can you do a literature review on a systematic review

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

• Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Databases and Articles
• Specific Journal or Article

Subject Guide

Definitions

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Primary vs. Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

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

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability 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.

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 .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

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.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

As a researcher, you may be required to conduct a literature review. But what kind of review do you need to complete? Is it a systematic literature review or a standard literature review? In this article, we’ll outline the purpose of a systematic literature review, the difference between literature review and systematic review, and other important aspects of systematic literature reviews.

What is a Systematic Literature Review?

The purpose of systematic literature reviews is simple. Essentially, it is to provide a high-level of a particular research question. This question, in and of itself, is highly focused to match the review of the literature related to the topic at hand. For example, a focused question related to medical or clinical outcomes.

The components of a systematic literature review are quite different from the standard literature review research theses that most of us are used to (more on this below). And because of the specificity of the research question, typically a systematic literature review involves more than one primary author. There’s more work related to a systematic literature review, so it makes sense to divide the work among two or three (or even more) researchers.

Your systematic literature review will follow very clear and defined protocols that are decided on prior to any review. This involves extensive planning, and a deliberately designed search strategy that is in tune with the specific research question. Every aspect of a systematic literature review, including the research protocols, which databases are used, and dates of each search, must be transparent so that other researchers can be assured that the systematic literature review is comprehensive and focused.

Most systematic literature reviews originated in the world of medicine science. Now, they also include any evidence-based research questions. In addition to the focus and transparency of these types of reviews, additional aspects of a quality systematic literature review includes:

• Clear and concise review and summary
• Comprehensive coverage of the topic
• Accessibility and equality of the research reviewed

Systematic Review vs Literature Review

The difference between literature review and systematic review comes back to the initial research question. Whereas the systematic review is very specific and focused, the standard literature review is much more general. The components of a literature review, for example, are similar to any other research paper. That is, it includes an introduction, description of the methods used, a discussion and conclusion, as well as a reference list or bibliography.

A systematic review, however, includes entirely different components that reflect the specificity of its research question, and the requirement for transparency and inclusion. For instance, the systematic review will include:

• Eligibility criteria for included research
• A description of the systematic research search strategy
• An assessment of the validity of reviewed research
• Interpretations of the results of research included in the review

As you can see, contrary to the general overview or summary of a topic, the systematic literature review includes much more detail and work to compile than a standard literature review. Indeed, it can take years to conduct and write a systematic literature review. But the information that practitioners and other researchers can glean from a systematic literature review is, by its very nature, exceptionally valuable.

This is not to diminish the value of the standard literature review. The importance of literature reviews in research writing is discussed in this article . It’s just that the two types of research reviews answer different questions, and, therefore, have different purposes and roles in the world of research and evidence-based writing.

Systematic Literature Review vs Meta Analysis

It would be understandable to think that a systematic literature review is similar to a meta analysis. But, whereas a systematic review can include several research studies to answer a specific question, typically a meta analysis includes a comparison of different studies to suss out any inconsistencies or discrepancies. For more about this topic, check out Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis article.

Language Editing Plus

With Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus services , you can relax with our complete language review of your systematic literature review or literature review, or any other type of manuscript or scientific presentation. Our editors are PhD or PhD candidates, who are native-English speakers. Language Editing Plus includes checking the logic and flow of your manuscript, reference checks, formatting in accordance to your chosen journal and even a custom cover letter. Our most comprehensive editing package, Language Editing Plus also includes any English-editing needs for up to 180 days.

• Publication Recognition

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

• Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Penn State University Libraries

• Home-Articles and Databases
• Asking the clinical question
• PICO & Finding Evidence
• Evaluating the Evidence
• Systematic Review vs. Literature Review
• Ethical & Legal Issues for Nurses
• Nursing Library Instruction Course
• Data Management Toolkit This link opens in a new window
• Useful Nursing Resources
• Writing Resources
• LionSearch and Finding Articles
• The Catalog and Finding Books

Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic.  Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly.  Please review the following chart (and its corresponding poster linked below) for the detailed explanation of each as well as the differences between each type of review.

• What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters by Lynn Kysh, MLIS, University of Southern California - Norris Medical Library
• << Previous: Evaluating the Evidence
• Next: Ethical & Legal Issues for Nurses >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:54 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/nursing

Jump to navigation

Cochrane Training

Chapter 1: starting a review.

Toby J Lasserson, James Thomas, Julian PT Higgins

Key Points:

• Systematic reviews address a need for health decision makers to be able to access high quality, relevant, accessible and up-to-date information.
• Systematic reviews aim to minimize bias through the use of pre-specified research questions and methods that are documented in protocols, and by basing their findings on reliable research.
• Systematic reviews should be conducted by a team that includes domain expertise and methodological expertise, who are free of potential conflicts of interest.
• People who might make – or be affected by – decisions around the use of interventions should be involved in important decisions about the review.
• Good data management, project management and quality assurance mechanisms are essential for the completion of a successful systematic review.

Cite this chapter as: Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

1.1 Why do a systematic review?

Systematic reviews were developed out of a need to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives can be informed by an up-to-date and complete understanding of the relevant research evidence. With the volume of research literature growing at an ever-increasing rate, it is impossible for individual decision makers to assess this vast quantity of primary research to enable them to make the most appropriate healthcare decisions that do more good than harm. By systematically assessing this primary research, systematic reviews aim to provide an up-to-date summary of the state of research knowledge on an intervention, diagnostic test, prognostic factor or other health or healthcare topic. Systematic reviews address the main problem with ad hoc searching and selection of research, namely that of bias. Just as primary research studies use methods to avoid bias, so should summaries and syntheses of that research.

A systematic review attempts to collate all the empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made (Antman et al 1992, Oxman and Guyatt 1993). Systematic review methodology, pioneered and developed by Cochrane, sets out a highly structured, transparent and reproducible methodology (Chandler and Hopewell 2013). This involves: the a priori specification of a research question; clarity on the scope of the review and which studies are eligible for inclusion; making every effort to find all relevant research and to ensure that issues of bias in included studies are accounted for; and analysing the included studies in order to draw conclusions based on all the identified research in an impartial and objective way.

This Handbook is about systematic reviews on the effects of interventions, and specifically about methods used by Cochrane to undertake them. Cochrane Reviews use primary research to generate new knowledge about the effects of an intervention (or interventions) used in clinical, public health or policy settings. They aim to provide users with a balanced summary of the potential benefits and harms of interventions and give an indication of how certain they can be of the findings. They can also compare the effectiveness of different interventions with one another and so help users to choose the most appropriate intervention in particular situations. The primary purpose of Cochrane Reviews is therefore to inform people making decisions about health or health care.

Systematic reviews are important for other reasons. New research should be designed or commissioned only if it does not unnecessarily duplicate existing research (Chalmers et al 2014). Therefore, a systematic review should typically be undertaken before embarking on new primary research. Such a review will identify current and ongoing studies, as well as indicate where specific gaps in knowledge exist, or evidence is lacking; for example, where existing studies have not used outcomes that are important to users of research (Macleod et al 2014). A systematic review may also reveal limitations in the conduct of previous studies that might be addressed in the new study or studies.

Systematic reviews are important, often rewarding and, at times, exciting research projects. They offer the opportunity for authors to make authoritative statements about the extent of human knowledge in important areas and to identify priorities for further research. They sometimes cover issues high on the political agenda and receive attention from the media. Conducting research with these impacts is not without its challenges, however, and completing a high-quality systematic review is often demanding and time-consuming. In this chapter we introduce some of the key considerations for potential review authors who are about to start a systematic review.

1.2 What is the review question?

Getting the research question right is critical for the success of a systematic review. Review authors should ensure that the review addresses an important question to those who are expected to use and act upon its conclusions.

We discuss the formulation of questions in detail in Chapter 2 . For a question about the effects of an intervention, the PICO approach is usually used, which is an acronym for Population, Intervention, Comparison(s) and Outcome. Reviews may have additional questions, for example about how interventions were implemented, economic issues, equity issues or patient experience.

To ensure that the review addresses a relevant question in a way that benefits users, it is important to ensure wide input. In most cases, question formulation should therefore be informed by people with various relevant – but potentially different – perspectives (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4 ).

1.3 Who should do a systematic review?

Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at least two people independently, minimizing the likelihood of errors. First-time review authors are encouraged to work with others who are experienced in the process of systematic reviews and to attend relevant training.

Review teams must include expertise in the topic area under review. Topic expertise should not be overly narrow, to ensure that all relevant perspectives are considered. Perspectives from different disciplines can help to avoid assumptions or terminology stemming from an over-reliance on a single discipline. Review teams should also include expertise in systematic review methodology, including statistical expertise.

