarities, differences and co-occurrence of BDD and AN, and with even less research on the cooccurrence of BDD and other EDs.

Neurodevelopmental disorders

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Several studies noted the comorbidity between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and EDs. A systematic review found moderate evidence for a positive association between ADHD and disordered eating, particularly between overeating and ADHD [ 47 ]. The impulsivity symptoms of ADHD were particularly associated with BN for all genders, and weaker evidence was found for the association between hyperactivity and restrictive EDs (AN and ARFID) for males, but not females [ 47 ]. Another meta-analysis reported a two-fold increased risk of ADHD in individuals with an ED [ 48 ] and studies have noted particularly strong associations between ADHD and BN [ 49 , 50 ]. In a cohort of adults with a diagnosis of an ED, 31.3% had a 'possible' ADHD [ 127 ]. Another study considered sex differences; women with ADHD had a significantly higher lifetime prevalence of both AN and BN than women without ADHD [ 128 ]. Further, the comorbidity rates for BED were considerably higher among individuals with ADHD for both genders [ 128 ].

Further evidence for a significant association between ADHD and EDs was reported in a population study of children [ 51 ]. Results revealed that children with ADHD were more like to experience an ED or binge, purge, or restrictive behaviours above clinical threshold [ 51 ]. Another study of children with ADHD considered gender differences; boys with ADHD had a greater risk of binge eating than girls [ 129 ]. However, the study found no significant difference in AN's prevalence between ADHD and non-ADHD groups. Further, among patients attending an ED specialist clinic, those with comorbid ADHD symptoms had poorer outcomes at one-year follow-up [ 130 ].

Autism spectrum disorder

There is evidence of heightened prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among individuals with EDs. A systematic review found an average prevalence of ASD with EDs of 22.9% compared with 2% observed in the general population [ 52 ]. With regards to AN, several studies have found symptoms of ASD to be frequently exhibited by patients with AN [ 53 , 54 ]. An assessment of common phenomena between ARFID and ASD in children found a shared symptom profile of eating difficulties, behavioural problems and sensory hypersensitivity beyond what is observed in typically developing children (the control group) [ 55 ]. While research in this area is developing, the findings indicated these comorbidities would likely have implications for the treatment and management of both conditions [ 55 ].

Post traumatic stress disorder

Many individuals with EDs report historical traumatic experiences, and for a proportion of the population, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A broad range of prevalence rates between PTSD and EDs have been reported; between 16.1–22.7% for AN, 32.4–66.2% for BN and 24.02–31.6% for BED [ 56 ]. A review noted self-criticism, low self-worth, guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, emotion dysregulation, anger and impulsivity were linked to the association between EDs and trauma [ 57 ]. It was suggested that for individuals with trauma/PTSD, EDs might have a functional role to manage PTSD symptoms and reduce negative affect [ 57 ]. Further, some ED behaviours such as restriction, binge eating, and purging may be used to avoid hyperarousal, in turn maintaining the association between EDs and PTSD [ 57 ].

Few studies have explored the impact of comorbid PTSD on ED treatment outcomes. A study of inpatients admitted to a residential ED treatment service investigated whether PTSD diagnosis at admission was associated with symptom changes [ 56 ]. Cognitive and behavioural symptoms related to the ED had decreased at discharge, however, they increased again at six-month follow up. In contrast, while PTSD diagnosis was associated with higher baseline ED symptoms, it was not related to symptom change throughout treatment or treatment dropout [ 56 ]. Given previous research identified that PTSD and EDs tend to relate to more complex courses of illness, greater rates of drop out and poorer outcomes, a study by Brewerton and colleagues [ 131 ], explored the presence of EDs in patients with PTSD admitted to a residential setting. Results showed that patients with PTSD had significantly higher scores of ED psychopathology, as well as depression, anxiety and quality of life. [ 131 ]. Further, those with PTSD had a greater tendency for binge-type EDs.

Suicidality

Suicide is one of the leading causes of death for individuals with EDs [ 58 ]. In a longitudinal study of adolescents, almost one quarter had attempted suicide, and 65% reported suicidal ideation within the past 6 months [ 37 ]. EDs are a significant risk factor for suicide, with some evidence suggesting a genetic association between suicide risk and EDs [ 59 , 60 ]. This association was supported in the analysis of Swedish population registry data, which found that individuals with a sibling with an ED had an increased risk of suicide attempts with an odds ratio of 1.4 (relative cohort n  = 1,680,658) [ 61 ]. For suicide attempts, this study found an even higher odds ratio of 5.28 (relative cohort n  = 2,268,786) for individuals with an ED and 5.39 (relative cohort n  = 1,919,114) for death by suicide [ 61 ]. A comparison of individuals with AN and BN indicated that risk for suicide attempts was higher for those with BN compared to AN [ 61 ]. However, the opposite was true for death by suicide; which was higher in AN compared to BN [ 61 ]. This result is consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis—the incidence of suicide was higher among patients with AN compared to those with BN or BED [ 62 ].

The higher incidence of suicide in adults with AN [ 132 ] is potentially explained by the findings from Guillaume and colleagues (2011), which suggested that comparative to BN, AN patients are more likely to have more serious suicide attempts resulting in a higher risk of death [ 133 ]. However, death by suicide remains a significant risk for both diagnoses. As an example, Udo and colleagues (2019) study reported that suicide attempts were more common in those with an AN-BP subtype (44.1%) than AN-R (15.7%), or BN (31.4%) [ 134 ]. Further, in a large cohort of transgender college students with EDs, rates of past-year suicidal ideation (a significant risk factor for suicide attempts) was 75.2%, and suicide attempts were 74.8%, significantly higher than cisgender students with EDs and transgender students without EDs [ 135 ]. The RR found that the risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour was associated with ED diagnosis and the presence of other comorbidities. Among a community-based sample of female college students diagnosed with an ED, 25.6% reported suicidal ideation, and this was positively correlated with depression, anxiety and purging [ 136 ]. In support of this evidence, Sagiv and Gvion (2020) proposed a dual pathway model of risk of suicide attempt in individuals with ED, which implicates trait impulsivity and comorbid depression [ 137 ]. In two large transdiagnostic ED patient samples, suicidal ideation was associated with different aspects of self-image between ED diagnoses. For example, suicidal ideation was associated with higher levels of self-blame among individuals with BED, while among patients with AN and OSFED, increased suicidal ideation was associated with a lack of self-love [ 138 , 139 ].

Anorexia nervosa

Amongst adults with AN, higher rates of suicide have been reported amongst those with a binge-purge subtype (25%) than restrictive subtype (8.65%) [ 58 , 140 ]. Further, comorbid depression and prolonged starvation were strongly associated with elevated suicide attempts for both subtypes [ 58 , 140 ]. In another study, the risk of attempted suicide was associated with depression, but it was moderated by hospital treatment [ 93 ]. Further, suicidal ideation was related to depression. A significant 'acquired' suicide risk in individuals with AN has been identified by Selby et al. (2010) through an increased tolerance for pain and discomfort resultant from repeated exposure to painful restricting and purging behaviours [ 141 ].

Bulimia nervosa

Further research among individuals diagnosed with BN found an increased level of suicide risk [ 142 ]. Results from an extensive study of women with BN indicated that the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts in this cohort was 26.9% [ 143 ]. In one study of individuals diagnosed with severe BN, 60% of deaths were attributed to suicide [ 144 ]. The mean age at the time of death was 29.6 years, and predictive factors included previous suicide attempts and low BMI. Further, in a sample of children and adolescents aged 7 to 18 years, higher rates of suicidal ideation were associated with BN, self-induced vomiting and a history of trauma [ 12 ].

A large population-based study of adolescents and adults explored the frequency and correlates of suicidal ideation and attempts in those who met the criteria for BN [ 145 ]. Suicidal ideation was highest in adolescents with BN (53%), followed by BED (34.4%), other non-ED psychopathology (21.3%) or no psychopathology (3.8%). A similar trend was observed for suicide plans and attempts [ 145 ]. However, for adults, suicidality was more prevalent in the BN group compared to no psychopathology, but not statistically different to the AN, BED or other psychopathology groups [ 145 ].

Consistent with Crow and colleagues’ (2014) results, in a sample of women with BN, depression had the strongest association with lifetime suicide attempts [ 146 ]. There were also associations between identity problems, cognitive dysregulation, anxiousness, insecure attachment and lifetime suicide attempts among the sample. Depression was the most pertinent association, suggesting that potential comorbid depression should be a focus of assessment and treatment among individuals with BN due to the elevated suicide risk for this group [ 146 ]. Insecure attachment is associated with childhood trauma, and a systematic review found that suicide attempts in women with BN were significantly associated with childhood abuse and familial history of EDs [ 58 ].

Binge eating disorder

The RR found mixed evidence for the association between suicidal behaviour and BED. A meta-analysis found no suicides for patients with BED [ 62 ]. However, evidence from two separate large national surveys found that a significant proportion of individuals who had a suicide attempt also had a diagnosis of BED [ 134 , 147 ].

Non-suicidal self injury

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), broadly defined, is the intentional harm inflicted to one’s body without intent to die [ 148 ]. Recognising NSSI is often a precursor for suicidal ideation and behaviour [ 149 ], together with the already heightened mortality rate for EDs, several studies have examined the association between EDs and NSSI. Up to one-third of patients with EDs report NSSI at some stage in their lifetime, with over one quarter having engaged in NSSI within the previous year [ 63 ]. Similarly, a cohort study [ 148 ] found elevated rates of historical NSSI amongst patients with DSM-IV EDs; specifically EDNOS (49%), BN (41%) and AN (26%). In a Spanish sample of ED patients, the most prevalent form of NSSI was banging (64.6%) and cutting (56.9%) [ 63 ].

Further research has explored the individual factors associated with heightened rates of NSSI. Higher levels of impulsivity among patients with EDs have been associated with concomitant NSSI [ 64 ]. This was demonstrated in a longitudinal study of female students, whereby NSSI preceded purging, marking it a potential risk factor for ED onset [ 65 ]. In a study of a large clinical sample of patients with EDs and co-occurring NSSI, significantly higher levels of emotional reactivity were observed [ 150 ]. The highest levels of emotional reactivity were reported by individuals with a diagnosis of BN, who were also more likely to engage in NSSI than those with AN [ 150 ]. In Olatunji and colleagues’ (2015) cohort study, NSSI was used to regulate difficult emotions, much like other ED behaviours. NSSI functioning as a means to manage negative affect associated with EDs was further supported by Muehlenkamp and colleagues’ [ 66 ] study exploring the risk factors in inpatients admitted for an ED. The authors found significant differences in the prevalence of NSSI across ED diagnoses, although patients with binge/purge subtype EDs were more likely to engage in poly-NSSI (multiple types of NSSI). Consistent with these findings, a study of patients admitted to an ED inpatient unit found that 45% of patients displayed at least one type of NSSI [ 151 ]. The function of NSSI among ED patients was explored in two studies, one noting that avoiding or suppressing negative feelings was the most frequently reported reason for NSSI [ 151 ]. The other analysed a series of interviews and self-report questionnaires and found patients with ED and comorbid Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) engaged in NSSI as a means of emotion regulation [ 152 ].

