0. cronin, ryan, and coughlan (2008) undertaking a lr-a step-by-step approach

7/22/2019 0. Cronin, Ryan, And Coughlan (2008) Undertaking a LR-A Step-By-step Approach

1/7

Undertakinga literature reviewa step by-step approaciPatricia Cronin, Frances Ryan, Michael Coughia

AbstractNowadays most nurses pre- and post-qualification will be requiredto undertake a literature review at some point either as part of acourse ofstudy as a key step in the research process or as part ofclinical practice development or policy. For student nurses and noviceresearchers it is often seen as a diflScult undertaking. It demands acomplex range of skills such as learning how to define topics forexploration acquiring skiUs of literature searching and retrievaldeveloping the ability to analyse and synthesize data as well asbecoming adept at writing and reporting often within a limited timescale.The purpose of this article is to present a step-by-step guideto facilitate understanding by presenting the critical elements of theliterature review process. While reference is made to diflFerent types ofliterature reviews the focus is on the traditional or narrative reviewthat is undertaken usually either as an academic assignment or partof the research process.Key words: Aneilysis and synthesis Literature review Literaturesearching Writing a review

T he reasons for undertaking a literature review arenumerous and include eliciting information fordeveloping policiesand evidence-based care, astepin the research process and aspart of an academicassessment. To ma ny qualified nurses and nursing studentsfaced with undertakinga literature review the task appearsdaunting. Frequently-asked questions range from whereto start,how to select a subject,and howmany articles toinclude,towhat isinvolved in areview of the literature.T he aim of this article is to present step-by-step approachto undertaking a review ofth e literatureto facilitate student

nurses andnovice reviewers understanding.Whatis a literature review?A literature reviewis an objective, thorough summary andcritical analysisof the relevant available research and non-

Patricia Cronin, Frances RyanandMichael Coughian areLecturers,SchoolofNursing andMidwifery, University ofDublin, T rinityCollege, DublinAccepted for publication: November 2 7

research literatureon the topic being studied (Hart, 199Its goal is to bring the reader up-to- date w ith currehteratureona topic and fo rm the basisforanother goal, suasthejustification for future research in the area.A goliterature review gathers information about a particusubject from many sources.It is well written and contafew if any personal biases.It should contain a clear searand selection strategy (Carnwell and Daly, 2001). Gostructuring isessentialto enhance the flow and readabilofth e review. Accurateuse ofterminology isimportant ajargon shouldbe kept to a minimum. Referencing shoube accurate throughout (Colhng, 2003).Typesof literature reviewsTraditionalornarrative literature reviewThis type of review critiques and summarizes a body literature and draws conclusions about the topic inquestiThe body of literature is made up of the relevant studand knowledge that address the subject area.It is typicaselective in the material it uses, although the criteria selecting specific sourcesforreview are not always apparto the reader. This type of review is useful in gatheritogether a volume of literaturein a specific subject area asummarizingandsynthesizing it.

Its primary purpose is to provide the reader wa comprehensive background for understanding currknowledge and highlighting the significance of nresearch. It can inspire research ideas by identifying gor inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helpthe researcher to determine or define research questionshypotheses. Beecroft et al (2006) argue that a sufficienfocused research question is essential before undertaka literature review. Equally, however, it can help refinefocus a broad research question and isuseful for both toselection and topic refinement. It can also be helpful developing conceptualor theoretical frameworks (CoughTable 1. Non research reasons forundertaking a literature review A sanassignment for anacademic courseTo update current personai knowledge andpractice on atopTo evaluate current practicesTo developandupdate guidelines forpracticeTo develop work-related policies

From: PolitandBeck (200

38 Britishjournal ofNursing. 2008, Vol 17.


2/7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIESet al, 2007).Inaddition, literature reviews can be undertakenindependently of a research study (PoUt and Beck, 2006).Some reasonsforthisaredescribed in able 1Systematic literature reviewIn contrastto thetraditionalor narrative review, systematicreviewsuse amore rigorousandwell-defined approachtoreviewingtheliteraturein aspecific subject area. Systematicreviews are used to answer well-focused questions aboutclinical practice.