Arguments have been made that methodological expertise is sufficient to perform a review, and that content expertise should be avoided because of the risk of preconceptions about the effects of interventions (Gøtzsche and Ioannidis 2012). However, it is important that both topic and methodological expertise is present to ensure a good mix of skills, knowledge and objectivity, because topic expertise provides important insight into the implementation of the intervention(s), the nature of the condition being treated or prevented, the relationships between outcomes measured, and other factors that may have an impact on decision making.

A Cochrane Review should represent an independent assessment of the evidence and avoiding financial and non-financial conflicts of interest often requires careful management. It will be important to consider if there are any relevant interests that may constitute a conflict of interest. There are situations where employment, holding of patents and other financial support should prevent people joining an author team. Funding of Cochrane Reviews by commercial organizations with an interest in the outcome of the review is not permitted. To ensure that any issues are identified early in the process, authors planning Cochrane Reviews should consult the Conflict of Interest Policy . Authors should make complete declarations of interest before registration of the review, and refresh these annually thereafter until publication and just prior to publication of the protocol and the review. For authors of review updates, this must be done at the time of the decision to update the review, annually thereafter until publication, and just prior to publication. Authors should also update declarations of interest at any point when their circumstances change.

1.3.1 Involving consumers and other stakeholders

Because the priorities of decision makers and consumers may be different from those of researchers, it is important that review authors consider carefully what questions are important to these different stakeholders. Systematic reviews are more likely to be relevant to a broad range of end users if they are informed by the involvement of people with a range of experiences, in terms of both the topic and the methodology (Thomas et al 2004, Rees and Oliver 2017). Engaging consumers and other stakeholders, such as policy makers, research funders and healthcare professionals, increases relevance, promotes mutual learning, improved uptake and decreases research waste.

Mapping out all potential stakeholders specific to the review question is a helpful first step to considering who might be invited to be involved in a review. Stakeholders typically include: patients and consumers; consumer advocates; policy makers and other public officials; guideline developers; professional organizations; researchers; funders of health services and research; healthcare practitioners, and, on occasion, journalists and other media professionals. Balancing seniority, credibility within the given field, and diversity should be considered. Review authors should also take account of the needs of resource-poor countries and regions in the review process (see Chapter 16 ) and invite appropriate input on the scope of the review and the questions it will address.

It is established good practice to ensure that consumers are involved and engaged in health research, including systematic reviews. Cochrane uses the term ‘consumers’ to refer to a wide range of people, including patients or people with personal experience of a healthcare condition, carers and family members, representatives of patients and carers, service users and members of the public. In 2017, a Statement of Principles for consumer involvement in Cochrane was agreed. This seeks to change the culture of research practice to one where both consumers and other stakeholders are joint partners in research from planning, conduct, and reporting to dissemination. Systematic reviews that have had consumer involvement should be more directly applicable to decision makers than those that have not (see online Chapter II ).

1.3.2 Working with consumers and other stakeholders

Methods for working with consumers and other stakeholders include surveys, workshops, focus groups and involvement in advisory groups. Decisions about what methods to use will typically be based on resource availability, but review teams should be aware of the merits and limitations of such methods. Authors will need to decide who to involve and how to provide adequate support for their involvement. This can include financial reimbursement, the provision of training, and stating clearly expectations of involvement, possibly in the form of terms of reference.

While a small number of consumers or other stakeholders may be part of the review team and become co-authors of the subsequent review, it is sometimes important to bring in a wider range of perspectives and to recognize that not everyone has the capacity or interest in becoming an author. Advisory groups offer a convenient approach to involving consumers and other relevant stakeholders, especially for topics in which opinions differ. Important points to ensure successful involvement include the following.

• The review team should co-ordinate the input of the advisory group to inform key review decisions.
• The advisory group’s input should continue throughout the systematic review process to ensure relevance of the review to end users is maintained.
• Advisory group membership should reflect the breadth of the review question, and consideration should be given to involving vulnerable and marginalized people (Steel 2004) to ensure that conclusions on the value of the interventions are well-informed and applicable to all groups in society (see Chapter 16 ).

Templates such as terms of reference, job descriptions, or person specifications for an advisory group help to ensure clarity about the task(s) required and are available from INVOLVE . The website also gives further information on setting and organizing advisory groups. See also the Cochrane training website for further resources to support consumer involvement.

1.4 The importance of reliability

Systematic reviews aim to be an accurate representation of the current state of knowledge about a given issue. As understanding improves, the review can be updated. Nevertheless, it is important that the review itself is accurate at the time of publication. There are two main reasons for this imperative for accuracy. First, health decisions that affect people’s lives are increasingly taken based on systematic review findings. Current knowledge may be imperfect, but decisions will be better informed when taken in the light of the best of current knowledge. Second, systematic reviews form a critical component of legal and regulatory frameworks; for example, drug licensing or insurance coverage. Here, systematic reviews also need to hold up as auditable processes for legal examination. As systematic reviews need to be both correct, and be seen to be correct, detailed evidence-based methods have been developed to guide review authors as to the most appropriate procedures to follow, and what information to include in their reports to aid auditability.

1.4.1 Expectations for the conduct and reporting of Cochrane Reviews

Cochrane has developed methodological expectations for the conduct, reporting and updating of systematic reviews of interventions (MECIR) and their plain language summaries ( Plain Language Expectations for Authors of Cochrane Summaries ; PLEACS). Developed collaboratively by methodologists and Cochrane editors, they are intended to describe the desirable attributes of a Cochrane Review. The expectations are not all relevant at the same stage of review conduct, so care should be taken to identify those that are relevant at specific points during the review. Different methods should be used at different stages of the review in terms of the planning, conduct, reporting and updating of the review.

Each expectation has a title, a rationale and an elaboration. For the purposes of publication of a review with Cochrane, each has the status of either ‘mandatory’ or ‘highly desirable’. Items described as mandatory are expected to be applied, and if they are not then an appropriate justification should be provided; failure to implement such items may be used as a basis for deciding not to publish a review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Items described as highly desirable should generally be implemented, but there are reasonable exceptions and justifications are not required.

All MECIR expectations for the conduct of a review are presented in the relevant chapters of this Handbook . Expectations for reporting of completed reviews (including PLEACS) are described in online Chapter III . The recommendations provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement have been incorporated into the Cochrane reporting expectations, ensuring compliance with the PRISMA recommendations and summarizing attributes of reporting that should allow a full assessment of the methods and findings of the review (Moher et al 2009).

1.5 Protocol development

Preparing a systematic review is complex and involves many judgements. To minimize the potential for bias in the review process, these judgements should be made as far as possible in ways that do not depend on the findings of the studies included in the review. Review authors’ prior knowledge of the evidence may, for example, influence the definition of a systematic review question, the choice of criteria for study eligibility, or the pre-specification of intervention comparisons and outcomes to analyse. It is important that the methods to be used should be established and documented in advance (see MECIR Box 1.5.a , MECIR Box 1.5.b and MECIR Box 1.5.c ).

Publication of a protocol for a review that is written without knowledge of the available studies reduces the impact of review authors’ biases, promotes transparency of methods and processes, reduces the potential for duplication, allows peer review of the planned methods before they have been completed, and offers an opportunity for the review team to plan resources and logistics for undertaking the review itself. All chapters in the Handbook should be consulted when drafting the protocol. Since systematic reviews are by their nature retrospective, an element of knowledge of the evidence is often inevitable. This is one reason why non-content experts such as methodologists should be part of the review team (see Section 1.3 ). Two exceptions to the retrospective nature of a systematic review are a meta-analysis of a prospectively planned series of trials and some living systematic reviews, as described in Chapter 22 .

The review question should determine the methods used in the review, and not vice versa. The question may concern a relatively straightforward comparison of one treatment with another; or it may necessitate plans to compare different treatments as part of a network meta-analysis, or assess differential effects of an intervention in different populations or delivered in different ways.

The protocol sets out the context in which the review is being conducted. It presents an opportunity to develop ideas that are foundational for the review. This concerns, most explicitly, definition of the eligibility criteria such as the study participants and the choice of comparators and outcomes. The eligibility criteria may also be defined following the development of a logic model (or an articulation of the aspects of an extent logic model that the review is addressing) to explain how the intervention might work (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1 ).