Medical comorbidities

The impact of EDs on physical health and the consequential medical comorbidities has been a focus of research. Many studies reported medical comorbidities resulting from prolonged malnutrition, as well as excessive exercise, binging and purging behaviours.

Cardiovascular complications

As discussed above, although suicide is a significant contributor to the mortality rate of EDs, physical and medical complications remain the primary cause of death, particularly in AN, with a high proportion of deaths thought to result from cardiovascular complications [ 153 ]. AN has attracted the most research focus given its increased risk of cardiac failure due to severe malnutrition, dehydration and electrolyte imbalances [ 67 ].

Cardiovascular complications in AN can be divided by conduction, structural and ischemic diseases. A review found that up to 87% of patients experience cardiovascular compromise shortly following onset of AN [ 153 ]. Within conduction disease, bradycardia and QT prolongation occur at a high frequency, largely due to low body weight and resultant decreased venous return to the heart. Whereas, atrioventricular block and ventricular arrhythmia are more rare [ 153 ]. Various structural cardiomyopathies are observed in AN, such as low left ventricular mass index (occurs frequently), mitral prolapse and percardial effusion (occurs moderately). Ischemic diseases such as dyslipidemia or acute myocardial infarction are more rare.

Another review identified cardiopulmonary abnormalities that are frequently observed in AN; mitral valve prolapse occurred in 25% of patients, sinus bradycardia was the most common arrhythmia, and pericardial effusion prevalence rates ranged from 15 to 30%. [ 68 ] Sudden cardiac death is thought to occur due to increased QT interval dispersion and heart rate variability. [ 68 ] A review of an inpatient database in a large retrospective cohort study found that coronary artery disease (CAD) was lower in AN patients than the general population (4.4% and 18.4%, respectively). Consistent with trends in the general population, the risk of cardiac arrest, arrhythmias and heart failure was higher in males with AN than females with AN [ 69 ].

Given that individuals with AN have compromised biology, may avoid medical care, and have higher rates of substance use, research has examined cancer incidence and prognosis among individuals with AN. A retrospective study noted higher mortality from melanoma, cancers of genital organs and cancers of unspecified sites among individuals with AN, however, there was no statistically significant difference compared to the general population [ 70 ]. No further studies of cancer in EDs were identified.

Gastrointestinal disorders

The gastrointestinal (GI) system plays a pivotal role in the development, maintenance, and treatment outcomes for EDs, with changes and implications present throughout the GI tract. More than 90% of AN patients report fullness, early satiety, abdominal distention, pain and nausea [ 68 ]. Although it is well understood that GI system complaints are complicated and exacerbated by malnutrition, purging and binge eating [ 154 , 155 ], the actual cause of the increased prevalence of GI disorders and their contribution to ED maintenance remain poorly understood.

To this end, a review aimed to determine the GI symptoms reported in two restrictive disorders (AN and ARFID), as well as the physiologic changes as a result of malnutrition and function of low body weight and the contribution of GI diseases to the disordered eating observed in AN and ARFID [ 156 ]. The review found mixed evidence regarding whether GI issues were increased in patients with AN and ARFID. This was partly due to the relatively limited amount of research in this area and mixed results across the literature. The review noted that patients with AN and ARFID reported a higher frequency of symptoms of gastroparesis. Further, there was evidence for a bidirectional relationship between AN and functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) contributing to ongoing disordered eating. The review found that GI symptoms observed in EDs develop due to (1) poorly treated medical conditions with GI-predominant symptoms, (2) the physiological and anatomical changes that develop due to malnutrition or (3) FGIDs.

There was a high rate of comorbidity (93%) between ED and FGIDs, including oesophageal, bowel and anorectal disorders, in a patient sample with AN, BN and EDNOS [ 157 ]. A retrospective study investigating increased rates of oesophageal cancer in individuals with a history of EDs could not conclude that risk was associated with purging over other confounding factors such as alcohol abuse and smoking [ 158 ].

Given that gut peptides like ghrelin, cholecystokinin (CCK), peptide tyrosine (PYY) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) are known to influence food intake, attention has focussed on the dysregulation of gut peptide signalling in EDs [ 159 ]. A review aimed to discuss how these peptides or the signals triggered by their release are dysregulated in EDs and whether they are normalised following weight restoration or weight loss (in the case of people with higher body weight) [ 159 ]. The results were inconsistent, with significant variability in peptide dysregulation observed across EDs [ 159 ]. A systematic review and meta-analysis explored whether ghrelin is increased in restrictive AN. The review found that all forms of ghrelin were raised in AN’s acute state during fasting [ 160 ]. In addition, the data did not support differences in ghrelin levels between AN subtypes [ 160 ]. Another study examined levels of orexigenic ghrelin and anorexigenic peptide YY (PYY) in young females with ARFID, AN and healthy controls (HC) [ 161 ]. Results demonstrated that fasting and postprandial ghrelin were lower in ARFID than AN, but there was no difference between ARFID and AN for fasting and postprandial PYY [ 161 ].

Oesophageal and gastrointestinal dysfunction have been observed in patients with AN and complicate nutritional and refeeding interventions [ 155 ]. Findings from a systematic review indicated that structural changes that occurred in the GI tract of patients with AN impacted their ability to swallow and absorb nutrients [ 162 ]. Interestingly, no differences in the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms were observed between AN-R and AN-BP subtypes [ 155 ].

A systematic review of thirteen studies aimed to identify the most effective treatment approaches for GI disorders and AN [ 163 ]. An improvement in at least one or more GI symptoms was reported in 11 of the 13 studies, with all studies including nutritional rehabilitation, and half also included concurrent psychological treatment [ 163 ]. Emerging evidence on ED comorbidity with chronic GI disorders suggested that EDs are often misdiagnosed in children and adolescents due to the crossover of symptoms. Therefore, clinicians treating children and adolescents for GI dysfunction should be aware of potential EDs and conduct appropriate screening [ 164 ]. There has been an emerging focus on the role of the gut microbiome in the regulation of core ED symptoms and psychophysiology. Increased attention is being paid to how the macronutrient composition of nutritional rehabilitation should be considered to maximise treatment outcomes. A review found that high fibre consumption in addition to prebiotic and probiotic supplementation helped balance the gut microbiome and maintained the results of refeeding [ 165 ].

Bone health

The RR found evidence for bone loss/poor bone mineral density (BMD) and EDs, particularly in AN. The high rates of bone resorption observed in patients with AN is a consequence of chronic malnutrition leading to osteoporosis (weak and brittle bones), increased fracture risk and scoliosis [ 166 ]. The negative impacts of bone loss are more pronounced in individuals with early-onset AN when the skeleton is still developing [ 67 ] and among those who have very low BMI [ 71 ], with comorbidity rates as high as 46.9% [ 71 ]. However, lowered BMD was also observed among patients with BN [ 72 ].

A review [ 167 ] explored the prevalence and differences in pathophysiology of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with AN-R and AN-BP. AN-R patients had a higher prevalence of osteoporosis, and AN-BP patients had a higher prevalence of osteopenia (loss of BMD) [ 167 ]. Further, the authors noted the significant increase in fracture risk that starts at disease onset and lasts throughout AN, with some evidence that risk remains increased beyond remission and recovery [ 167 ]. Findings from a longitudinal study of female patients with a history of adolescent AN found long-term bone thinning at five and ten-year follow-up despite these patients achieving weight restoration [ 168 ].

Given this, treatment to increase BMD in individuals with AN has been the objective of many pharmacotherapy trials, mainly investigating the efficacy of hormone replacement [ 169 , 170 ]. Treatments include oestrogen and oral contraceptives [ 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 ]; bisphosphonates [ 169 , 173 ]; other hormonal treatment [ 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 ] and vitamin D [ 178 ]. However, the outcomes of these studies were mixed.

Refeeding syndrome

Nutritional rehabilitation of severely malnourished individuals is central to routine care and medical stabilisation of patients with EDs [ 179 ]. Within inpatient treatment settings, reversing severe malnutrition is achieved using oral, or nasogastric tube feeding. However, following a period of starvation, initiating/commencing feeding has been associated with ‘refeeding syndrome’ (RFS), a potentially fatal electrolyte imbalance caused by the body's response to introducing nutritional restoration [ 180 , 181 ]. The studies identified in the RR focused predominantly on restrictive EDs/on this population group—results regarding RFS risk were mixed [ 73 ].

A retrospective cohort study of inpatients diagnosed with AN with a very low BMI implemented a nasogastric feeding routine with vitamin, potassium and phosphate supplementation [ 182 ]. All patients achieved a significant increase in body weight. None developed RFS [ 182 ], suggesting that even with extreme undernutrition, cautious feeding within a specialised unit can be done safely without RFS. For adults with AN, aminotransferases are often high upon admission, however are normalised following four weeks of enteral feeding [ 183 , 184 ]. Further, the RR identified several studies demonstrating the provision of a higher caloric diet at intake to adolescents with AN led to faster recoveries and fewer days in the hospital with no observed increased risk for RFS [ 75 , 76 , 77 ]. These findings were also noted in a study of adults with AN [ 179 ].

However, the prevalence of RFS among inpatients is highly variable, with one systematic review noting rates ranging from 0 to 62% [ 74 ]. This variability was largely a reflection of the different definitions of RFS used across the literature [ 74 ]. A retrospective review of medical records of patients with AN admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) aimed to evaluate complications, particularly RFS, that occurred during the ICU stay and the impact of these complications on treatment outcomes [ 185 ]. Of the 68 patients (62 female), seven developed RFS (10.3%) [ 185 ].