i^irahoo (2006) suggests that a systematic review shoulddetail the time frame w ithin w hich the literaturewas,selected, as well as the methods used to evaluate andsynthesize findingsofthe studies inquestion.Inorderforthe readertoassessthereliability and validityof the review,the reviewer needstopresent theprecise criteria used to: Formulate theresearch question Setinclusion or exclusion criteria Selectandaccesstheliterature Assess the quality of the literature included in the

review Analyse, synthesizeanddisseminatethe findings.Unlike traditional reviews,the purpose of a systematicreviewis toprovideascompletealistaspossibleof llthepublished and unpublished studies relating to a particularsubject area.While traditional reviews attempttosummarizeresults of a number of studies, systematic reviews useexplicit and rigorous criteria to identify, critically evaluateand synthesizeail theliteratureon a particular topic.Meta analysisMeta-analysis is the process of taking a large body ofquantitative findings and conducting statistical analysisinorder to integrate those findings and enhance understanding.Meta-analysisisseen asaform of systematic review which islargelyastatistical techn ique. It involves taking the findingsfrom several studiesonthesame subjectandanalysing the musing standardized statistical procedu res. This helpstodrawconclusions and detect patterns and relationships betweenfindings (PolitandBeck, 2006).Meta syn thesisMeta-synthesis is the non-statistical techniq ue used tointegrate, evaluate and interpret the findingsof multiplequalitative researchstudies. Such studies may be combine d toidentify their common core elementsandtheme s. Findingsfrom phenomenological, grounded theoryor ethnographicstudies may be integrated and used. Unhke meta-analysis,where the ultimate intention is to reduce findings, meta-synthesis involves analysingandsynthesizing keyelementsin each study, with the aim of transforming individualfindings into new conceptualizations and interpretations(PolitandBeck, 2006).Stepsintiie literature review pro ces sGiven the particular processes involved in systematicreviews, meta-anaiysis and meta-synthesis, the focus ofthe remainder of this article is on the steps involvedin undertaking a traditional or narrative review of the

Table2. Theliterature review process Selectingareview topic Searchingtheliterature Gathering, reading and analysingtheliterature Writingthereview References

literature { able 2 .The first step involves identifying thesubject ofthe literature review. The researcher und ertakinga quantitative study m ay have decided this already. Howeve r,for the individual undertaking a non-research basedliterature review this willbe thefirst step.Selectinga review topicSelectinga review topic canbe adaunting taskforstudentsand novice reviewers (Timmins and McCabe, 2005).Acommon errorfornovicesis toselecta review title that isall en compassing, such s pressure ulcers or pa in . Althoughthis may be a useful initial strategy for determining howmuch literature is available, subjects such as these generatea considerable amount of data makinga review infeasible.Therefore,it is advisable to refine this further so thatthefinal amount ofinformation generated ismanageable.Forexample, to focusthetopic of interest, consider w hat aspectsof pressure ulcers or pain are of particular significance.Isthereaspecific eleme ntofthis topic thatis ofinterest, suchas prevention or management? Identifying what exactly isof interestandwhycan help refine the topic (Hendry andFarley, 1998). Talking to others, such as clinical specialists,or reading around a topic can also help to identify whatareasofthe subject the reviewer is interested in and mayhelp indicate howmuch information existson the topic(Timminsand McCabe, 2005).

Having sufficient literatureis also important, particularlywhen the review is an academic assignment. Theseacademic exercises usually have short deadlines,sohavingenough literatureiskeyfrom theperspectiveofbeing ableto do the review and submit it on time. Attempting tochange the topic close to the deadline for submission isusuallyarecipefordisastersoselectan area that will holdyour interestandensure tha t the reis enough data tomeetyour needs.Literature reviews that arepart of academic courseworkusually have strictly enforced word limitsanditisimportantto adheretothat limit. Topics that are too broad will resultin reviews that areeither toolong or toosuperficial. Asaruleofthumb,itisbettertostart w ithanarrow andfocusedtopic,and if necessary broaden the scope of the reviewasyouprogress.It is much more difficult to cut contentsuccessfully, especiallyiftimeisshort.