MECIR Box 1.5.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

A key purpose of the protocol is to make plans to minimize bias in the eventual findings of the review. Reliable synthesis of available evidence requires a planned, systematic approach. Threats to the validity of systematic reviews can come from the studies they include or the process by which reviews are conducted. Biases within the studies can arise from the method by which participants are allocated to the intervention groups, awareness of intervention group assignment, and the collection, analysis and reporting of data. Methods for examining these issues should be specified in the protocol. Review processes can generate bias through a failure to identify an unbiased (and preferably complete) set of studies, and poor quality assurance throughout the review. The availability of research may be influenced by the nature of the results (i.e. reporting bias). To reduce the impact of this form of bias, searching may need to include unpublished sources of evidence (Dwan et al 2013) ( MECIR Box 1.5.b ).

MECIR Box 1.5.b Relevant expectations for the conduct of intervention reviews

Developing a protocol for a systematic review has benefits beyond reducing bias. Investing effort in designing a systematic review will make the process more manageable and help to inform key priorities for the review. Defining the question, referring to it throughout, and using appropriate methods to address the question focuses the analysis and reporting, ensuring the review is most likely to inform treatment decisions for funders, policy makers, healthcare professionals and consumers. Details of the planned analyses, including investigations of variability across studies, should be specified in the protocol, along with methods for interpreting the results through the systematic consideration of factors that affect confidence in estimates of intervention effect ( MECIR Box 1.5.c ).

MECIR Box 1.5.c Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

While the intention should be that a review will adhere to the published protocol, changes in a review protocol are sometimes necessary. This is also the case for a protocol for a randomized trial, which must sometimes be changed to adapt to unanticipated circumstances such as problems with participant recruitment, data collection or event rates. While every effort should be made to adhere to a predetermined protocol, this is not always possible or appropriate. It is important, however, that changes in the protocol should not be made based on how they affect the outcome of the research study, whether it is a randomized trial or a systematic review. Post hoc decisions made when the impact on the results of the research is known, such as excluding selected studies from a systematic review, or changing the statistical analysis, are highly susceptible to bias and should therefore be avoided unless there are reasonable grounds for doing this.

Enabling access to a protocol through publication (all Cochrane Protocols are published in the CDSR ) and registration on the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews reduces duplication of effort, research waste, and promotes accountability. Changes to the methods outlined in the protocol should be transparently declared.

This Handbook provides details of the systematic review methods developed or selected by Cochrane. They are intended to address the need for rigour, comprehensiveness and transparency in preparing a Cochrane systematic review. All relevant chapters – including those describing procedures to be followed in the later stages of the review – should be consulted during the preparation of the protocol. A more specific description of the structure of Cochrane Protocols is provide in online Chapter II .

1.6 Data management and quality assurance

Systematic reviews should be replicable, and retaining a record of the inclusion decisions, data collection, transformations or adjustment of data will help to establish a secure and retrievable audit trail. They can be operationally complex projects, often involving large research teams operating in different sites across the world. Good data management processes are essential to ensure that data are not inadvertently lost, facilitating the identification and correction of errors and supporting future efforts to update and maintain the review. Transparent reporting of review decisions enables readers to assess the reliability of the review for themselves.

Review management software, such as Covidence and EPPI-Reviewer , can be used to assist data management and maintain consistent and standardized records of decisions made throughout the review. These tools offer a central repository for review data that can be accessed remotely throughout the world by members of the review team. They record independent assessment of studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extraction of data, enabling checks to be made later in the process if needed. Research has shown that even experienced reviewers make mistakes and disagree with one another on risk-of-bias assessments, so it is particularly important to maintain quality assurance here, despite its cost in terms of author time. As more sophisticated information technology tools begin to be deployed in reviews (see Chapter 4, Section 4.6.6.2 and Chapter 22, Section 22.2.4 ), it is increasingly apparent that all review data – including the initial decisions about study eligibility – have value beyond the scope of the individual review. For example, review updates can be made more efficient through (semi-) automation when data from the original review are available for machine learning.

1.7 Chapter information

Authors: Toby J Lasserson, James Thomas, Julian PT Higgins

Acknowledgements: This chapter builds on earlier versions of the Handbook . We would like to thank Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Mona Nasser, Dan Fox and Sally Crowe for their contributions to Section 1.3 .

Funding: JT is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Barts Health NHS Trust. JPTH is a member of the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. JPTH received funding from National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator award NF-SI-0617-10145. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

1.8 References

Antman E, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatment for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268 : 240–248.

Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383 : 156–165.

Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods – twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Systematic Reviews 2013; 2 : 76.

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias: an updated review. PloS One 2013; 8 : e66844.

Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ 2012; 345 .

Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014; 383 : 101–104.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 2009; 6 : e1000097.

Oxman A, Guyatt G. The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1993; 703 : 125–133.

Rees R, Oliver S. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews . 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2017. p. 17–34.

Steel R. Involving marginalised and vulnerable people in research: a consultation document (2nd revision). INVOLVE; 2004.

Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004; 328 : 1010–1012.

For permission to re-use material from the Handbook (either academic or commercial), please see here for full details.

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters & Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing & Appraising Results
• Further Resources

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis

• Getting Started
• Guides and Standards
• Review Protocols
• Databases and Sources
• Randomized Controlled Trials
• Controlled Clinical Trials
• Observational Designs
• Tests of Diagnostic Accuracy
• Software and Tools
• Where do I get all those articles?
• Collaborations
• EPI 233/528
• Countway Mediated Search
• Risk of Bias (RoB)

Systematic review Q & A

What is a systematic review.

A systematic review is guided filtering and synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific, focused research question, generally about a specific intervention or exposure. The use of standardized, systematic methods and pre-selected eligibility criteria reduce the risk of bias in identifying, selecting and analyzing relevant studies. A well-designed systematic review includes clear objectives, pre-selected criteria for identifying eligible studies, an explicit methodology, a thorough and reproducible search of the literature, an assessment of the validity or risk of bias of each included study, and a systematic synthesis, analysis and presentation of the findings of the included studies. A systematic review may include a meta-analysis.

For details about carrying out systematic reviews, see the Guides and Standards section of this guide.

Is my research topic appropriate for systematic review methods?

A systematic review is best deployed to test a specific hypothesis about a healthcare or public health intervention or exposure. By focusing on a single intervention or a few specific interventions for a particular condition, the investigator can ensure a manageable results set. Moreover, examining a single or small set of related interventions, exposures, or outcomes, will simplify the assessment of studies and the synthesis of the findings.

Systematic reviews are poor tools for hypothesis generation: for instance, to determine what interventions have been used to increase the awareness and acceptability of a vaccine or to investigate the ways that predictive analytics have been used in health care management. In the first case, we don't know what interventions to search for and so have to screen all the articles about awareness and acceptability. In the second, there is no agreed on set of methods that make up predictive analytics, and health care management is far too broad. The search will necessarily be incomplete, vague and very large all at the same time. In most cases, reviews without clearly and exactly specified populations, interventions, exposures, and outcomes will produce results sets that quickly outstrip the resources of a small team and offer no consistent way to assess and synthesize findings from the studies that are identified.

If not a systematic review, then what?

You might consider performing a scoping review . This framework allows iterative searching over a reduced number of data sources and no requirement to assess individual studies for risk of bias. The framework includes built-in mechanisms to adjust the analysis as the work progresses and more is learned about the topic. A scoping review won't help you limit the number of records you'll need to screen (broad questions lead to large results sets) but may give you means of dealing with a large set of results.

This tool can help you decide what kind of review is right for your question.

Can my student complete a systematic review during her summer project?

Probably not. Systematic reviews are a lot of work. Including creating the protocol, building and running a quality search, collecting all the papers, evaluating the studies that meet the inclusion criteria and extracting and analyzing the summary data, a well done review can require dozens to hundreds of hours of work that can span several months. Moreover, a systematic review requires subject expertise, statistical support and a librarian to help design and run the search. Be aware that librarians sometimes have queues for their search time. It may take several weeks to complete and run a search. Moreover, all guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two subject experts screen the studies identified in the search. The first round of screening can consume 1 hour per screener for every 100-200 records. A systematic review is a labor-intensive team effort.

How can I know if my topic has been been reviewed already?

Before starting out on a systematic review, check to see if someone has done it already. In PubMed you can use the systematic review subset to limit to a broad group of papers that is enriched for systematic reviews. You can invoke the subset by selecting if from the Article Types filters to the left of your PubMed results, or you can append AND systematic[sb] to your search. For example:

"neoadjuvant chemotherapy" AND systematic[sb]

The systematic review subset is very noisy, however. To quickly focus on systematic reviews (knowing that you may be missing some), simply search for the word systematic in the title:

"neoadjuvant chemotherapy" AND systematic[ti]

Any PRISMA-compliant systematic review will be captured by this method since including the words "systematic review" in the title is a requirement of the PRISMA checklist. Cochrane systematic reviews do not include 'systematic' in the title, however. It's worth checking the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently.