Although easily detectable and treatable, hypophosphatemia (a low serum phosphate concentration) may lead to RFS which is the term used to describe severe fluid and electrolyte shifts that can occur when nutrition support is introduced after a period of starvation. Untreated hypophosphatemia may lead to characteristic signs of the RFS such as respiratory failure, heart failure, and seizures [ 76 , 179 , 186 , 187 , 188 ]. A retrospective case–control study of inpatients with severe AN identified [ 189 ]. A retrospective study of AN and atypical AN patients undergoing refeeding found that the risk of hypophosphatemia was associated with a higher level of total weight loss and recent weight loss rather than the patient’s weight at admission [ 190 ]. The safe and effective use of prophylactic phosphate supplementation during refeeding was supported by the results from Agostino and colleagues’ chart review study [ 191 ], where 90% of inpatients received supplementation during admission.

Higher calorie refeeding approaches are considered safe in most cases, however the steps necessitated to monitor health status are costly to health services [ 192 ]. The most cost-effective approach would likely involve prophylactic electrolyte supplementation in addition to high calorie refeeding, which would decrease the need for daily laboratory monitoring as well as shortening hospital stays [ 75 , 191 , 192 ]. A systematic review noted that much of the research regarding refeeding, particularly in children and young people, has been limited by small sample sizes, single-site studies and heterogeneous designs [ 181 ]. Further, the differing definitions of RFS, recovery, remission and outcomes leading to variable results. While RFS appears safe for many people requiring feeding, the risk and benefits of it are unclear [ 193 ] due to the limited research on this topic. Following current clinical practice guidelines on the safe introduction of nutrition is recommended.

Metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome refers to a group of factors that increase risks for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other related conditions [ 194 ]. Metabolic syndrome is conceptualised as five key criteria; (1) elevated waist circumference, (2) elevated triglyceride levels, (3) reduced HDL-C, (4) elevated blood pressure and (5) elevated fasting glucose. The binge eating behaviours exhibited in BN, BED and NES have been linked to the higher rates of metabolic syndrome observed in these ED patients [ 78 , 195 ].

An analysis of population data of medical comorbidities with BED noted the strongest associations were with diabetes and circulatory systems, likely indexing components of metabolic syndrome [ 196 ]. While type 1 diabetes is considered a risk factor for ED development, both BN and BED have increased risk for type 2 diabetes [ 78 ]. A 16-year observation study found that the risk of type 2 diabetes was significantly increased in male patients with BED compared to the community controls [ 78 ]. By the end of the observation period, 33% of patients with BED had developed type 2 diabetes compared to 1.7% of the control group. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes among patients with BN was also slightly elevated at 4.4% [ 78 ]. Importantly, the authors were not able to control for BMI in this study. In another study, BED was the most prevalent ED in a cohort of type 2 diabetes patients [ 197 ]. Conversely, the prevalence of AN among patients with type 2 diabetes is significantly lower, with a review of national data reporting comorbidity rates to be 0.06% [ 198 ].

Metabolic dysfunction was observed in a relatively large sample of individuals with NES, including metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, with women reporting slightly higher rates (13%) than men (11%) [ 199 ]. In another group of adults with type 2 diabetes, 7% met the diagnostic criteria for NES [ 200 ]. These findings suggested a need for increased monitoring and treatment of type 2 diabetes in individuals with EDs, particularly BED and NES. Another study found BED had a significant impact on metabolic abnormalities, including elevated cholesterol and poor glycaemic control [ 201 ].

The RR identified one intervention study, which examined an intervention to address medical comorbidities associated with BN and BED [ 195 ]. The study compared cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) to an exercise and nutrition intervention to increase physical fitness, decrease body fat percentage and reduce the risk for metabolic syndrome. While the exercise intervention improved participants' physical fitness and body composition, neither group reduced cardiovascular risk at one-year follow-up [ 195 ].

Oral health

Purging behaviour, particularly self-induced vomiting, has been associated with several oral health and gastrointestinal dysfunctions in patients with EDs. A case–control study of ED patients with binge/purge symptomology found that despite ED patients reporting an increased concern for dental issues and engaging in more frequent brushing, their oral health was poorer than controls. [ 79 ] Further, a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore whether EDs increase the risk of tooth erosion [ 80 ]. The analysis found that patients with EDs had more risk of dental erosion, especially among those who self-induced vomiting [ 80 ]. These findings were also found in a large cohort study, where the increased risk for BN was associated with higher rates of dental erosion but not dental cavities [ 81 ].

However, a systematic review of 10 studies suggested that poor oral health may be common among ED patients irrespective of whether self-induced vomiting forms part of their psychopathology [ 202 ]. One study reported that AN-R patients had poorer oral health outcomes and tooth decay than BN patients [ 203 ]. Two studies identified associations between NES and poor oral health, including higher rates of missing teeth, periodontal disease [ 204 , 205 ]. Another study of a group of patients with AN, BN and EDNOS, demonstrated the impact of ED behaviours on dental soft tissue, whereby 94% of patients had oral mucosal lesions, and 3% were found to have dental erosion [ 206 ].

Vitamin deficiencies

The prolonged periods of starvation, food restriction (of caloric intake and/or food groups), purging and excessive exercise observed across the ED spectrum have detrimental impacts on micronutrient balances [ 207 ]. The impact of prolonged vitamin deficiencies in early-onset EDs can also impair brain development, substantially reducing neurocognitive function in some younger patients even after weight restoration [ 82 ]. Common micronutrient deficiencies include calcium, fat soluble vitamins, essential fatty acids selenium, zinc and B vitamins [ 183 ]. One included study looked at prevalence rates of cerebral atrophy and neurological conditions, specifically Wernicke's encephalopathy in EDs and found that these neurological conditions were very rare in people with EDs [ 208 ].

Cognitive functioning

The literature included in RR regarding the cognitive changes in ED patients with AN following weight gain was sparse. It appears that some cognitive functions affected by EDs recover following nutritional restoration, whereas others persist. Cognitive functions, such as flexibility, central coherence, decision making, attention, processing speed and memory, are hypothesised to be impacted by, and influence the maintenance of EDs. A systematic review explored whether cognitive functions improved in AN following weight gain [ 83 ]. Weight gain appeared to be associated with improved processing speed in children and adolescents. However, no improvement was observed in cognitive flexibility following weight gain. Further, the results for adults were inconclusive [ 83 ].

Reproductive health

Infertility and higher rates of poor reproductive health are strongly associated with EDs, including miscarriages, induced abortions, obstetric complications, and poorer birth outcomes [ 84 , 85 ]. Although amenorrhea is a known consequence of AN, oligomenorrhea (irregular periods) was common among individuals with BN and BED [ 86 ]. A twin study found women diagnosed with BN and BED were also more likely to have poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), leading to menstrual irregularities [ 209 ]. The prevalence of lifetime amenorrhea in this sample was 10.4%, and lifetime oligomenorrhea was 33.7%. An epidemiological study explored the association of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) in women with BN and BED and found prevalence rates as high as 42.4% for PMS and 4.2% for PMDD [ 210 ].

Given the increased rates of menstrual irregularities and issues, questions have been raised regarding whether this complication is reversed or improves with recovery. A review of five studies monitoring reproductive functions during recovery over a 6- to 18-year follow up period [ 211 ] noted no significant difference between the pooled odds of childbirth rates between the AN and general population—demonstrating that if patients undergo treatment for AN, achieve weight restoration, and continue to maintain wellness, reproductive functions can renormalise [ 211 ].

An observational study of women with AN, BN or EDNOS found higher rates of low birth rate, pre-term deliveries, caesarean deliveries, and intrauterine growth restrictions [ 84 ]. Increased caesarean delivery was also observed in a large cohort of women diagnosed with BED [ 212 ]. However, these women had higher birth weight babies [ 212 ]. Further, women with comorbid ED and epilepsy were found to have an increased risk of pregnancy-related comorbidities, including preeclampsia (gestational hypertension and signs of damage to the liver and kidneys ) , gestational diabetes and perinatal depression [ 213 ].

The results from this review identified that the symptomology and outcomes of EDs are impacted by both psychiatric and medical factors. Further, EDs have a mortality rate substantially higher than the general population, with a significant proportion of those who die from an ED dying by suicide or as a result of severe medical complications.

This RR noted high rates of psychiatric and medical comorbidities in people with EDs, with comorbidities contributing to increased ED symptom severity, maintenance of some ED behaviours, compromised functioning, and adverse treatment outcomes. Evidence suggested that early identification and management of psychiatric and medical comorbidities in people with an ED may improve response to treatment and outcomes [ 29 , 35 , 83 ].

EDs and other psychiatric conditions often shared symptoms and high levels of psychopathology crossover were noted. The most prevalent psychiatric comorbidities were anxiety disorders, mood disorders and substance use disorders [ 8 , 100 , 119 ]. perhaps unsurprising given the prevalence of these illnesses in the general population. Of concern is the elevated suicide rate noted across the ED spectrum, the highest observed in AN [ 58 , 140 , 149 ]. For people with AN, suicide attempts were mostly associated with comorbid mood and anxiety disorders [ 136 ]. The review noted elevated rates of NSSI were particularly associated with binge/purge subtype EDs [ 150 ], impulsivity and emotional dysregulation (again, an example of psychopathological overlap).

With regards to PDs, studies were limited to EDs with binge-purge symptomology. Of those included, the presence of a comorbid personality disorder and ED was associated with childhood trauma [ 110 ] and elevated mortality risk [ 111 ]. There appeared to be a link between the clinical characteristics of the ED (e.g., impulsivity, rigidity) and the comorbid PD (cluster B PDs were more associated with BN/BED and cluster C PDs were more associated with AN). There was mixed (albeit limited) evidence regarding the comorbidity between EDs and psychosis and schizophrenia, with some studies noting an association between EDs and psychotic experiences [ 45 ]. Specifically, there was an association between psychotic experiences and uncontrolled eating and food dominance, which were stronger in males [ 122 ]. In addition, the review noted the association between EDs and neurodevelopmental disorders-specifically ADHD—was associated with features of BN and ASD was more prevalent among individuals with AN [ 53 , 54 ] and ARFID [ 55 ].

EDs are complicated by medical comorbidities across the neuroendocrine, skeletal, nutritional, gastrointestinal, dental, and reproductive systems that can occur alongside, or result from the ED. The RR noted mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of enteral feeding [ 180 , 181 ], with some studies noting that RFS could be safely managed with supplementation [ 191 ]. Research also described the impacts of restrictive EDs on BMD and binge eating behaviour on metabolic disorders [ 78 , 195 ]. Purging behaviours, particularly self-induced vomiting [ 79 ], were found to increase the risk of tooth erosion [ 81 ] and damage to soft tissue within the gastrointestinal tract [ 206 ]. Further, EDs were associated with a range of reproductive health issues in women, including infertility and birth complications [ 84 ].