SearciiingtheliteratureHaving selected a topic the next step is to identify, in astructured way,the appropriate and related information.Asystematic approach is considered most likely to generateareview that willbebeneficial in informing practice Hek andLangton,2000). Whileanarrativeor traditional review is not

Uritishjournnl ofNursiny, 2008,Vol 17,No 1


3/7

the same as a systematic review, its principles and s tructuremay be helpful in de termining your approach (Timmins andMcCabe, 2005) . Newel l and Bu rna rd (2006) suggest thatcomprehensiveness and relevance arewh at reviewers need toconsiderand addthat the more specific the topic or questionbeing searched is,themore focused the result wiU be.

Now adays, l i terature searches are underta ken m ost co mm onlyus ing computersand e lectronic databases. C om pu ter databasesoffer access to vast quantities of information, which can beretrieved more easilyand quickly than using a manual search(Younger, 2 004). The re are num erous electronic databases,ma ny ofwh ich deal with specific fields of information. It isimportant therefore to identify which databases arerelevanttothe topic. University andhospital libraries often subscribe toa numbe r ofdatabasesandaccesscan be gained using studentor staff passwords. Some databases that may be of interest tonursesareshown in able3

Keyword searches are the mos t c ommon me t hod ofidentifying literature (ElyandScott , 2007). How ever, keywordsneed carefully consideration in order to select terms thatwiU generate the data being sought.ForAm erican databases,such as C I N A H L , the keywords used to identify term smay differ fi-om the British in speUing and me a n i ng forexample, tumour/tumor, paediatric/pediatric, transcultural/multicultural) (Younger, 2004).It is a good idea to consideralternative keywords with similar meanings that might elicitfurther information for example, if you are under taking areview in an aspect of pressure ulcers,you would need toinclude terms, such as pressure sores and d ecubitus ulcers .

Table3 Databases that may interest n ursesDatabaseBritish Nursing Index

CINAHL (Cumulative In dexofNursingand Allied Health Literature)Cochran e Library

Maternity and Infant Care (MIDIRS)Pubmed/MEDLINE

PsyclNFO

Main ContentNursing journalsin the English language(mainly UK)Journals relatedtonursing and healthrelated publicationsSystematic reviewsofthe literatureonmedicine, nursingandprofessions alliedto healthJournals relatedtomother and baby careA serviceof the National Library ofMedicineand additional life sciencejournalsLiterature relatedtopsychology

Table 4 ExamplesofBoolean operators and their pu iposeCommand PurposeAND Lookforarticles that include alltheidentified keyw ordsOR Lookforarticles that include any ofthe identified keyw ordsNOT Exclude articles that contain this specific keyw ord

to access older material) . Some of these alternative keyworca nbe gleaned from the database thesau rus Hek and Mou2006). Another strategy is combin ing keywords . To help withese combinations many databases use commands callBoolean opera tors .The m ost com mo n Boolean opera torsaA N D , O R and N O T Ely and Scot t , 2007) .The purposof these commandsares hown on able4

Exis t ing l i te ra ture reviews and sys temat ic reviews calso be i mpor t a n t s ou r c e s of da ta . They can offer a g oove r v i e w of the research that has b e e n u nde r t a ke n , tha t the r e levance to the p r e s e n t wor k can be d e t e r m i n eThey also offer the b ib l iographic references for thowor ks t ha t can be accessed Ely and Scot t , 2007) . Manusearches of jou rnals tha t are specifically relate d to the topof interest or those tha t are l ikely to cover the t op i c calsobe p e r f o r me d . Th i s can be a s low but o f ten rew ardiway of sourc ing ar t ic les Hek and M o u l e , 2 0 0 6 ) . As w iall of the a bove s e a rc h m e t hods , a ma x i mum t i me f r amof 5-10years is usually placed on the age o f t h e w o r k sbe inc lu ded. This is u s ua l l y de t e r mi ne d by the a m o u n tavai lable informat ion. Seminal or in f luent ia l works are te xc e p t i on to th i s ru le (Paniagua , 2002) .

W h e n u n d e r t a k i n g a l i terature search an i m p o r t aques t ion in d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a publ ica t ion should i nc l ude d in your review isdef in ing the type of source .Tfour main typesofsourcesareou t l i ne d in able5

Genera l ly , jour nalsarer egarded asb e i n g m o r e u p - t o - d at ha n books as sources of i n f o r ma t i on . Books can be da td u e to thel e ng t h of t i me it takes for pub l i c a t i on . Howe vthis does not mea n they should be e xc l ude d as they are acceptable and va luable source of i n f o r ma t i on .