You can also search for protocols that will indicate that another group has set out on a similar project. Many investigators will register their protocols in PROSPERO , a registry of review protocols. Other published protocols as well as Cochrane Review protocols appear in the Cochrane Methodology Register, a part of the Cochrane Library .

• Next: Guides and Standards >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2024 3:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/meta-analysis

The Graduate Health & Life Sciences Research Library at Georgetown University Medical Center

Systematic reviews.

• Should I do a systematic review?
• Writing the Protocol
• Building a Systematic Search
• Where to Search
• Managing Project Data
• How can a DML librarian help?

Guides and Standards

• The Cochrane Handbook The Cochrane Handbook has become the de facto standard for planning and carrying out a systematic review. Chapter 6, Searching for Studies, is most helpful in planning your review.
• Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews The IOM standards promote objective, transparent, and scientifically valid systematic reviews. They address the entire systematic review process, from locating, screening, and selecting studies for the review, to synthesizing the findings (including meta-analysis) and assessing the overall quality of the body of evidence, to producing the final review report.
• PRISMA Standards The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A 27-item checklist, PRISMA focuses on randomized trials but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.

What is a systematic review?

A systematic literature review is a research methodology designed to answer a focused research question. Authors conduct a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question. Its aim is to identify and synthesize all of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Systematic reviews are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making and identify gaps in research.  Every step of the review, including the search, must be documented for reproducibility. 

Researchers in medicine may be most familiar with Cochrane Reviews, which synthesize randomized controlled trials to evaluate specific medical interventions. Systematic reviews are conducted in many other fields, though the type of evidence analyzed varies with the research question. 

When to use systematic review methodology

Systematic reviews require more time and manpower than traditional literature reviews. Before beginning a systematic review, researchers should address these questions:

Is there is enough literature published on the topic to warrant a review? 

Systematic reviews are designed to distill the evidence from many studies into actionable insights. Is there a body of evidence available to analyze, or does more primary research need to be done?

Can your research question be answered by a systematic review?

Systematic review questions should be specific and clearly defined. Questions that fit the PICO (problem/patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) format are usually well-suited for the systematic review methodology. The research question determines the search strategy, inclusion criteria, and data that you extract from the selected studies, so it should be clearly defined at the start of the review process.

Do you have a protocol outlining the review plan?

The protocol is the roadmap for the review project. A good protocol outlines study methodology, includes the rationale for the systematic review, and describes the key question broken into PICO components. It is also a good place to plan out inclusion/exclusion criteria, databases that will be searched, data abstraction and management methods, and how the studies will be assessed for methodological quality.

Do you have a team of experts?

A systematic review is team effort. Having multiple reviewers minimizes bias and strengthens analysis. Teams are often composed of subject experts, two or more literature screeners, a librarian to conduct the search, and a statistician to analyze the data. 

Do you have the time that it takes to properly conduct a systematic review?  

Systematic reviews typically take 12-18 months. 

Do you have a method for discerning bias?  

There are many types of bias, including selection, performance, & reporting bias, and assessing the risk of bias of individual studies is an important part of your study design.

Can you afford to have articles in languages other than English translated?  

You should include all relevant studies in your systematic review, regardless of the language they were published in, so as to avoid language bias. 

Which review is right for you?

If your project does not meet the above criteria, there are many more options for conducting a synthesis of the literature. The chart below highlights several review methodologies. Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x  . Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148 

• Next: Writing the Protocol >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 9:22 AM
• URL: https://guides.dml.georgetown.edu/systematicreviews

The Responsible Use of Electronic Resources policy governs the use of resources provided on these guides. © Dahlgren Memorial Library, Georgetown University Medical Center. Unless otherwise stated, these guides may be used for educational or academic purposes as long as proper attribution is given. Please seek permission for any modifications, adaptations, or for commercial purposes. Email [email protected] to request permission. Proper attribution includes: Written by or adapted from, Dahlgren Memorial Library, URL.

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

Affiliations.

• 1 1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
• 2 2 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
• PMID: 29283007
• DOI: 10.1177/1937586717747384

This article provides a step-by-step approach to conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the domain of healthcare design and discusses some of the key quality issues associated with SLRs. SLR, as the name implies, is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across multiple research studies on a research question or topic of interest. SLR provides a way to assess the quality level and magnitude of existing evidence on a question or topic of interest. It offers a broader and more accurate level of understanding than a traditional literature review. A systematic review adheres to standardized methodologies/guidelines in systematic searching, filtering, reviewing, critiquing, interpreting, synthesizing, and reporting of findings from multiple publications on a topic/domain of interest. The Cochrane Collaboration is the most well-known and widely respected global organization producing SLRs within the healthcare field and a standard to follow for any researcher seeking to write a transparent and methodologically sound SLR. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), like the Cochrane Collaboration, was created by an international network of health-based collaborators and provides the framework for SLR to ensure methodological rigor and quality. The PRISMA statement is an evidence-based guide consisting of a checklist and flowchart intended to be used as tools for authors seeking to write SLR and meta-analyses.

Keywords: evidence based design; healthcare design; systematic literature review.

• Evidence-Based Medicine* / organization & administration
• Research Design*
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*

University of Tasmania, Australia

Literature reviews.

• Introduction: who will benefit from this guide?
• Getting started: what is a literature review?
• How to develop a researchable question
• How to find the literature
• How to manage the reading and take notes that make sense
• How to bring it all together: examples, templates, links, guides

Who will benefit from this guide?

This guide is written for undergraduates and postgraduate, course work students who are doing their first literature review.

Higher degree research candidates and academic researchers, please also refer to the Resources for Researchers library guides for more detailed information on writing theses and systematic reviews. 

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an examination of research in a particular field. 

• It gathers, critically analyses, evaluates, and synthesises current research literature in a discipline,
• indicates where there may be strengths, gaps,  weaknesses, and agreements in the current research.

It considers:

• what has been done,
•  the current thinking,
• research trends,
•  principal debates,
• dominant ideas,
• methods used in researching the topic
• gaps and flaws in the research.

  http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/c.php?g=96146&p=904793

Different Types of reviews

You may be asked to complete a literature review that is done in a systematic way, that is like a systematic review.

Mostly, the literature review you will be asked to do will be integrative – that is, conclusions are drawn from the literature in order to create something new, such as a new hypothesis to address a question, a solution to a complex problem, a new workplace procedure or training program.

Some elements of what you are asked to do may be like a systematic review, particularly in health fields.

Systematic approach does not mean a systematic review.

A true systematic review is a complex research project:

•  conducted in a scientific manner,
• usually with more than one person involved,
• they take a long time to complete
• are generally a project in themselves.

For more information have a look at the Systematic Review library guide .

If you would like to know more about different types of reviews, have a look at the document below: 

At the core of a literature review is a synthesis of the research. 

While both analysis and synthesis are involved, s ynthesis goes beyond analysis and is a higher order thinking.(Bloom's taxonomy).

Looking at the diagram below, it is evident that synthesis goes well beyond just analysis. 

• Analysis asks you to break something down into its parts and compare and contrast with other research findings.
• where they agree and disagree
• the major themes, arguments, ideas in a field
• the questions raised and those yet to be answered.
• This will show the relationships between different aspects of the research findings in the literature.
• It is not a summary, but rather is organised around concepts and themes, where there is a combining of elements to form something new.

Watch this short clip from Utah State University which defines how to go about achieving synthesis. 

Synthesis: True or False. 

Quick Quiz: check your understanding of synthesis from the video by deciding which of these statements are true or false .

• Next: How to develop a researchable question >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:56 AM
• URL: https://utas.libguides.com/literaturereviews

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

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

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Advertisement

Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review

• LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Published: 02 March 2022

Cite this article

• Cecilia Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-601X 1 ,
• Luca Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-899X 2 ,
• Michela Piccarozzi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-9462 1 &
• Alessandro Ruggieri 1  

2859 Accesses

11 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2022

This article has been updated

The implementation of sustainability and circular economy (CE) models in agri-food production can promote resource efficiency, reduce environmental burdens, and ensure improved and socially responsible systems. In this context, indicators for the measurement of sustainability play a crucial role. Indicators can measure CE strategies aimed to preserve functions, products, components, materials, or embodied energy. Although there is broad literature describing sustainability and CE indicators, no study offers such a comprehensive framework of indicators for measuring sustainability and CE in the agri-food sector.

Starting from this central research gap, a systematic literature review has been developed to measure the sustainability in the agri-food sector and, based on these findings, to understand how indicators are used and for which specific purposes.