Whilst the RR achieved its aim of synthesising a broad scope of literature, the absence of particular ED diagnoses and other key research gaps are worth noting. A large portion of the studies identified focused on AN, for both psychiatric and medical comorbidities. This reflects the stark lack of research exploring the comorbidities for ARFID, NES, and OSFED compared to that seen with AN, BN and BED. There were no studies identified exploring the psychiatric and medical comorbidities of Pica. These gaps could in part be due to the timeline utilised in the RR search strategy, which included the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5. The update in the DSM had significant implications for psychiatric diagnosis, with the addition of new disorders (such as Autism Spectrum Disorder and various Depressive Disorders), reorganisation (for example, moving OCD and PTSD out of anxiety disorders and into newly defined chapters) and changes in diagnostic criteria (including for AN and BN, and establishing BED as a discrete disorder). Although current understanding suggests EDs are more prevalent in females, research is increasingly demonstrating that males are not immune to ED symptoms, and the RR highlighted the disproportionate lack of male subjects included in recent ED research, particularly in the domain of psychiatric and medical comorbidities.

As the RR was broad in scope and policy-driven in intent, limitations as a result of this methodology ought to be considered. The RR only considered ‘Western’ studies, leading to the potential of important pieces of work not being included in the synthesis. In the interest of achieving a rapid synthesis, grey literature, qualitative and theoretical works, case studies or implementation research were not included, risking a loss of nuance in developing fields, such as the association and prevalence of complex/developmental trauma with EDs (most research on this comorbidity focuses on PTSD, not complex or developmental trauma) or body image dissatisfaction among different gender groups. No studies regarding the association between dissociative disorders and EDs were included in the review. However, dissociation can co-occur with EDs, particularly AN-BP and among those with a trauma history [ 214 ]. Future studies would benefit from exploring this association further, particularly as trauma becomes more recognised as a risk factor for ED development.

The review was not designed to be an exhaustive summary of all medical comorbidities. Thus, some areas of medical comorbidity may not be included, or there may be variability in the level of detail included (such as, limited studies regarding the association between cancer and EDs). Studies that explored the association between other autoimmune disorders (such as Type 1 Diabetes, Crohn’s disease, Addison’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and coeliac disease) and EDs [ 215 , 216 ] were not included. Future reviews and research should examine the associations between autoimmune disorders and the subsequent increased risk of EDs, and likewise, the association between EDs and the subsequent risk of autoimmune disorders.

An important challenge for future research is to explore the impact of comorbidity on ED identification, development and treatment processes and outcomes. Insights could be gained from exploring shared psychiatric symptomology (i.e., ARFID and ASD, BN/BED and personality disorders, and food addiction). Particularly in disorders where the psychiatric comorbidity appears to precede the ED diagnosis (as may be the case in anxiety disorders [ 28 ]) and the unique physiological complications of these EDs (e.g., the impact of ARFID on childhood development and growth). Further, treatment outcomes would benefit from future research exploring the nature of the proposed reciprocal nature between EDs and comorbidities, particularly in those instances where there is significant shared psychopathology, or the presence of ED symptoms appears to exacerbate the symptoms of the other condition—and vice versa.

The majority of research regarding the newly introduced EDs has focused on understanding their aetiology, psychopathology, and what treatments demonstrate efficacy. Further, some areas included in the review had limited included studies, for example cancer and EDs. Thus, in addition to the already discussed need for further review regarding the association between EDs and autoimmune disorders, future research should explore the nature and prevalence of comorbidity between cancers and EDs. There was variability regarding the balance of child/adolescent and adult studies across the various comorbidities. Some comorbidities are heavily researched in child and adolescent populations (such as refeeding syndrome) and others there is stark child and adolescent inclusion, with included studies only looking at adult samples. Future studies should also address specific comorbidities as they apply to groups underrepresented in current research. This includes but is not limited to gender, sexual and racial minorities, whereby prevalence rates of psychiatric comorbidities are elevated. [ 88 ] In addition, future research would benefit from considering the nature of psychiatric and medical comorbidity for subthreshold and subclinical EDs, particularly as it pertains to an opportunity to identify EDs early within certain comorbidities where ED risk is heightened.

This review has identified the psychiatric and medical comorbidities of EDs, for which there is a substantial level of literature, as well as other areas requiring further investigation. EDs are associated with a myriad of psychiatric and medical comorbidities which have significant impacts on the symptomology and outcomes of an already difficult to treat, and burdensome illness.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable—all citations provided.

Abbreviations

Anorexia nervosa—restricting type

Anorexia nervosa—binge-purge type

Avoidant restrictive food intake disorder

Body mass index

Borderline personality disorder

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition

Eating disorder

Generalised anxiety disorder

International classification of diseases, 11th edition

Major depressive disorder

Night eating syndrome

Other specified feeding or eating disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Rapid review

Brandsma L. Eating disorders across the lifespan. J Women Aging. 2007;19(1–2):155–72.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Hoeken D, Hoek HW. Review of the burden of eating disorders: mortality, disability, costs, quality of life, and family burden. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020;33(6):521–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Weigel A, Löwe B, Kohlmann S. Severity of somatic symptoms in outpatients with anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2019;27(2):195–204.

Hudson JI, Hiripi E, Pope HG Jr, Kessler RC. The prevalence and correlates of eating disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61(3):348–58.

Jahraus J. Medical complications of eating disorders. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(10):463–7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Udo T, Grilo CM. Psychiatric and medical correlates of DSM-5 eating disorders in a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States. Int J Eat Disord. 2019;52(1):42–50.

Grenon R, Tasca GA, Cwinn E, Coyle D, Sumner A, Gick M, et al. Depressive symptoms are associated with medication use and lower health-related quality of life in overweight women with binge eating disorder. Womens Health Issues. 2010;20(6):435–40.

Ulfvebrand S, Birgegård A, Norring C, Högdahl L, von Hausswolff-Juhlin Y. Psychiatric comorbidity in women and men with eating disorders results from a large clinical database. Psychiatry Res. 2015;230(2):294–9.

Sachs KV, Harnke B, Mehler PS, Krantz MJ. Cardiovascular complications of anorexia nervosa: a systematic review. Int J Eat Disord. 2016;49(3):238–48.

Smith AR, Zuromski KL, Dodd DR. Eating disorders and suicidality: what we know, what we don’t know, and suggestions for future research. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;22:63–7.

Arcelus J, Mitchell AJ, Wales J, Nielsen S. Mortality rates in patients with anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders: a meta-analysis of 36 studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(7):724–31.

Mayes SD, Fernandez-Mendoza J, Baweja R, Calhoun S, Mahr F, Aggarwal R, et al. Correlates of suicide ideation and attempts in children and adolescents with eating disorders. Eat Disord. 2014;22(4):352–66.

Hart LM, Granillo MT, Jorm AF, Paxton SJ. Unmet need for treatment in the eating disorders: a systematic review of eating disorder specific treatment seeking among community cases. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31(5):727–35.

Kaplan AS, Garfinkel PE. Difficulties in treating patients with eating disorders: A review of patient and clinician variables. Can J Psychiatry. 1999;44(7):665–70.

Eddy KT, Tabri N, Thomas JJ, Murray HB, Keshaviah A, Hastings E, et al. Recovery from anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa at 22-year follow-up. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(2):184–9.

John A, Marchant A, Demmler J, Tan J, DelPozo-Banos M. Clinical management and mortality risk in those with eating disorders and self-harm: e-cohort study using the SAIL databank. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(2):1–8.

Monteleone P, Brambilla F. Multiple comorbidities in people with eating disorders. In: Comorbidity of mental and physical disorders. vol. 179. Karger Publishers; 2015. p. 66-80. 

Van Alsten SC, Duncan AE. Lifetime patterns of comorbidity in eating disorders: an approach using sequence analysis. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2020;28(6):709–23.

National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Managing comorbid health problems in people with eating disorders. United Kingdom: National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. 2019.

Institute InsideOut. Australian Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy 2021–2031. Sydney: The University of Sydney; 2021.

Google Scholar  

Virginia Commonwealth University. Rapid review protocol. 2018.

Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20.

Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;129:74–85.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6(7):1–6.

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39.

Aouad P, Bryant E, Maloney D, Marks P, Le A, Russell H, et al. Informing the development of Australia’s national eating disorders research and translation strategy: a rapid review methodology. J Eat Disord. 2022;10(1):31.

Godart N, Radon L, Curt F, Duclos J, Perdereau F, Lang F, et al. Mood disorders in eating disorder patients: prevalence and chronology of ONSET. J Affect Disord. 2015;185:115–22.

Swinbourne J, Hunt C, Abbott M, Russell J, St Clare T, Touyz S. The comorbidity between eating disorders and anxiety disorders: Prevalence in an eating disorder sample and anxiety disorder sample. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012;46(2):118–31.

Espel-Huynh HM, Muratore AF, Virzi N, Brooks G, Zandberg LJ. Mediating role of experiential avoidance in the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and eating disorder psychopathology: a clinical replication. Eat Behav. 2019;34:101308.

Thornton LM, Dellava JE, Root TL, Lichtenstein P, Bulik CM. Anorexia nervosa and generalized anxiety disorder: further explorations of the relation between anxiety and body mass index. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(5):727–30.

Kerr-Gaffney J, Harrison A, Tchanturia K. Social anxiety in the eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2018;48(15):2477–91.

Ranta K, Väänänen J, Fröjd S, Isomaa R, Kaltiala-Heino R, Marttunen M. Social phobia, depression and eating disorders during middle adolescence: longitudinal associations and treatment seeking. Nord J Psychiatry. 2017;71(8):605–13.

Mandelli L, Draghetti S, Albert U, De Ronchi D, Atti A-R. Rates of comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder in eating disorders: a meta-analysis of the literature. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:927–39.

Finzi-Dottan R, Zubery E. The role of depression and anxiety in impulsive and obsessive-compulsive behaviors among anorexic and bulimic patients. Eat Disord. 2009;17(2):162–82.

Olatunji BO, Tart CD, Shewmaker S, Wall D, Smits JA. Mediation of symptom changes during inpatient treatment for eating disorders: the role of obsessive–compulsive features. J Psychiatr Res. 2010;44(14):910–6.