In conduct ing the literature search it is impor tant to kea recordof the keywords and methods used in searching tliterature as these will nee dtobe identified later whe n d escribih ow the search wasconducted (Timmins andMcCa be, 200Another consideration is how much t ime to allocate to tsearch (Younger, 2004),as the searching andidentifying ofdaare early stepsin theprocessand reviews conducted aspartacademic assignments have limited timefiames.Analysing and synthesizing the literatureAt this point of the process, what has been determined appropriate literature will have been gathered. While tfocus of the literature may vary depending on the overpurpose, there are several useful strategies for the analyand synthesis stages that will help the construction awriting ofthe review.Initially, it is advisable to undertake a first read of tarticles that have been collected to get a sense of whthey are about. Most published articles contain a summaor abstract at the beginning of the paper, which will asswith this process and enable the decision as to whether itworthy of further reading or inclusion. At this point, it malso be of benefit to undertake an initial classification agrouping ofthe articles by type of source {Table5).

Once the initial overview has been completed is necessary to return to the articles to undertake more systematic and critical review of the content. is recommended that some type of structure is adopt

4 Britishjournal ofNursing, 2008, Vol 17,N


4/7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

during this process suchas that proposedbyCoh en 1990).This simple method isreferred to as thepreview, question,read, summarize PQR S) system and it not only keepsyou focussed and consistent but ultimately facilitates easyidentification andretrievalofmaterial particularlyif largenumberofpublicationsarebeing reviewed.Following the preview stage, a reviewer may end up

with four stacksof articles thatare deemed relevant to thepurpose ofthe review.Although some papers may have beendiscarded at this point, it is probably wise to store themshouldyouneed to retrieve themat a later stage.In the question stage, questions are asked of eachpublication. Here several writers have suggested usinganindexing or summary system or a combination of both)to assist the process Patrick and Munro, 2004; PolitandBeck, 2004;TimminsandMcC abe, 2005; BurnsandGrove,2007).Although there are slight variations in the criteriaproposed in the indexing and summary systems, generallytheyare concerned with the titleof the article,theauthor,the purpose and methodology used in a research study,

and findingsandoutcomes.It is also useful to incorporatecommentsor keythoughts on your responseto thearticleafterit hasbeen reviewed.For thepurpose ofgood recordkeeping, it is suggested that the source and full referenceare also included.It can be very frustrating tryingto locatea reference or a key point among aplethora of articlesata later stage.Asit is likely that not all of the articles willbe primarysources,you may wish to adapt your summary system toaccommodate other sources, such as systematic reviewsornon-research literature. Possible headings, adapted fromappraisal tools for various types of literature are outlined

in able6Although it may belaboriousattimes, each a rticle shouldbe read while tryingto answerthequestionsin thegrid.Itis worth noting, however, that if any aspectof the appraisalis not clear, it may be beneficial to access more detailedtoolsor checklists that facilitate further analysisorcritique.While most research textbooks contain tools for critique,novice reviewerscan find them difficult to negotiate giventheir complexity. In recognition of the different types ofquestions needed to appraise research studies, the criticalappraisal skills program me CASP) within thepublic healthresource unit www .phru.nhs.uk) has several checklists thatenable users to make sense ofquahtative research, reviews,randomized controlled trials, cohort studiesandcase con trolstudies, among others.Like primary sources,not allreviews classedassecondarysourcesare thesame.Forexample, systematic reviews followstrict criteria and are appraised on those Parahoo, 2006).However, therearereviews that simply present a perspectiveon a topic or explore the relevance of a concept forpractice. Some theoretical papers, such asconce pt, analysismay fall into this bracket. If appraised against the criteriafor evaluating systematic reviews, these publications wouldbe found lackingin this area. There fore,an important firststepin theappraisalof reviewis todetermine its originalpurpose and perspective.In thisway it willbepossibletodetermine appropriate evaluation questions.