The analysis of the results allowed us to classify the sample of articles in three main clusters (“Assessment-LCA,” “Best practice,” and “Decision-making”) and has shown increasing attention to the three pillars of sustainability (triple bottom line). In this context, an integrated approach of indicators (environmental, social, and economic) offers the best solution to ensure an easier transition to sustainability.

Conclusions

The sample analysis facilitated the identification of new categories of impact that deserve attention, such as the cooperation among stakeholders in the supply chain and eco-innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the temporal distribution of the articles under analysis

Source: Authors’ elaborations. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of articles from the three major journals

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the composition of the sample according to the three clusters identified by the analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of articles over time by cluster

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the network visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the overlay visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles by scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Article classification based on their cluster to which they belong and scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of items over time based on TBL

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the Pareto diagram highlighting the most used indicators in literature for measuring sustainability in the agri-food sector

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution over time of articles divided into conceptual and empirical

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles, divided into conceptual and empirical, in-depth analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the geographical distribution of the authors

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of publication of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Sustainability measurement indicators and impact categories of LCA, S-LCA, and LCC tools should be integrated in order to provide stakeholders with best practices as guidelines and tools to support both decision-making and measurement, according to the circular economy approach

Similar content being viewed by others

The socio-economic performance of agroecology. A review

Ioanna Mouratiadou, Alexander Wezel, … Paolo Bàrberi

The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context

Alan Murray, Keith Skene & Kathryn Haynes

The sustainability of “local” food: a review for policy-makers

Alexander J. Stein & Fabien Santini

Change history

24 march 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02038-9

Acero AP, Rodriguez C, Ciroth A (2017) LCIA methods: impact assessment methods in life cycle assessment and their impact categories. Version 1.5.6. Green Delta 1–23

Accorsi R, Versari L, Manzini R (2015) Glass vs. plastic: Life cycle assessment of extra-virgin olive oil bottles across global supply chains. Sustain 7:2818–2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032818

Adjei-Bamfo P, Maloreh-Nyamekye T, Ahenkan A (2019) The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Aivazidou E, Tsolakis N, Vlachos D, Iakovou E (2015) Water footprint management policies for agrifood supply chains: a critical taxonomy and a system dynamics modelling approach. Chem Eng Trans 43:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543020

Alhaddi H (2015) Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review. Bus Manag Stud 1:6–10

Allaoui H, Guo Y, Sarkis J (2019) Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod 229:761–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.367

Alshqaqeeq F, Amin Esmaeili M, Overcash M, Twomey J (2020) Quantifying hospital services by carbon footprint: a systematic literature review of patient care alternatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104560

Anwar F, Chaudhry FN, Nazeer S et al (2016) Causes of ozone layer depletion and its effects on human: review. Atmos Clim Sci 06:129–134. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2016.61011

Aquilani B, Silvestri C, Ruggieri A (2016). A Systematic Literature Review on Total Quality Management Critical Success Factors and the Identification of New Avenues of Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0003

Aramyan L, Hoste R, Van Den Broek W et al (2011) Towards sustainable food production: a scenario study of the European pork sector. J Chain Netw Sci 11:177–189. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2011.Qpork8

Arfini F, Antonioli F, Cozzi E et al (2019) Sustainability, innovation and rural development: the case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO. Sustain 11:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184978

Assembly UG (2005) Resolution adopted by the general assembly. New York, NY

Avilés-Palacios C, Rodríguez-Olalla A (2021) The sustainability of waste management models in circular economies. Sustain 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137105

Azevedo SG, Silva ME, Matias JCO, Dias GP (2018) The influence of collaboration initiatives on the sustainability of the cashew supply chain. Sustain 10:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062075

Bajaj S, Garg R, Sethi M (2016) Total quality management: a critical literature review using Pareto analysis. Int J Product Perform Manag 67:128–154

Banasik A, Kanellopoulos A, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Claassen GDH (2019) Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: a case study for mushroom production planning. J Clean Prod 216:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.153

Barth H, Ulvenblad PO, Ulvenblad P (2017) Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Sustain 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620

Bastas A, Liyanage K (2018) Sustainable supply chain quality management: a systematic review

Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20:481–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W

Belaud JP, Prioux N, Vialle C, Sablayrolles C (2019) Big data for agri-food 4.0: application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput Ind 111:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.06.006

Bele B, Norderhaug A, Sickel H (2018) Localized agri-food systems and biodiversity. Agric 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8020022

Bilali H El, Calabrese G, Iannetta M et al (2020) Environmental sustainability of typical agro-food products: a scientifically sound and user friendly approach. New Medit 19:69–83. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2002e

Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F et al (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: an integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092475

Bloemhof JM, van der Vorst JGAJ, Bastl M, Allaoui H (2015) Sustainability assessment of food chain logistics. Int J Logist Res Appl 18:101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015508

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L (2018) Deconstructing criteria and assessment tools to build agri-sustainability indicators and support farmers’ decision-making process. J Clean Prod 182:1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.055

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L, Pérez-Mesa JC (2019) Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.054

Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Hug SE (2018) Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 114:427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8

Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. New York, 1-17

Bracquené E, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2020) Measuring the performance of more circular complex product supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104608

Burck J, Hagen U, Bals C et al (2021) Climate Change Performance Index

Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917

Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM et al (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408

Capitanio F, Coppola A, Pascucci S (2010) Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness 26:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20239

Caputo P, Zagarella F, Cusenza MA et al (2020) Energy-environmental assessment of the UIA-OpenAgri case study as urban regeneration project through agriculture. Sci Total Environ 729:138819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138819

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chabowski BR, Mena JA, Gonzalez-Padron TL (2011) The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. J Acad Mark Sci 39:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus M et al (2017) A comparison between two main academic literature collections : Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc Sci 9:18–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Chams N, Guesmi B, Gil JM (2020) Beyond scientific contribution: assessment of the societal impact of research and innovation to build a sustainable agri-food sector. J Environ Manage 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110455

Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Jayamaha NP, Ramilan T (2019) Absolute sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach to operate agri-food systems within the 2°C global carbon budget. J Ind Ecol 23:906–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12830

Chaparro-Africano AM (2019) Toward generating sustainability indicators for agroecological markets. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:40–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1566192

Colicchia C, Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review

Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2021) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672

Coppola A, Ianuario S, Romano S, Viccaro M (2020) Corporate social responsibility in agri-food firms: the relationship between CSR actions and firm’s performance. AIMS Environ Sci 7:542–558. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2020034

Corona B, Shen L, Reike D et al (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

Correia MS (2019) Sustainability: An overview of the triple bottom line and sustainability implementation. Int J Strateg Eng 2:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103

Coteur I, Marchand F, Debruyne L, Lauwers L (2019) Structuring the myriad of sustainability assessments in agri-food systems: a case in Flanders. J Clean Prod 209:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.066

CREA (2020) L’agricoltura italiana conta 2019

Crenna E, Sala S, Polce C, Collina E (2017) Pollinators in life cycle assessment: towards a framework for impact assessment. J Clean Prod 140:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058

D’Eusanio M, Serreli M, Zamagni A, Petti L (2018) Assessment of social dimension of a jar of honey: a methodological outline. J Clean Prod 199:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.157

Dania WAP, Xing K, Amer Y (2018) Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 186:851–864

De Pascale A, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczyńska K et al (2021) A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J Clean Prod 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942

De Schoenmakere M, Gillabel J (2017) Circular by design: products in the circular economy

Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.083

Del Borghi A, Strazza C, Magrassi F et al (2018) Life cycle assessment for eco-design of product–package systems in the food industry—the case of legumes. Sustain Prod Consum 13:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.001

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan B (ed) The sage handbook of organization research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Cornwall, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dietz T, Grabs J, Chong AE (2019) Mainstreamed voluntary sustainability standards and their effectiveness: evidence from the Honduran coffee sector. Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12239

Dixon-Woods M (2011) Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 9:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-39

do Canto NR, Bossle MB, Marques L, Dutra M, (2020) Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a qualitative investigation of food supply chains in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual an Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0275

dos Santos RR, Guarnieri P (2020) Social gains for artisanal agroindustrial producers induced by cooperation and collaboration in agri-food supply chain. Soc Responsib J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2019-0323

Doukidis GI, Matopoulos A, Vlachopoulou M, Manthou V, Manos B (2007) A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Manag an Int Journal 12:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710742491

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag 53:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12145

Durán-Sánchez A, Álvarez-García J, Río-Rama D, De la Cruz M (2018) Sustainable water resources management: a bibliometric overview. Water 10:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091191

Duru M, Therond O (2015) Livestock system sustainability and resilience in intensive production zones: which form of ecological modernization? Reg Environ Chang 15:1651–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0722-9

Edison Fondazione (2019) Le eccellenze agricole italiane. I primati europei e mondiali dell’Italia nei prodotti vegetali. Milan (IT)