Vanzhula IA, Kinkel-Ram SS, Levinson CA. Perfectionism and difficulty controlling thoughts bridge eating disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms: a network analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;283:302–9.

Zhang Z, Robinson L, Jia T, Quinlan EB, Tay N, Chu C, et al. Development of disordered eating behaviors and comorbid depressive symptoms in adolescence: neural and psychopathological predictors. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;90(12):853–62.

Thiebaut S, Godart N, Radon L, Courtet P, Guillaume S. Crossed prevalence results between subtypes of eating disorder and bipolar disorder: a systematic review of the literature. L’encephale. 2019;45(1):60–73.

Crow S, Blom TJ, Sim L, Cuellar-Barboza AB, Biernacka JM, Frye MA, et al. Factor analysis of the eating disorder diagnostic scale in individuals with bipolar disorder. Eat Behav. 2019;33:30–3.

McDonald CE, Rossell SL, Phillipou A. The comorbidity of eating disorders in bipolar disorder and associated clinical correlates characterised by emotion dysregulation and impulsivity: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2019;259:228–43.

Martinussen M, Friborg O, Schmierer P, Kaiser S, Øvergård KT, Neunhoeffer A-L, et al. The comorbidity of personality disorders in eating disorders: a meta-analysis. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2017;22(2):201–9.

Vrabel KR, Rø Ø, Martinsen EW, Hoffart A, Rosenvinge JH. Five-year prospective study of personality disorders in adults with longstanding eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2010;43(1):22–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bahji A, Mazhar MN, Hudson CC, Nadkarni P, MacNeil BA, Hawken E. Prevalence of substance use disorder comorbidity among individuals with eating disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2019;273:58–66.

Calero-Elvira A, Krug I, Davis K, Lopez C, Fernández-Aranda F, Treasure J. Meta-analysis on drugs in people with eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev Prof J Eat Disord Assoc. 2009;17(4):243–59.

Palmese LB, Ratliff JC, Reutenauer EL, Tonizzo KM, Grilo CM, Tek C. Prevalence of night eating in obese individuals with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(3):276–81.

Hartmann AS, Greenberg JL, Wilhelm S. The relationship between anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(5):675–85.

Kaisari P, Dourish CT, Higgs S. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and disordered eating behaviour: a systematic review and a framework for future research. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;53:109–21.

Nazar BP, Bernardes C, Peachey G, Sergeant J, Mattos P, Treasure J. The risk of eating disorders comorbid with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Eat Disord. 2016;49(12):1045–57.

Seitz J, Kahraman-Lanzerath B, Legenbauer T, Sarrar L, Herpertz S, Salbach-Andrae H, et al. The role of impulsivity, inattention and comorbid ADHD in patients with bulimia nervosa. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e63891.

Ziobrowski H, Brewerton TD, Duncan AE. Associations between ADHD and eating disorders in relation to comorbid psychiatric disorders in a nationally representative sample. Psychiatry Res. 2018;260:53–9.

Bleck JR, DeBate RD, Olivardia R. The comorbidity of ADHD and eating disorders in a nationally representative sample. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015;42(4):437–51.

Huke V, Turk J, Saeidi S, Kent A, Morgan JF. Autism spectrum disorders in eating disorder populations: a systematic review. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2013;21(5):345–51.

Westwood H, Mandy W, Tchanturia K. Clinical evaluation of autistic symptoms in women with anorexia nervosa. Mol Autism. 2017;8(1):1–9.

Dell’Osso L, Carpita B, Gesi C, Cremone I, Corsi M, Massimetti E, et al. Subthreshold autism spectrum disorder in patients with eating disorders. Compr Psychiatry. 2018;81:66–72.

Dovey TM, Kumari V, Blissett J. Eating behaviour, behavioural problems and sensory profiles of children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), autistic spectrum disorders or picky eating: same or different? Eur Psychiatry. 2019;61:56–62.

Mitchell KS, Singh S, Hardin S, Thompson-Brenner H. The impact of comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder on eating disorder treatment outcomes: investigating the unified treatment model. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(7):1260–9.

Mitchell KS, Scioli ER, Galovski T, Belfer PL, Cooper Z. Posttraumatic stress disorder and eating disorders: maintaining mechanisms and treatment targets. Eat Disord. 2021;29(3):292–306.

Goldstein A, Gvion Y. Socio-demographic and psychological risk factors for suicidal behavior among individuals with anorexia and bulimia nervosa: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:1149–67.

Pisetsky EM, Peterson CB, Mitchell JE, Wonderlich SA, Crosby RD, Le Grange D, et al. A comparison of the frequency of familial suicide attempts across eating disorder diagnoses. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(6):707–10.

Thornton LM, Welch E, Munn-Chernoff MA, Lichtenstein P, Bulik CM. Anorexia nervosa, major depression, and suicide attempts: shared genetic factors. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2016;46(5):525–34.

Yao S, Kuja-Halkola R, Thornton LM, Runfola CD, D’Onofrio BM, Almqvist C, et al. Familial liability for eating disorders and suicide attempts: evidence from a population registry in Sweden. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(3):284–91.

Preti A, Rocchi MBL, Sisti D, Camboni M, Miotto P. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the risk of suicide in eating disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;124(1):6–17.

Pérez S, Marco JH, Cañabate M. Non-suicidal self-injury in patients with eating disorders: prevalence, forms, functions, and body image correlates. Compr Psychiatry. 2018;84:32–8.

Claes L, Islam MA, Fagundo AB, Jimenez-Murcia S, Granero R, Agüera Z, et al. The relationship between non-suicidal self-injury and the UPPS-P impulsivity facets in eating disorders and healthy controls. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0126083.

Riley EN, Davis HA, Combs JL, Jordan CE, Smith GT. Nonsuicidal self-injury as a risk factor for purging onset: Negatively reinforced behaviours that reduce emotional distress. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2016;24(1):78–82.

Muehlenkamp JJ, Claes L, Smits D, Peat CM, Vandereycken W. Non-suicidal self-injury in eating disordered patients: a test of a conceptual model. Psychiatry Res. 2011;188(1):102–8.

Gosseaume C, Dicembre M, Bemer P, Melchior J-C, Hanachi M. Somatic complications and nutritional management of anorexia nervosa. Clin Nutr Exp. 2019;28:2–10.

Cass K, McGuire C, Bjork I, Sobotka N, Walsh K, Mehler PS. Medical complications of anorexia nervosa. Psychosomatics. 2020;61(6):625–31.

Kalla A, Krishnamoorthy P, Gopalakrishnan A, Garg J, Patel N, Figueredo V. Gender and age differences in cardiovascular complications in anorexia nervosa patients. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:55–7.

Karamanis G, Skalkidou A, Tsakonas G, Brandt L, Ekbom A, Ekselius L, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in women with anorexia nervosa. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(7):1751–7.

Hofman M, Landewé-Cleuren S, Wojciechowski F, Kruseman AN. Prevalence and clinical determinants of low bone mineral density in anorexia nervosa. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(1):80–4.

Robinson L, Aldridge V, Clark E, Misra M, Micali N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between eating disorders and bone density. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(6):1953–66.

Rizzo SM, Douglas JW, Lawrence JC. Enteral nutrition via nasogastric tube for refeeding patients with anorexia nervosa: a systematic review. Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;34(3):359–70.

Cioffi I, Ponzo V, Pellegrini M, Evangelista A, Bioletto F, Ciccone G, et al. The incidence of the refeeding syndrome. A systematic review and meta-analyses of literature. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(6):3688–701.

Golden NH, Keane-Miller C, Sainani KL, Kapphahn CJ. Higher caloric intake in hospitalized adolescents with anorexia nervosa is associated with reduced length of stay and no increased rate of refeeding syndrome. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(5):573–8.

Garber AK, Mauldin K, Michihata N, Buckelew SM, Shafer M-A, Moscicki A-B. Higher calorie diets increase rate of weight gain and shorten hospital stay in hospitalized adolescents with anorexia nervosa. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(5):579–84.

O’Connor G, Nicholls D, Hudson L, Singhal A. Refeeding low weight hospitalized adolescents with anorexia nervosa: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016;31(5):681–9.

Raevuori A, Suokas J, Haukka J, Gissler M, Linna M, Grainger M, et al. Highly increased risk of type 2 diabetes in patients with binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2015;48(6):555–62.

Conviser JH, Fisher SD, Mitchell KB. Oral care behavior after purging in a sample of women with bulimia nervosa. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(4):352–4.

Hermont AP, Oliveira PA, Martins CC, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA, Auad SM. Tooth erosion and eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e111123.

Hermont AP, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Abreu MHNG, Auad SM. Eating disorder risk behavior and dental implications among adolescents. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(7):677–83.

Peebles R, Sieke EH. Medical complications of eating disorders in youth. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin. 2019;28(4):593–615.

Hemmingsen SD, Wesselhoeft R, Lichtenstein MB, Sjögren JM, Støving RK. Cognitive improvement following weight gain in patients with anorexia nervosa: a systematic review. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2021;29(3):402–26.

Pasternak Y, Weintraub AY, Shoham-Vardi I, Sergienko R, Guez J, Wiznitzer A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in women with eating disorders. J Womens Health. 2012;21(1):61–5.

Linna MS, Raevuori A, Haukka J, Suvisaari JM, Suokas JT, Gissler M. Reproductive health outcomes in eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(8):826–33.

Martini MG, Solmi F, Krug I, Karwautz A, Wagner G, Fernandez-Aranda F, et al. Associations between eating disorder diagnoses, behaviors, and menstrual dysfunction in a clinical sample. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016;19(3):553–7.

Clarke E, Kiropoulos LA. Mediating the relationship between neuroticism and depressive, anxiety and eating disorder symptoms: The role of intolerance of uncertainty and cognitive flexibility. J Affect Disord Rep. 2021;4:100101.

Grilo CM, White MA, Barnes RD, Masheb RM. Psychiatric disorder co-morbidity and correlates in an ethnically diverse sample of obese patients with binge eating disorder in primary care settings. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(3):209–16.

Kambanis PE, Kuhnle MC, Wons OB, Jo JH, Keshishian AC, Hauser K, et al. Prevalence and correlates of psychiatric comorbidities in children and adolescents with full and subthreshold avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(2):256–65.

Balantekin KN, Grammer AC, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Eichen DE, Graham AK, Monterubio GE, et al. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased eating disorder correlates and general psychopathology in university women with eating disorders. Eat Behav. 2021;41:101482.