Table5 Defining the type sofsourcesfor a reviewSourcePrimary sourceSecondary sourceConceptual/ theoret icalAnecdotal /opin ion/cl in ical

DefinitionUsuallyareportby the original researchersofa studyDescript ionorsummary bysomebody other thantheoriginal researcher,e g a review art iclePapers concerned with descript ionoranalysisof theoriesorconcepts associated with thetopicViewsoropin ions aboutthesubject thatare notresearch, reviewor theoret ical in nature. Clinicalmaybe case studiesor reports from cl inical sett ings

From:Coll ing 2003)

Table6 Summaryof information required in reviewPrimary sou rce s Secondary sources reviews Non research iiteratureTit le:Author and year:Journal full reference):Purposeofstudy:Typeofstudy:Sett ing:Data col lect ion metho d:Major findings:Recommendat ions:Key thoughts/comments.e.g. strengths/weakness:

Tit le:Author and year:journal ful l reference):Review quest ions/purpose:Key definit ions:Review boundaries:Appraisal cri teria:Synthesisofstudies:Summary/conclusions:Key thoughts/comments.e.g. strengths/weakness:

Tit le:Author and year:journal ful l reference):Purposeof paper:Credibi l i ty:Quality:Content:Coherence:Recommendat ions:Key thoughts/comments.e.g. st rengths/weakness:

Evaluating non-research and non-review publicationscan be complex. These publications can extend frompapers claiming to address issuesof theoretical importanceto practice, research or education, personal opinion oreditorials, case studies and reports from clinical practice,to name but a few. Aswith the other types of sources,akey factor is to determine the purpose of the paperandevaluate the claims to significance that are being made.Hek andLan gton 2000) focussedon thecriteriaofquality,credibility and accuracy when appraising this type ofliterature. Qualityandcredibility encompassed issues relatedto thejournal, the processes of peer review, the standingof the author s) and the claims being made. In addition,content isjudged for its accuracyand its coherence withwhatis already knownon the subject.The final stageofappraisalis to write a short summaryofeach articleandmay include key thoughts, comments, strengthsand weaknesses ofthe publication.Itshouldbewritteninyourown wordsto facilitate your understandingof the material.Italso formsagood basisfor thewritingofthe review.Writingthe reviewOncetheappraisal ofthe literatureis completed considerationmust be given to how the review will be structured andwritten.The key to a good academic paperis the ability topresent thefindingsin such a waythat it demonstrates your

Britishjourn.al ofNursing,2008,Vol 1 7,No 1 4 1


5/7

Table7 Framing the reviewApproachDividing the literature intothemesor categories

Presentingthe literaturechronologically

Exploringthe theoreticaland methodologicalliterature

Excimining theoreticalliterature and empiricalliterature intwo sections

DefinitionDistinct themes from theliterature arediscussed

Literature divided intotime periods

Discussion oftheoreticalliterature followedbyexplorationof methodologicalliterature that would givesome indicationofwh yaparticular research design mightbe appropriateforinvestigatingthe topicWhere the topic has both theoreticaland empirical literatureandeachisdiscussed separately

Advantages disadvantagesMost popular approach.Allows integration oftheoreticaland empirical research) literature.Care mustbetaken inensuringthat the themes are clearly relatedto the literatureUseful when examining theemergenceof atopic overaperiodoftimeUseful when thebodyofliteratureis largely theoretical with littleorno empirical research) literature.Can be used toidentify theneedfor qualitative stu dies

May tend to beadescription ratherthan a critical review

From: CarnwellandDaly 2001

knowledge in a clear and consistent way.The basis of goodwri t ing isto avoid lon gand confusing wordsandkeep jargonto a minimum . Sentences should be kept as short aspossiblewi th on e clear message and speUing and grammar shouldbe accurate and consistent with the form of English beingused. Many universities provide facilities for developing andimproving writing sidllsanditisa good idea to tryto attendsucha course. Study skills books, such asthat of Ely andScott 2007), offer some good tipsfor writing competently.