Ehrenfeld JR (2005) The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46(2)46:23–25

Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford

Esposito B, Sessa MR, Sica D, Malandrino O (2020) Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12187401

European Commission (2018) Agri-food trade in 2018

European Commission (2019) Monitoring EU agri-food trade: development until September 2019

Eurostat (2018) Small and large farms in the EU - statistics from the farm structure survey

FAO (2011) Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Italy, Rome

FAO (2012) Energy-smart food at FAO: an overview. Italy, Rome

FAO (2014) Food wastage footprint: fool cost-accounting

FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture climate change, agriculture and food security. Italy, Rome

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Italy, Rome

FAO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome, Italy

Fassio F, Tecco N (2019) Circular economy for food: a systemic interpretation of 40 case histories in the food system in their relationships with SDGs. Systems 7:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030043

Fathollahi A, Coupe SJ (2021) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) of road drainage systems for sustainability evaluation: quantifying the contribution of different life cycle phases. Sci Total Environ 776:145937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145937

Ferreira VJ, Arnal ÁJ, Royo P et al (2019) Energy and resource efficiency of electroporation-assisted extraction as an emerging technology towards a sustainable bio-economy in the agri-food sector. J Clean Prod 233:1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.030

Fiksel J (2006) A framework for sustainable remediation. JOM 8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202595w

Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research

Franciosi C, Voisin A, Miranda S et al (2020) Measuring maintenance impacts on sustainability of manufacturing industries : from a systematic literature review to a framework proposal. J Clean Prod 260:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121065

Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Meuwissen MPM, Oude AGJML (2017) Total factor productivity: a framework for measuring agri-food supply chain performance towards sustainability. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 39:259–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppw008

Galdeano-Gómez E, Zepeda-Zepeda JA, Piedra-Muñoz L, Vega-López LL (2017) Family farm’s features influencing socio-economic sustainability: an analysis of the agri-food sector in southeast Spain. New Medit 16:50–61

Gallopín G, Herrero LMJ, Rocuts A (2014) Conceptual frameworks and visual interpretations of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev 17:298–326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2014.064183

Gallopín GC (2003) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. Cepal, LATIN AMERICA

Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 72:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947

Garofalo P, D’Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M et al (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains in Italy: the case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assessment methodology. J Food Eng 200:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.12.007

Gava O, Bartolini F, Venturi F et al (2018) A reflection of the use of the life cycle assessment tool for agri-food sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010071

Gazzola P, Querci E (2017) The connection between the quality of life and sustainable ecological development. Eur Sci J 7881:1857–7431

Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy low and the economic process. Harward University Press, Cambridge Mass

Book   Google Scholar  

Gerbens-Leenes PW, Moll HC, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM (2003) Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems. Ecol Econ 46:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00140-X

Gésan-Guiziou G, Alaphilippe A, Aubin J et al (2020) Diversity and potentiality of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for agri-food research. Agron Sustain Dev 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00650-3

Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Godoy-Durán Á, Galdeano- Gómez E, Pérez-Mesa JC, Piedra-Muñoz L (2017) Assessing eco-efficiency and the determinants of horticultural family-farming in southeast Spain. J Environ Manage 204:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.037

Gold S, Kunz N, Reiner G (2017) Sustainable global agrifood supply chains: exploring the barriers. J Ind Ecol 21:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12440

Goucher L, Bruce R, Cameron DD et al (2017) The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat Plants 3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.12

Green A, Nemecek T, Chaudhary A, Mathys A (2020) Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Sec 26:100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100406

Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future †. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v

Guiomar N, Godinho S, Pinto-Correia T et al (2018) Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: towards a better picture. Land Use Policy 75:784–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.012

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87:333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468

Hamam M, Chinnici G, Di Vita G et al (2021) Circular economy models in agro-food systems: a review. Sustain 13

Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Aziz NIHA (2021) An LCA-based environmental performance of rice production for developing a sustainable agri-food system in Malaysia. Environ Manage 67:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7

Harvey M, Pilgrim S (2011) The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36:S40–S51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.009

Hawkes C, Ruel MT (2006) Understanding the links between agriculture and health. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, USA

Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science (80)344:1109LP–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361

Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C (2015) Private agri-food governance and greenhouse gas abatement: constructing a corporate carbon economy. Geoforum 66:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.012

Hill T (1995) Manufacturing strategy: text and cases., Macmillan

Hjeresen DD, Gonzales R (2020) Green chemistry promote sustainable agriculture?The rewards are higher yields and less environmental contamination. Environemental Sci Techonology 103–107

Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Australia

Horton P, Koh L, Guang VS (2016) An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems. J Clean Prod 120:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.092

Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0130-4

Huffman T, Liu J, Green M et al (2015) Improving and evaluating the soil cover indicator for agricultural land in Canada. Ecol Indic 48:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.008

Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002

Ingrao C, Faccilongo N, Valenti F et al (2019) Tomato puree in the Mediterranean region: an environmental life cycle assessment, based upon data surveyed at the supply chain level. J Clean Prod 233:292–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.056

Iocola I, Angevin F, Bockstaller C et al (2020) An actor-oriented multi-criteria assessment framework to support a transition towards sustainable agricultural systems based on crop diversification. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135434

Irabien A, Darton RC (2016) Energy–water–food nexus in the Spanish greenhouse tomato production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1076-9

ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework

ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines

ISO 15392:2008 (2008) Sustainability in building construction–general principles

Istat (2019) Andamento dell’economia agricola

Jaakkola E (2020) Designing conceptual articles : four approaches. AMS Rev 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q (2019) Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt KH (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375

Jorgensen SE, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Twenty volumes of ecological indicators-an accounting short review. Ecol Indic 28:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.018

Joshi S, Sharma M, Kler R (2020) Modeling circular economy dimensions in agri-tourism clusters: sustainable performance and future research directions. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci 5:1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.080

Kamilaris A, Gao F, Prenafeta-Boldu FX, Ali MI (2017) Agri-IoT: a semantic framework for Internet of Things-enabled smart farming applications. In: 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2016. pp 442–447

Karuppusami G, Gandhinathan R (2006) Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total quality management: a literature review and analysis. TQM Mag 18:372–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610671048

Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444

Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Moustakas K et al (2021) Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing olive wastes to biofuel, phosphate salts, natural antioxidant, and an oxygenated fuel additive (triacetin). J Clean Prod 278:123916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123916

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500

Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod 175:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111

Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H (2017) Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: agriculture leaks worst. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008

Laso J, Hoehn D, Margallo M et al (2018) Assessing energy and environmental efficiency of the Spanish agri-food system using the LCA/DEA methodology. Energies 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123395

Lee KM (2007) So What is the “triple bottom line”? Int J Divers Organ Communities Nations Annu Rev 6:67–72. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/cgp/v06i06/39283

Lehmann RJ, Hermansen JE, Fritz M et al (2011) Information services for European pork chains - closing gaps in information infrastructures. Comput Electron Agric 79:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.09.002

León-Bravo V, Caniato F, Caridi M, Johnsen T (2017) Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: a multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 9:1253

Lepage A (2009) The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. TQM J 21:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938119

Li CZ, Zhao Y, Xiao B et al (2020) Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. J Clean Prod 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458

Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8:305–316. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.721

Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1

Luo J, Ji C, Qiu C, Jia F (2018) Agri-food supply chain management: bibliometric and content analyses. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051573

Lynch J, Donnellan T, Finn JA et al (2019) Potential development of Irish agricultural sustainability indicators for current and future policy evaluation needs. J Environ Manage 230:434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.070

MacArthur E (2013) Towards the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 2:23–44

MacArthur E (2017) Delivering the circular economy a toolkit for policymakers, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

MacInnis DJ (2011) A framework for conceptual. J Mark 75:136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

Mangla SK, Luthra S, Rich N et al (2018) Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 203:379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.012

Marotta G, Nazzaro C, Stanco M (2017) How the social responsibility creates value: models of innovation in Italian pasta industry. Int J Glob Small Bus 9:144–167. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2017.088923

Martucci O, Arcese G, Montauti C, Acampora A (2019) Social aspects in the wine sector: comparison between social life cycle assessment and VIVA sustainable wine project indicators. Resources 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020069

Mayring P (2004) Forum : Qualitative social research Sozialforschung 2. History of content analysis. A Companion to Qual Res 1:159–176

McKelvey B (2002) Managing coevolutionary dynamics. In: 18th EGOS Conference. Barcelona, Spain, pp 1–21

McMichael AJ, Butler CD, Folke C (2003) New visions for addressing sustainability. Science (80- ) 302:1191–1920