Spettigue W, Obeid N, Santos A, Norris M, Hamati R, Hadjiyannakis S, et al. Binge eating and social anxiety in treatment-seeking adolescents with eating disorders or severe obesity. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2020;25(3):787–93.

Simpson HB, Wetterneck CT, Cahill SP, Steinglass JE, Franklin ME, Leonard RC, et al. Treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder complicated by comorbid eating disorders. Cogn Behav Ther. 2013;42(1):64–76.

Fennig S, Hadas A. Suicidal behavior and depression in adolescents with eating disorders. Nord J Psychiatry. 2010;64(1):32–9.

Pila E, Murray SB, Le Grange D, Sawyer SM, Hughes EK. Reciprocal relations between dietary restraint and negative affect in adolescents receiving treatment for anorexia nervosa. J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128(2):129–39.

Touchette E, Henegar A, Godart NT, Pryor L, Falissard B, Tremblay RE, et al. Subclinical eating disorders and their comorbidity with mood and anxiety disorders in adolescent girls. Psychiatry Res. 2011;185(1–2):185–92.

Carriere C, Michel G, Féart C, Pellay H, Onorato O, Barat P, et al. Relationships between emotional disorders, personality dimensions, and binge eating disorder in French obese adolescents. Arch Pediatr. 2019;26(3):138–44.

Kucukgoncu S, Tek C, Bestepe E, Musket C, Guloksuz S. Clinical features of night eating syndrome among depressed patients. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2014;22(2):102–8.

Lundgren JD, Allison KC, Stunkard AJ, Bulik CM, Thornton LM, Lindroos AK, et al. Lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidity of night eating behavior in the Swedish Twin Study of Adults: Genes and Environment (STAGE). Psychiatry Res. 2012;199(2):145–9.

Schnicker K, Hiller W, Legenbauer T. Drop-out and treatment outcome of outpatient cognitive–behavioral therapy for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(7):812–23.

Calugi S, El Ghoch M, Conti M, Dalle GR. Depression and treatment outcome in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2014;218(1–2):195–200.

Voderholzer U, Witte S, Schlegl S, Koch S, Cuntz U, Schwartz C. Association between depressive symptoms, weight and treatment outcome in a very large anorexia nervosa sample. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2016;21(1):127–31.

Fornaro M, Daray FM, Hunter F, Anastasia A, Stubbs B, De Berardis D, et al. The prevalence, odds and predictors of lifespan comorbid eating disorder among people with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorders, and vice-versa: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;280:409–31.

McElroy SL, Crow S, Blom TJ, Biernacka JM, Winham SJ, Geske J, et al. Prevalence and correlates of DSM-5 eating disorders in patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2016;191:216–21.

Boulanger H, Tebeka S, Girod C, Lloret-Linares C, Meheust J, Scott J, et al. Binge eating behaviours in bipolar disorders. J Affect Disord. 2018;225:482–8.

Melo MCA, de Oliveira RM, de Araújo CFC, de Mesquita LMF, de Bruin PFC, de Bruin VMS. Night eating in bipolar disorder. Sleep Med. 2018;48:49–52.

McElroy SL, Frye MA, Hellemann G, Altshuler L, Leverich GS, Suppes T, et al. Prevalence and correlates of eating disorders in 875 patients with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2011;128(3):191–8.

Thiebaut S, Jaussent I, Maïmoun L, Beziat S, Seneque M, Hamroun D, et al. Impact of bipolar disorder on eating disorders severity in real-life settings. J Affect Disord. 2019;246:867–72.

McAulay C, Mond J, Outhred T, Malhi GS, Touyz S. Eating disorder features in bipolar disorder: clinical implications. J Mental Health. 2021:1–11.

Seixas C, Miranda-Scippa Â, Nery-Fernandes F, Andrade-Nascimento M, Quarantini LC, Kapczinski F, et al. Prevalence and clinical impact of eating disorders in bipolar patients. Braz J Psychiatry. 2012;34(1):66–70.

Spiegel J, Arnold S, Salbach H, Gotti E, Pfeiffer E, Lehmkuhl U, et al. Emotional abuse interacts with borderline personality in adolescent inpatients with binge-purging eating disorders. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2021;27:131–8.

Himmerich H, Hotopf M, Shetty H, Schmidt U, Treasure J, Hayes RD, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity as a risk factor for the mortality of people with bulimia nervosa. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019;54(7):813–21.

Rowe SL, Jordan J, McIntosh VV, Carter FA, Frampton C, Bulik CM, et al. Complex personality disorder in bulimia nervosa. Compr Psychiatry. 2010;51(6):592–8.

Brietzke E, Moreira CL, Toniolo RA, Lafer B. Clinical correlates of eating disorder comorbidity in women with bipolar disorder type I. J Affect Disord. 2011;130(1–2):162–5.

Harrop EN, Marlatt GA. The comorbidity of substance use disorders and eating disorders in women: prevalence, etiology, and treatment. Addict Behav. 2010;35(5):392–8.

Baker JH, Mitchell KS, Neale MC, Kendler KS. Eating disorder symptomatology and substance use disorders: prevalence and shared risk in a population based twin sample. Int J Eat Disord. 2010;43(7):648–58.

Root TL, Pisetsky EM, Thornton L, Lichtenstein P, Pedersen NL, Bulik CM. Patterns of co-morbidity of eating disorders and substance use in Swedish females. Psychol Med. 2010;40(1):105–15.

Fouladi F, Mitchell JE, Crosby RD, Engel SG, Crow S, Hill L, et al. Prevalence of alcohol and other substance use in patients with eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2015;23(6):531–6.

Brewerton TD, Rance SJ, Dansky BS, O’Neil PM, Kilpatrick DG. A comparison of women with child-adolescent versus adult onset binge eating: Results from the national women’s study. Int J Eat Disord. 2014;47(7):836–43.

Field AE, Sonneville KR, Micali N, Crosby RD, Swanson SA, Laird NM, et al. Prospective association of common eating disorders and adverse outcomes. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):e289–95.

Cusack CE, Christian C, Drake JE, Levinson CA. A network analysis of eating disorder symptoms and co-occurring alcohol misuse among heterosexual and sexual minority college women. Addict Behav. 2021;118:106867.

Miotto P, Pollini B, Restaneo A, Favaretto G, Sisti D, Rocchi MB, et al. Symptoms of psychosis in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2010;175(3):237–43.

Koyanagi A, Stickley A, Haro JM. Psychotic-like experiences and disordered eating in the English general population. Psychiatry Res. 2016;241:26–34.

Phillipou A, Castle DJ, Rossell SL. Direct comparisons of anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder: a systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2019;274:129–37.

Cerea S, Bottesi G, Grisham JR, Ghisi M. Non-weight-related body image concerns and body dysmorphic disorder prevalence in patients with anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2018;267:120–5.

Beilharz F, Phillipou A, Castle D, Jenkins Z, Cistullo L, Rossell S. Dysmorphic concern in anorexia nervosa: implications for recovery. Psychiatry Res. 2019;273:657–61.

Beilharz F, Castle D, Grace S, Rossell S. A systematic review of visual processing and associated treatments in body dysmorphic disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017;136(1):16–36.

Svedlund NE, Norring C, Ginsberg Y, von Hausswolff-Juhlin Y. Symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among adult eating disorder patients. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):1–9.

Brewerton TD, Duncan AE. Associations between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders by gender: results from the national comorbidity survey replication. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2016;24(6):536–40.

Bisset M, Rinehart N, Sciberras E. DSM-5 eating disorder symptoms in adolescents with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a population-based study. Int J Eat Disord. 2019;52(7):855–62.

Svedlund NE, Norring C, Ginsberg Y, von Hausswolff-Juhlin Y. Are treatment results for eating disorders affected by ADHD symptoms? A one-year follow-up of adult females. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2018;26(4):337–45.

Brewerton TD, Perlman MM, Gavidia I, Suro G, Genet J, Bunnell DW. The association of traumatic events and posttraumatic stress disorder with greater eating disorder and comorbid symptom severity in residential eating disorder treatment centers. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(12):2061–6.

Bühren K, Schwarte R, Fluck F, Timmesfeld N, Krei M, Egberts K, et al. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in female adolescents with first-onset anorexia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2014;22(1):39–44.

Guillaume S, Jaussent I, Olie E, Genty C, Bringer J, Courtet P, et al. Characteristics of suicide attempts in anorexia and bulimia nervosa: a case–control study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8):e23578.

Udo T, Bitley S, Grilo CM. Suicide attempts in US adults with lifetime DSM-5 eating disorders. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):1–13.

Duffy ME, Henkel KE, Joiner TE. Prevalence of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in transgender individuals with eating disorders: a national study. J Adolesc Health. 2019;64(4):461–6.

Goel NJ, Sadeh-Sharvit S, Flatt RE, Trockel M, Balantekin KN, Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, et al. Correlates of suicidal ideation in college women with eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2018;51(6):579–84.

Sagiv E, Gvion Y. A multi factorial model of self-harm behaviors in Anorexia-nervosa and Bulimia-nervosa. Compr Psychiatry. 2020;96:152142.

Andersén M, Birgegård A. D iagnosis-specific self-image predicts longitudinal suicidal ideation in adult eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(8):970–8.

Runfola CD, Thornton LM, Pisetsky EM, Bulik CM, Birgegård A. Self-image and suicide in a Swedish national eating disorders clinical register. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55(3):439–49.

Forcano L, Álvarez E, Santamaría JJ, Jimenez-Murcia S, Granero R, Penelo E, et al. Suicide attempts in anorexia nervosa subtypes. Compr Psychiatry. 2011;52(4):352–8.

Selby EA, Smith AR, Bulik CM, Olmsted MP, Thornton L, McFarlane TL, et al. Habitual starvation and provocative behaviors: two potential routes to extreme suicidal behavior in anorexia nervosa. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48(7):634–45.

Bodell LP, Joiner TE, Keel PK. Comorbidity-independent risk for suicidality increases with bulimia nervosa but not with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(5):617–21.

Forcano L, Fernández-Aranda F, Alvarez-Moya E, Bulik C, Granero R, Gratacos M, et al. Suicide attempts in bulimia nervosa: personality and psychopathological correlates. Eur Psychiatry. 2009;24(2):91–7.

Huas C, Godart N, Caille A, Pham-Scottez A, Foulon C, Divac SM, et al. Mortality and its predictors in severe bulimia nervosa patients. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2013;21(1):15–9.