The organization of materialin anobjective mannerand thestructure ofthe review arecrucialto itscomprehen siveness. Tosome extent , thestructure wiUdepend on thepurpose of th ereview.For example, systematic reviews have a clear stru cturethat must be followed and that wUldictate for the most parth o w the wri t ing should be under taken. However , for moststudentsor practit ionersareviewiseither part of a cou rseworkassignment, research proposal or research dissertation, and assuch, there issom e fireedom in how thewri t ing is structured.Nonetheless ,it isimpor tant to be logical and there are somekey elements that needto be includedin all literature reviews.Primarily, the written report should includeanin t roduct ion,body andconclusion Burns and Grove, 200 7) .Th e lengthofliterature reviews vary and word limitsand assignment criteriamust be considered in theoverall constructio n.If it isastandalone review,anabstractmayalsobe necessary. An abstract isashor t summary of the findings of the review andisnormallyunde rtaken last Hen dry andFarley, 1998 ).ntrodu tionThe introduction should include the purpose ofthe reviewand a brief overview of the problem .It isimportant thatthe literature sources andthe key search terms are outlined.

Any limits, boundaries or inclusion/exclusion critershould be clearly described. Some comment on what wfound in the literature should be offered, that is, wheththere wasa dearthor wealthof literatureon the topic.Thgivesthe reader some insight into the breadth and depththe literature sourced and also facilitates some judgementto the validityof the claims being made.Main bodyThe main body of the report presents and discusses thfindings from the literature. There are several waysin whithis canbe done (seeTable 7 .

Regardless ofthe manner in which the main body ofthreviewisframed, there are key points that must be considereLiterature that iscentralto the topic shouldbe analysedindepth here. When discussing empiricalor research literatua critical review of the methodologies used should bincluded. Care must be taken, however, that the review donot end up just as a description of a series of studies.addition,itis bestto avoid broad sweeping statements abothe conclusivenessof research studies. Poht and Beck (200suggest that when describing a study s findings it isbestuse language that indicates the tentativeness of the resurather than making definite statements about the researcSimilarly,itis necessaryfor the reviewer to remain objectiabout the literature and personal opinions about the qualiof research studies should not be included. Neither shouidbea seriesof quotesor descriptionsbut needsto be writtsuccinctly in the writer s own words.

The reader should know that the reviewer has understooand synthesized the relevant information, rather than meredescribing what other authors have found. The review shou

Britishjournal ofNursing, 200H, Vol 17,N


6/7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIESread hke a critical evaluation ofthe information available on thetopic, highlighting and comparing results fi-om key sources.

If using a thematic approach, theaccount should flowlogically from one sectionorthemetothe next, to maintaincontinuity and consistency (Beyea and NichoU, 1998). Thiscan be achieved by summarizing each themeorsection andoutlining how it isrelated tothe ensuing one.

In respect of theoretical literature, consensusor differenceregarding thetopic should be outlined. Sometimes, wherethe theoretical literature dominates and there are few studiesundertaken in theareaofinterest, the review may includean analysisofmethodologies used across the studies.

Inconsistencies and contradictionsinthe literature shouldalso be addressed (Colling, 2003) as should the strengths andweaknesses inherent in thebody ofhterature. The roleofthe reviewer istosummarize and evaluate evidence aboutatopic, pointing out similarities and differences and offeringpossible explanations for any inconsistencies uncovered(Poiit and Beck, 2006).

onclusionThe review shouid conclude with aconcise summaryofthe findings that describes current knowledge and offera rationale for conducting future research. In a review,which forms part of a study,anygaps inknowledge thathave been identified should lead logicaUy to thepurposeofthe proposed study.Insome cases,itmay also be possibleto use thedeveloped themes to construct a conceptualframework that will inform thestudy.InaU reviews, somerecommendations or implications for practice, educationand research shouldbeincluded.eferences

The literature review should conclude with a fullibhographical listofall the books, journal articles, reportsnd other media, which were referred to in the work.egardless of whether the review is part of a course of studyrforpublication,it is anessential partofthe process thatll sourced materialisacknowledged. This means that everyitation in the text must appear in the reference/bibliographynd vice versa. Omissionsorerrorsinreferencing are veryommon and students often lose vital marksinassignment

ofit. A useful strategyis tocreateaseparate fileforeferences andeach time a publication iscited, it can be

tothis list immediately.Some universities offer their students accessto referencing

tolearn they areworth theeffort later intermsofhe reference list is accurate. Remember, the reference

be auseful source ofliterature forothers whoare instudying this topic (Coughian etal, 2007), and,

ort shouid be madetoensureitis accurate.