Mehmood A, Ahmed S, Viza E et al (2021) Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri-food supply chain: a review. Bus Strateg Dev 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.171

Mella P, Gazzola P (2011) Sustainability and quality of life: the development model. In: Kapounek S (ed) Enterprise and competitive environment. Mendel University: Brno, Czechia. 542–551

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy ? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A et al (2020) Recycled fibers in reinforced concrete: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 248:119207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119207

Miglietta PP, Morrone D (2018) Managing water sustainability: virtual water flows and economic water productivity assessment of the wine trade between Italy and the Balkans. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020543

Mitchell MGE, Chan KMA, Newlands NK, Ramankutty N (2020) Spatial correlations don’t predict changes in agricultural ecosystem services: a Canada-wide case study. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.539892

Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure?. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045

Morrissey JE, Dunphy NP (2015) Towards sustainable agri-food systems: the role of integrated sustainability and value assessment across the supply-chain. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 6:41–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2015070104

Moser G (2009) Quality of life and sustainability: toward person-environment congruity. J Environ Psychol 29:351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.002

Muijs D (2010) Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London

Muller MF, Esmanioto F, Huber N, Loures ER (2019) A systematic literature review of interoperability in the green Building Information Modeling lifecycle. J Clean Prod 223:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.114

Muradin M, Joachimiak-Lechman K, Foltynowicz Z (2018) Evaluation of eco-efficiency of two alternative agricultural biogas plants. Appl Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112083

Naseer MA, ur R, Ashfaq M, Hassan S, et al (2019) Critical issues at the upstream level in sustainable supply chain management of agri-food industries: evidence from Pakistan’s citrus industry. Sustain 11:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051326

Nattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M (2020) Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8

Nazari-Sharabian M, Ahmad S, Karakouzian M (2018) Climate change and eutrophication: a short review. Eng Technol Appl Sci Res 8:3668–3672. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2532694

Nazir N (2017) Understanding life cycle thinking and its practical application to agri-food system. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7:1861–1870. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.7.5.3578

Negra C, Remans R, Attwood S et al (2020) Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol Indic 110:105851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105851

Newsham KK, Robinson SA (2009) Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 15:2574–2589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01944.x

Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012

Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002

Nikolaou IE, Tsagarakis KP (2021) An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain Prod Consum 28:600–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017

Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.007

Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Monforti F (2017) Energy flows and greenhouses gases of EU (European Union) national breads using an LCA (life cycle assessment) approach. J Clean Prod 140:455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.150

Opferkuch K, Caeiro S, Salomone R, Ramos TB (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: a review of organisational approaches. Bus Strateg Environ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854

Padilla-Rivera A, do Carmo BBT, Arcese G, Merveille N, (2021) Social circular economy indicators: selection through fuzzy delphi method. Sustain Prod Consum 26:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015

Pagotto M, Halog A (2016) Towards a circular economy in Australian agri-food industry: an application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. J Ind Ecol 20:1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12373

Parent G, Lavallée S (2011) LCA potentials and limits within a sustainable agri-food statutory framework. Global food insecurity. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 161–171

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pattey E, Qiu G (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canadian agriculture. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 62:737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.672058

Pauliuk S (2018) Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019

Peano C, Migliorini P, Sottile F (2014) A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: an application to the slow food presidia project. Ecol Soc 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06972-190424

Peano C, Tecco N, Dansero E et al (2015) Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustain 7:6721–6741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066721

Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts

Pelletier N (2018) Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustain 10:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051601

Peña C, Civit B, Gallego-Schmid A et al (2021) Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z

Perez Neira D (2016) Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its contribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 112:2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.003

Pérez-Neira D, Grollmus-Venegas A (2018) Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Landsc Urban Plan 172:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.001

Pérez-Pons ME, Plaza-Hernández M, Alonso RS et al (2021) Increasing profitability and monitoring environmental performance: a case study in the agri-food industry through an edge-iot platform. Sustain 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010283

Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J Clean Prod 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

Polit DF, Beck CT (2004) Nursing research: principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

Porkka M, Gerten D, Schaphoff S et al (2016) Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environ Res Lett 11:015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/015001

Prajapati H, Kant R, Shankar R (2019) Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 211:503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.187

Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2020) Policy recommendations for enabling transition towards sustainable agriculture in India. Land Use Policy 96:104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104718

Pronti A, Coccia M (2020) Multicriteria analysis of the sustainability performance between agroecological and conventional coffee farms in the East Region of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Renew Agric Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000332

Rabadán A, González-Moreno A, Sáez-Martínez FJ (2019) Improving firms’ performance and sustainability: the case of eco-innovation in the agri-food industry. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590

Raut RD, Luthra S, Narkhede BE et al (2019) Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector. J Clean Prod 215:926–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.139

Recanati F, Marveggio D, Dotelli G (2018) From beans to bar: a life cycle assessment towards sustainable chocolate supply chain. Sci Total Environ 613–614:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.187

Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281

Rezaei M, Soheilifard F, Keshvari A (2021) Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach. Energy Sources. Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 1–16

Rigamonti L, Mancini E (2021) Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2

Risku-Norja H, Mäenpää I (2007) MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecol Econ 60:700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.001

Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy – integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Roos Lindgreen E, Mondello G, Salomone R et al (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01972-4

Roselli L, Casieri A, De Gennaro BC et al (2020) Environmental and economic sustainability of table grape production in Italy. Sustain 12.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093670

Ross RB, Pandey V, Ross KL (2015) Sustainability and strategy in U.S. agri-food firms: an assessment of current practices. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 18:17–48

Royo P, Ferreira VJ, López-Sabirón AM, Ferreira G. (2016) Hybrid diagnosis to characterise the energy and environmental enhancement of photovoltaic modules using smart materials. Energy 101:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.101

Ruggerio CA (2021) Sustainability and sustainable development: a review of principles and definitions. Sci Total Environ 786:147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481

Ruiz-Almeida A, Rivera-Ferre MG (2019) Internationally-based indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Secur 11:1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00964-5

Ryan M, Hennessy T, Buckley C et al (2016) Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Irish J Agric Food Res 55:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijafr-2016-0011

Saade MRM, Yahia A, Amor B (2020) How has LCA been applied to 3D printing ? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies. J Clean Prod 244:118803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803

Saitone TL, Sexton RJ (2017) Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. Eur Rev Agric Econ 44:634–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx003

Salim N, Ab Rahman MN, Abd Wahab D (2019) A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 209:1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Salimi N (2021) Circular economy in agri-food systems BT - strategic decision making for sustainable management of industrial networks. In: International S (ed) Rezaei J. Publishing, Cham, pp 57–70

Salomone R, Ioppolo G (2012) Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a life cycle assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J Clean Prod 28:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.004

Sánchez AD, Río DMDLC, García JÁ (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 23:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001

Saputri VHL, Sutopo W, Hisjam M, Ma’aram A (2019) Sustainable agri-food supply chain performance measurement model for GMO and non-GMO using data envelopment analysis method. Appl Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061199

Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy performance assessment methods : a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019

Schiefer S, Gonzalez C, Flanigan S (2015) More than just a factor in transition processes? The role of collaboration in agriculture. In: Sutherland LA, Darnhofer I, Wilson GA, Zagata L (eds) Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe, CPI Group. Croydon, UK, pp. 83

Seuring S, Muller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Silvestri C, Silvestri L, Forcina A, et al (2021) Green chemistry contribution towards more equitable global sustainability and greater circular economy: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126137

Smetana S, Schmitt E, Mathys A (2019) Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 144:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.042

Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F (2010) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

Soussana JF (2014) Research priorities for sustainable agri-food systems and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 73:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.061

Soylu A, Oruç C, Turkay M et al (2006) Synergy analysis of collaborative supply chain management in energy systems using multi-period MILP. Eur J Oper Res 174:387–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.042

Spaiser V, Ranganathan S, Swain RB, Sumpter DJ (2017) The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 24:457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624

Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strateg Environ 27:1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048

Stillitano T, Spada E, Iofrida N et al (2021) Sustainable agri-food processes and circular economy pathways in a life cycle perspective: state of the art of applicative research. Sustain 13:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052472

Stone J, Rahimifard S (2018) Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Manag 23:207–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2017-0201

Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Clean Prod 19:1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014

Su B, Heshmati A, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020

Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271

Svensson G, Wagner B (2015) Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability. Manag Environ Qual an Int Journal 26:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099

Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: an LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. J Clean Prod 140:725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.170

Tassielli G, Notarnicola B, Renzulli PA, Arcese G (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy. J Clean Prod 171:184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.227

Teixeira R, Pax S (2011) A survey of life cycle assessment practitioners with a focus on the agri-food sector. J Ind Ecol 15:817–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00421.x

Tobergte DR, Curtis S (2013) ILCD Handbook. J Chem Info Model. https://doi.org/10.278/33030

Tortorella MM, Di Leo S, Cosmi C et al (2020) A methodological integrated approach to analyse climate change effects in agri-food sector: the TIMES water-energy-food module. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217703

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222

Trivellas P, Malindretos G, Reklitis P (2020) Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: evidence from a survey in the greek agri-food sector. Sustain 12:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410515

Tsangas M, Gavriel I, Doula M et al (2020) Life cycle analysis in the framework of agricultural strategic development planning in the Balkan region. Sustain 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051813

Ülgen VS, Björklund M, Simm N (2019) Inter-organizational supply chain interaction for sustainability : a systematic literature review.