Crow SJ, Swanson SA, le Grange D, Feig EH, Merikangas KR. Suicidal behavior in adolescents and adults with bulimia nervosa. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55(7):1534–9.

Pisetsky EM, Wonderlich SA, Crosby RD, Peterson CB, Mitchell JE, Engel SG, et al. Depression and personality traits associated with emotion dysregulation: correlates of suicide attempts in women with bulimia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2015;23(6):537–44.

Brown KL, LaRose JG, Mezuk B. The relationship between body mass index, binge eating disorder and suicidality. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):1–9.

Olatunji BO, Cox R, Ebesutani C, Wall D. Self-harm history predicts resistance to inpatient treatment of body shape aversion in women with eating disorders: The role of negative affect. J Psychiatr Res. 2015;65:37–46.

Pérez S, Ros MC, Folgado JEL, Marco JH. Non-suicidal self-injury differentiates suicide ideators and attempters and predicts future suicide attempts in patients with eating disorders. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2019;49(5):1220–31.

Smith KE, Hayes NA, Styer DM, Washburn JJ. Emotional reactivity in a clinical sample of patients with eating disorders and nonsuicidal self-injury. Psychiatry Res. 2017;257:519–25.

Claes L, Klonsky ED, Muehlenkamp J, Kuppens P, Vandereycken W. The affect-regulation function of nonsuicidal self-injury in eating-disordered patients: which affect states are regulated? Compr Psychiatry. 2010;51(4):386–92.

Navarro-Haro MV, Wessman I, Botella C, García-Palacios A. The role of emotion regulation strategies and dissociation in non-suicidal self-injury for women with borderline personality disorder and comorbid eating disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;63:123–30.

Giovinazzo S, Sukkar S, Rosa G, Zappi A, Bezante G, Balbi M, et al. Anorexia nervosa and heart disease: a systematic review. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2019;24(2):199–207.

Bouquegneau A, Dubois BE, Krzesinski J-M, Delanaye P. Anorexia nervosa and the kidney. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(2):299–307.

Benini L, Todesco T, Frulloni L, Dalle Grave R, Campagnola P, Agugiaro F, et al. Esophageal motility and symptoms in restricting and binge-eating/purging anorexia. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42(11):767–72.

Gibson D, Watters A, Mehler PS. The intersect of gastrointestinal symptoms and malnutrition associated with anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Functional or pathophysiologic? A systematic review. Int J Eat Disord. 2021.

Abraham S, Kellow J. Exploring eating disorder quality of life and functional gastrointestinal disorders among eating disorder patients. J Psychosom Res. 2011;70(4):372–7.

Brewster DH, Nowell SL, Clark DN. Risk of oesophageal cancer among patients previously hospitalised with eating disorder. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(3):313–20.

Smith KR, Moran TH. Gastrointestinal peptides in eating-related disorders. Physiol Behav. 2021;238:113456.

Seidel M, Markmann Jensen S, Healy D, Dureja A, Watson HJ, Holst B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis finds increased blood levels of all forms of ghrelin in both restricting and binge-eating/purging subtypes of anorexia nervosa. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):709.

Becker KR, Mancuso C, Dreier MJ, Asanza E, Breithaupt L, Slattery M, et al. Ghrelin and PYY in low-weight females with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder compared to anorexia nervosa and healthy controls. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021;129:105243.

Schalla MA, Stengel A. Gastrointestinal alterations in anorexia nervosa—A systematic review. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2019;27(5):447–61.

West M, McMaster CM, Staudacher HM, Hart S, Jacka FN, Stewart T, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms following treatment for anorexia nervosa: A systematic literature review. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(6):936–51.

Avila JT, Park K, Golden NH. Eating disorders in adolescents with chronic gastrointestinal and endocrine diseases. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019;3(3):181–9.

Ruusunen A, Rocks T, Jacka F, Loughman A. The gut microbiome in anorexia nervosa: relevance for nutritional rehabilitation. Psychopharmacology. 2019;236(5):1545–58.

Zaina F, Pesenti F, Persani L, Capodaglio P, Negrini S, Polli N. Prevalence of idiopathic scoliosis in anorexia nervosa patients: results from a cross-sectional study. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(2):293–7.

Hung C, Muñoz M, Shibli-Rahhal A. Anorexia nervosa and osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2021;110(5):562–75.

Mumford J, Kohn M, Briody J, Miskovic-Wheatley J, Madden S, Clarke S, et al. Long-term outcomes of adolescent anorexia nervosa on bone. J Adolesc Health. 2019;64(3):305–10.

Robinson L, Aldridge V, Clark EM, Misra M, Micali N. Pharmacological treatment options for low bone mineral density and secondary osteoporosis in anorexia nervosa: a systematic review of the literature. J Psychosom Res. 2017;98:87–97.

Sim LA, McGovern L, Elamin MB, Swiglo BA, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Effect on bone health of estrogen preparations in premenopausal women with anorexia nervosa: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Eat Disord. 2010;43(3):218–25.

Lebow J, Sim L. The influence of estrogen therapies on bone mineral density in premenopausal women with anorexia nervosa and amenorrhea. Vitam Horm. 2013;92:243–57.

Maïmoun L, Renard E, Lefebvre P, Bertet H, Philibert P, Sénèque M, et al. Oral contraceptives partially protect from bone loss in young women with anorexia nervosa. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(5):1020–9.

Miller KK, Meenaghan E, Lawson EA, Misra M, Gleysteen S, Schoenfeld D, et al. Effects of risedronate and low-dose transdermal testosterone on bone mineral density in women with anorexia nervosa: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(7):2081–8.

Bloch M, Ish-Shalom S, Greenman Y, Klein E, Latzer Y. Dehydroepiandrosterone treatment effects on weight, bone density, bone metabolism and mood in women suffering from anorexia nervosa—a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2012;200(2–3):544–9.

Vajapeyam S, Ecklund K, Mulkern RV, Feldman HA, O’Donnell JM, DiVasta AD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy evidence of efficacy for adrenal and gonadal hormone replacement therapy in anorexia nervosa. Bone. 2018;110:335–42.

DiVasta AD, Feldman HA, Beck TJ, LeBoff MS, Gordon CM. Does hormone replacement normalize bone geometry in adolescents with anorexia nervosa? J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(1):151–7.

Fazeli PK, Wang IS, Miller KK, Herzog DB, Misra M, Lee H, et al. Teriparatide increases bone formation and bone mineral density in adult women with anorexia nervosa. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(4):1322–9.

Giollo A, Idolazzi L, Caimmi C, Fassio A, Bertoldo F, Dalle Grave R, et al. V itamin D levels strongly influence bone mineral density and bone turnover markers during weight gain in female patients with anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(9):1041–9.

Davies JE, Cockfield A, Brown A, Corr J, Smith D, Munro C. The medical risks of severe anorexia nervosa during initial re-feeding and medical stabilisation. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2017;17:92–9.

Hale MD, Logomarsino JV. The use of enteral nutrition in the treatment of eating disorders: a systematic review. Eat Weight Disord Stud Anorex Bulim Obes. 2019;24(2):179–98.

Rocks T, Pelly F, Wilkinson P. Nutrition therapy during initiation of refeeding in underweight children and adolescent inpatients with anorexia nervosa: a systematic review of the evidence. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014;114(6):897–907.

Gentile MG, Pastorelli P, Ciceri R, Manna GM, Collimedaglia S. Specialized refeeding treatment for anorexia nervosa patients suffering from extreme undernutrition. Clin Nutr. 2010;29(5):627–32.

Hanachi M, Melchior JC, Crenn P. Hypertransaminasemia in severely malnourished adult anorexia nervosa patients: risk factors and evolution under enteral nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2013;32(3):391–5.

Rosen E, Sabel AL, Brinton JT, Catanach B, Gaudiani JL, Mehler PS. Liver dysfunction in patients with severe anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2016;49(2):151–8.

Vignaud M, Constantin J-M, Ruivard M, Villemeyre-Plane M, Futier E, Bazin J-E, et al. Refeeding syndrome influences outcome of anorexia nervosa patients in intensive care unit: an observational study. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R172.

Whitelaw M, Gilbertson H, Lam P-Y, Sawyer SM. Does aggressive refeeding in hospitalized adolescents with anorexia nervosa result in increased hypophosphatemia? J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(6):577–82.

Leclerc A, Turrini T, Sherwood K, Katzman DK. Evaluation of a nutrition rehabilitation protocol in hospitalized adolescents with restrictive eating disorders. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(5):585–9.

Leitner M, Burstein B, Agostino H. Prophylactic phosphate supplementation for the inpatient treatment of restrictive eating disorders. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(6):616–20.

Brown C, Sabel A, Gaudiani J, Mehler PS. Predictors of hypophosphatemia during refeeding of patients with severe anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2015;48(7):898–904.

Whitelaw M, Lee KJ, Gilbertson H, Sawyer SM. Predictors of complications in anorexia nervosa and atypical anorexia nervosa: degree of underweight or extent and recency of weight loss? J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(6):717–23.

Agostino H, Erdstein J, Di Meglio G. Shifting paradigms: continuous nasogastric feeding with high caloric intakes in anorexia nervosa. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(5):590–4.

Ridout KK, Kole J, Fitzgerald KL, Ridout SJ, Donaldson AA, Alverson B. Daily laboratory monitoring is of poor health care value in adolescents acutely hospitalized for eating disorders. J Adolesc Health. 2016;59(1):104–9.

Nehring I, Kewitz K, Von Kries R, Thyen U. Long-term effects of enteral feeding on growth and mental health in adolescents with anorexia nervosa—results of a retrospective German cohort study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(2):171–7.

National Heat LaBI. Metabolic syndrome: US Department of Health and Human Services. 2020.

Mathisen TF, Sundgot-Borgen J, Rosenvinge JH, Bratland-Sanda S. Managing risk of non-communicable diseases in women with bulimia nervosa or binge eating disorders: A randomized trial with 12 months follow-up. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1887.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Thornton LM, Watson HJ, Jangmo A, Welch E, Wiklund C, von Hausswolff-Juhlin Y, et al. Binge-eating disorder in the Swedish national registers: Somatic comorbidity. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(1):58–65.

Nicolau J, Simó R, Sanchís P, Ayala L, Fortuny R, Zubillaga I, et al. Eating disorders are frequent among type 2 diabetic patients and are associated with worse metabolic and psychological outcomes: results from a cross-sectional study in primary and secondary care settings. Acta Diabetol. 2015;52(6):1037–44.