tothe research process and can a research question through determining

ina body of knowledge. Similarly,itcan help newresearch innovations andideas while creating

atopic.Itcan enableanovice

researcher togain insight into suitable designs for a futurestudy,aswell asproviding information ondata collectionand analysis tools. Whether theapproach isqualitativeorquantitative will often dictate when andhowit iscarriedout. Various types of literature reviews may be useddependingon thereasons forcarryingout thereview andthe overall aims andobjectives ofthe research. Writ ingareview ofthe literature isaskill that needstobe learned. Byconducting them, nurses canbeinvolved inincreasingthebody of nursing knowledge and ultimately enhancingpatient care through evidence-based practice. DEI

Beecroft C Rees A, Booti iA 2006) Find ing t i ie evidence. In: Gerris i iKLaceyA, eds. Tlie Research Process inNursing. 5th edn.Biacicweii i^ubiisliing,Pii iiadepiiia: 90 -10 6Beyea S,Nichoi lL 1998) W ri t ing an integrative review. AORNJournal 67 4):8 7 7 - 8 0B u r n sN,GroveSK 2007)UnderstandingNursing Research- Building an Evidence-Based Practice. 4tiiedn.Sau nden Eisevier,St.LouisCarnwel l R, DalyW 2001) Strategies for t i ie construction of cridcal reviewofthe i i terature.Nurse Educ Pract 1: 5 7 - 6 3C o h e n G 1990) Memory. In:R o t h I,ed.The Open U niversity s ntroduction to

Psychology.Vo\ume 2.Mi i ton Keynes , Lawrence Er ibaum: 5 70-62 0Coll ing J 2003) Demystifying theci inical nu nin g research process:the literaturereview. Urol Nurs 23 4) : 297-9Coughian M Cronin P Rp n F 2007) Step-by-step guide to cri t iquingresearch. Part 1: quantitativ e research.BrJ Nurs 16 11) : 658-63El y C,ScottI 2007) E ssential Study Skills for Nu rsing Eisevier, EdinburghH a r tC 1998) DoingaLiterature Review. Sage Publicat ions, LondonHeicG Langton H 2000) Sy stematicaliy searching and reviewing i i terature.NurseRes 7Q : 40-57H e k G,M o u i eP 2006) Making SeiueofResearch:An Introduction for H ealthandSocial Care Practitioners. 3rd edn.Sage Publicat ions, Lon donH e n d r y C,FarleyA 1998) Reviewing the iiterature:aguide fors tudents . NursStand 12 44):46-8Newel l R Burnard P 2006) Researth orEvidence-Based Practice. BlackwellPublishing, OxfordPaniaguaH 2002) Plann ing research: meth ods andethics .PracticeNursing 13 1):

Parahoo K 2006) Nursing Reseanh principles, processand issues.2nd edn.Palgrave, HoundsmiilPatriclc LJ,M u n r o S 2004) Th e iiterature review: demystifying the literaturesearch.D iabetes Educ 30 1):30-8Poiit DF,Beck CT 2004) Nursing Research: principlesand methods.7thedn.Lippincott , Will iams Wilkins , PhiladelphiaPoiit D, Beck C 2006) Essentiako Nursing Research: Methods, AppraisalandUtilization. 6th edn.Lippincott Will iams andWilkins , PhiladelphiaTimm ins F, McC abe C 2005) Ho wtoc o n d u c t an effective literature review.Nurs Stand 20 11) :41-7YoungerP 2004) Usingthein te rne t toc o n d u c ta literature search. Nurs Stand19 6):45-51

KEY POINTSI Undertakingaliterature review isakey feature in many courses of study,an essential step in the research process, and is fundamental in thedevelopment of clinical practice and policy.

I Typesofliterature reviews include narrative or traditional; systematic review;meta-anaiysis and meta-synthesis.

I Undertakingaiiterature review includes identification of a topic of interest,searching and retrieving the appropriate literature, analysing and synthesizingthe findings and writingareport.

IA structured step-by-step approach faciiitates the production of a comprehensiveand informed iiterature review.

ofNursing.2008,Vol 17,No1


7/7

0. cronin, ryan, and coughlan (2008) undertaking a lr-a step-by-step approach

Documents