Jaworski M, Panczyk M, Śliwczyński AM, Brzozowska M, Janaszek K, Małkowski P, et al. A ten-year longitudinal study of prevalence of eating disorders in the general polish type 2 diabetes population. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2018;24:9204.

Gallant A, Drapeau V, Allison KC, Tremblay A, Lambert M, O’Loughlin J, et al. Night eating behavior and metabolic heath in mothers and fathers enrolled in the QUALITY cohort study. Eat Behav. 2014;15(2):186–91.

Hood MM, Reutrakul S, Crowley SJ. Night eating in patients with type 2 diabetes. Associations with glycemic control, eating patterns, sleep, and mood. Appetite. 2014;79:91–6.

Udo T, McKee SA, White MA, Masheb RM, Barnes RD, Grilo CM. Menopause and metabolic syndrome in obese individuals with binge eating disorder. Eat Behav. 2014;15(2):182–5.

Kisely S, Baghaie H, Lalloo R, Johnson NW. Association between poor oral health and eating disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207(4):299–305.

Pallier A, Karimova A, Boillot A, Colon P, Ringuenet D, Bouchard P, et al. Dental and periodontal health in adults with eating disorders: a case-control study. J Dent. 2019;84:55–9.

Lundgren JD, Smith BM, Spresser C, Harkins P, Zolton L, Williams K. The relationship of night eating to oral health and obesity in community dental clinic patients. Age (Years). 2010;57(15):12.

Lundgren JD, Williams KB, Heitmann BL. Nocturnal eating predicts tooth loss among adults: results from the Danish MONICA study. Eat Behav. 2010;11(3):170–4.

Panico R, Piemonte E, Lazos J, Gilligan G, Zampini A, Lanfranchi H. Oral mucosal lesions in anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and EDNOS. J Psychiatr Res. 2018;96:178–82.

Setnick J. Micronutrient deficiencies and supplementation in anorexia and bulimia nervosa: a review of literature. Nutr Clin Pract. 2010;25(2):137–42.

Oudman E, Wijnia JW, Oey MJ, van Dam MJ, Postma A. Preventing Wernicke’s encephalopathy in anorexia nervosa: A systematic review. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2018;72(10):774–9.

Ålgars M, Huang L, Von Holle AF, Peat CM, Thornton LM, Lichtenstein P, et al. Binge eating and menstrual dysfunction. J Psychosom Res. 2014;76(1):19–22.

Nobles CJ, Thomas JJ, Valentine SE, Gerber MW, Vaewsorn AS, Marques L. Association of premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder with bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder in a nationally representative epidemiological sample. Int J Eat Disord. 2016;49(7):641–50.

Chaer R, Nakouzi N, Itani L, Tannir H, Kreidieh D, El Masri D, et al. Fertility and Reproduction after recovery from anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term follow-up studies. Diseases. 2020;8(4):46.

Bulik CM, Von Holle A, Siega-Riz AM, Torgersen L, Lie KK, Hamer RM, et al. Birth outcomes in women with eating disorders in the Norwegian Mother and Child cohort study (MoBa). Int J Eat Disord. 2009;42(1):9–18.

Kolstad E, Gilhus NE, Veiby G, Reiter SF, Lossius MI, Bjørk M. Epilepsy and eating disorders during pregnancy: prevalence, complications and birth outcome. Seizure. 2015;28:81–4.

Longo P, Panero M, Amodeo L, Demarchi M, Abbate-Daga G, Marzola E. Psychoform and somatoform dissociation in anorexia nervosa: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2021;28(2):295–312.

Zerwas S, Larsen JT, Petersen L, Thornton LM, Quaranta M, Koch SV, et al. Eating disorders, autoimmune, and autoinflammatory disease. Pediatrics. 2017;140(6):e20162089.

Wotton CJ, James A, Goldacre MJ. Coexistence of eating disorders and autoimmune diseases: record linkage cohort study, UK. Int J Eat Disord. 2016;49(7):663–72.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the hard work of Healthcare Management Advisors (HMA) who were commissioned to undertake the Rapid Review. Additionally, the authors would like to thank all members of the consortium and consultation committees for their advice, input, and considerations during the development process. Further, a special thank you to the carers, consumers and lived experience consultants that provided input to the development of the Rapid Review and wider national Eating Disorders Research & Translation Strategy. Finally, thank you to the Australian Government—Department of Health for their support of the current project.

National Eating Disorder Research Consortium: Phillip Aouad, Sarah Barakat, Robert Boakes, Leah Brennan, Emma Bryant, Susan Byrne, Belinda Caldwell, Shannon Calvert, Bronny Carroll, David Castle, Ian Caterson, Belinda Chelius, Lyn Chiem, Simon Clarke, Janet Conti, Lexi Crouch, Genevieve Dammery, Natasha Dzajkovski, Jasmine Fardouly, Carmen Felicia, John Feneley, Amber-Marie Firriolo, Nasim Foroughi, Mathew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Anthea Fursland, Veronica Gonzalez-Arce, Bethanie Gouldthorp, Kelly Griffin, Scott Griffiths, Ashlea Hambleton, Amy Hannigan, Mel Hart, Susan Hart, Phillipa Hay, Ian Hickie, Francis Kay-Lambkin, Ross King, Michael Kohn, Eyza Koreshe, Isabel Krug, Anvi Le, Jake Linardon, Randall Long, Amanda Long, Sloane Madden, Sarah Maguire, Danielle Maloney, Peta Marks, Sian McLean, Thy Meddick, Jane Miskovic-Wheatley, Deborah Mitchison, Richard O’Kearney, Shu Hwa Ong, Roger Paterson, Susan Paxton, Melissa Pehlivan, Genevieve Pepin, Andrea Phillipou, Judith Piccone, Rebecca Pinkus, Bronwyn Raykos, Paul Rhodes, Elizabeth Rieger, Sarah Rodan, Karen Rockett, Janice Russell, Haley Russell, Fiona Salter, Susan Sawyer, Beth Shelton, Urvashnee Singh, Sophie Smith, Evelyn Smith, Karen Spielman, Sarah Squire, Juliette Thomson, Marika Tiggemann, Stephen Touyz, Ranjani Utpala, Lenny Vartanian, Andrew Wallis, Warren Ward, Sarah Wells, Eleanor Wertheim, Simon Wilksch & Michelle Williams

The RR was in-part funded by the Australian Government Department of Health in partnership with other national and jurisdictional stakeholders. As the organisation responsible for overseeing the National Eating Disorder Research & Translation Strategy, InsideOut Institute commissioned Healthcare Management Advisors to undertake the RR as part of a larger, ongoing, project. Role of Funder: The funder was not directly involved in informing the development of the current review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

InsideOut Institute, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre (D17), University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia

Ashlea Hambleton, Danielle Maloney, Stephen Touyz & Sarah Maguire

School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

Genevieve Pepin

Healthcare Management Advisors, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

Danielle Maloney, Stephen Touyz & Sarah Maguire

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

National Eating Disorder Research Consortium

• Phillip Aouad
• , Sarah Barakat
• , Robert Boakes
• , Leah Brennan
• , Emma Bryant
• , Susan Byrne
• , Belinda Caldwell
• , Shannon Calvert
• , Bronny Carroll
• , David Castle
• , Ian Caterson
• , Belinda Chelius
• , Lyn Chiem
• , Simon Clarke
• , Janet Conti
• , Lexi Crouch
• , Genevieve Dammery
• , Natasha Dzajkovski
• , Jasmine Fardouly
• , Carmen Felicia
• , John Feneley
• , Amber-Marie Firriolo
• , Nasim Foroughi
• , Mathew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz
• , Anthea Fursland
• , Veronica Gonzalez-Arce
• , Bethanie Gouldthorp
• , Kelly Griffin
• , Scott Griffiths
• , Ashlea Hambleton
• , Amy Hannigan
• , Susan Hart
• , Phillipa Hay
• , Ian Hickie
• , Francis Kay-Lambkin
• , Ross King
• , Michael Kohn
• , Eyza Koreshe
• , Isabel Krug
• , Jake Linardon
• , Randall Long
• , Amanda Long
• , Sloane Madden
• , Sarah Maguire
• , Danielle Maloney
• , Peta Marks
• , Sian McLean
• , Thy Meddick
• , Jane Miskovic-Wheatley
• , Deborah Mitchison
• , Richard O’Kearney
• , Shu Hwa Ong
• , Roger Paterson
• , Susan Paxton
• , Melissa Pehlivan
• , Genevieve Pepin
• , Andrea Phillipou
• , Judith Piccone
• , Rebecca Pinkus
• , Bronwyn Raykos
• , Paul Rhodes
• , Elizabeth Rieger
• , Sarah Rodan
• , Karen Rockett
• , Janice Russell
• , Haley Russell
• , Fiona Salter
• , Susan Sawyer
• , Beth Shelton
• , Urvashnee Singh
• , Sophie Smith
• , Evelyn Smith
• , Karen Spielman
• , Sarah Squire
• , Juliette Thomson
• , Marika Tiggemann
• , Stephen Touyz
• , Ranjani Utpala
• , Lenny Vartanian
• , Andrew Wallis
• , Warren Ward
• , Sarah Wells
• , Eleanor Wertheim
• , Simon Wilksch
•  & Michelle Williams

Contributions

DM, PM, ST and SM oversaw the Rapid Review process; AL carried out and wrote the initial review; AH and GP wrote the first manuscript; all authors edited and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashlea Hambleton .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

ST receives royalties from Hogrefe and Huber, McGraw Hill and Taylor and Francis for published books/book chapters. He has received honoraria from the Takeda Group of Companies for consultative work, public speaking engagements and commissioned reports. He has chaired their Clinical Advisory Committee for Binge Eating Disorder. He is the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Eating Disorders. ST is a committee member of the National Eating Disorders Collaboration as well as the Technical Advisory Group for Eating Disorders. AL undertook work on this RR while employed by HMA. A/Prof Sarah Maguire is a guest editor of the special issue “Improving the future by understanding the present: evidence reviews for the field of eating disorders.”

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA diagram.

Additional file 2.

Studies included in the Rapid Review.

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.

Hambleton, A., Pepin, G., Le, A. et al. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities of eating disorders: findings from a rapid review of the literature. J Eat Disord 10 , 132 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00654-2

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2022

Accepted : 15 August 2022

Published : 05 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00654-2

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

• Psychiatric
• Comorbidities
• Eating disorders

Journal of Eating Disorders

ISSN: 2050-2974

• General enquiries: [email protected]