UNEP S (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020.

UNEP/SETAC (2009) United Nations Environment Programme-society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. France

United Nations (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights. Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. sustainabledevelopment.un.org

Van Asselt ED, Van Bussel LGJ, Van Der Voet H et al (2014) A protocol for evaluating the sustainability of agri-food production systems - a case study on potato production in peri-urban agriculture in the Netherlands. Ecol Indic 43:315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.027

Van der Ploeg JD (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 41:999–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876997

van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) Manual for VOSviwer version 1.6.10. CWTS Meaningful metrics 1–53

Vasa L, Angeloska A, Trendov NM (2017) Comparative analysis of circular agriculture development in selected Western Balkan countries based on sustainable performance indicators. Econ Ann 168:44–47. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V168-09

Verdecho MJ, Alarcón-Valero F, Pérez-Perales D et al (2020) A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Cent Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3

Vergine P, Salerno C, Libutti A et al (2017) Closing the water cycle in the agro-industrial sector by reusing treated wastewater for irrigation. J Clean Prod 164:587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.239

WCED (1987) Our common future - call for action

Webster K (2013) What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futures 69:542–554

Wheaton E, Kulshreshtha S (2013) Agriculture and climate change: implications for environmental sustainability indicators. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 175:99–110. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO130091

Wijewickrama MKCS, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Ochoa JJ (2021) Information sharing in reverse logistics supply chain of demolition waste: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 280:124359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124359

Woodhouse A, Davis J, Pénicaud C, Östergren K (2018) Sustainability checklist in support of the design of food processing. Sustain Prod Consum 16:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.008

Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited Sustain 6:4200–4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Yadav S, Luthra S, Garg D (2021) Modelling Internet of things (IoT)-driven global sustainability in multi-tier agri-food supply chain under natural epidemic outbreaks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16633–16654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11676-1

Yee FM, Shaharudin MR, Ma G et al (2021) Green purchasing capabilities and practices towards Firm’s triple bottom line in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 307:127268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127268

Yigitcanlar T (2010) Rethinking sustainable development: urban management, engineering, and design. IGI Global

Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0309-3

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of “Tuscia, ” Via del Paradiso 47, 01100, Viterbo, VT, Italy

Cecilia Silvestri, Michela Piccarozzi & Alessandro Ruggieri

Department of Engineering, University of Rome “Niccolò Cusano, ” Via Don Carlo Gnocchi, 3, 00166, Rome, Italy

Luca Silvestri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Silvestri .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Monia Niero

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised: a number of ill-placed paragraph headings were removed and the source indication "Authors' elaborations" was added to Tables 1-3.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. et al. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2021

Accepted : 16 February 2022

Published : 02 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

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

• Agri-food sector
• Sustainability
• Circular economy
• Triple bottom line
• Life cycle assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 01 December 2023

Compassion fatigue in healthcare providers: a scoping review

• Anna Garnett 1 ,
• Lucy Hui 2 ,
• Christina Oleynikov 1 &
• Sheila Boamah 3  

BMC Health Services Research volume  23 , Article number:  1336 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2705 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

The detrimental impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare providers’ psychological health and well-being continue to affect their professional roles and activities, leading to compassion fatigue. The purpose of this review was to identify and summarize published literature on compassion fatigue among healthcare providers and its impact on patient care. Six databases were searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, for studies on compassion fatigue in healthcare providers, published in English from the peak of the pandemic in 2020 to 2023. To expand the search, reference lists of included studies were hand searched to locate additional relevant studies. The studies primarily focused on nurses, physicians, and other allied health professionals. This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework (OSF), using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping review. From 11,715 search results, 24 met the inclusion criteria. Findings are presented using four themes: prevalence of compassion fatigue; antecedents of compassion fatigue; consequences of compassion fatigue; and interventions to address compassion fatigue. The potential antecedents of compassion fatigue are grouped under individual-, organization-, and systems-level factors. Our findings suggest that healthcare providers differ in risk for developing compassion fatigue in a country-dependent manner. Interventions such as increasing available personnel helped to minimize the occurrence of compassion fatigue. This scoping review offers important insight on the common causes and potential risks for compassion fatigue among healthcare providers and identifies potential strategies to support healthcare providers’ psychological health and well-being.

• What do we already know about this topic? The elevated and persistent mental stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic predisposed healthcare providers (HCP) to various psychological conditions such as compassion fatigue. Declines in health providers’ mental health has been observed to negatively impact their professional performance and the quality of patient care.

• How does your research contribute to the field? This review provides an overview of the prevalence of compassion fatigue among HCPs across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main risk factors for compassion fatigue include younger age, female sex, being either a physician or a nurse, high workload, extensive work hours, and limited access to personal protective equipment (PPE). Negative behavioral intention towards patients has been identified to be a consequence of compassion fatigue. Interventions such as the provision of emotional support, increased monitoring for conditions such as stress and burnout, and increasing available personnel helped to minimize the occurrence of compassion fatigue.

• What are your research’s implications towards theory, practice, or policy? While the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, the impact on human health resources persists. The findings of this review can inform policy decisions and implementation of evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and lessen the negative effects of compassion fatigue on HCPs and its subsequent impacts on patient care.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The 2019-novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak spread rapidly and by January 30 th , 2022 was formally proclaimed a global health emergency despite being first identified just over a month prior [ 1 ]. Although there have been five other global health emergencies associated with disease outbreaks since 2009, none has matched the scale and scope of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 2 ]. In the short-term the rapid increase in patients requiring acute care services presented unprecedented challenges for health systems. Care provision and infection control strategies were hampered by capacity limitations, staffing shortfalls and supply chain challenges [ 3 ]. As a result, healthcare providers (HCPs) encountered mounting levels of strain which have continued with little reprieve for the duration of and beyond the global COVID-19 pandemic. Limited access to personal protective equipment (PPEs) exacerbated transmission of the virus, compounding healthcare providers’ fears of contracting and spreading COVID-19 among their peers, patients and families [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. HCPs also contracted COVID-19, became seriously ill and died with global estimates of HCP death between January 2020 and May 2021 being over 100,000. With time, the number of absences, extended sick leaves and staff turnovers increased [ 7 , 8 ]. The combination of short staffing, frequent changes to workflow and continuous care provision to patients who were gravely ill and had high mortality amplified the toll on health care providers [ 8 , 9 ]. While no longer a global health emergency, there continue to be COVID-19 cases and deaths. As of July 14, 2023 there were 767,972,961 COVID-19 cases and 6,950,655 deaths globally [ 10 ].

HCPs around the globe who treated severe COVID-19 cases, a process which necessitated in-depth compassionate engagement, became vulnerable to developing compassion fatigue as a result of their continued and in-depth involvement in the care of these severely ill patients and their families [ 11 ]. Compassion fatigue is defined as a composite of two measurements: burnout (sustained employment-related stress that compromises an individual’s desire to work) and secondary trauma (the development of traumatic symptoms resulting from the protracted exposure to the suffering of others) [ 12 , 13 ]. An individual experiencing compassion fatigue has a reduced ability for showing compassion to others, resulting from the prolonged exposure to witnessing the suffering of others without being able to relieve one’s anguish despite having the desire to do so [ 9 ]. Individuals experiencing compassion fatigue may express a range of behaviors such as increased work absences or declines in the ability to engage in work-related tasks such as decision-making. Burnout and secondary trauma are suggested to be mediated by compassion satisfaction—the pleasure that comes from helping behavior [ 11 , 12 ].

As the pandemic shifts from being a global health emergency to an endemic disease, there continues to be concern for HCP health and well-being [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. The increased and chronic nature of the stress experienced during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened HCPs risk for a range of negative psychological impacts such as depression, fearfulness, grief and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [ 17 ]. Prior infectious disease outbreaks (SARS-CoV-1, H1N1, MERS-CoV, Ebola) are also associated with an increased prevalence of declining mental health in HCPs [ 18 ]. A growing body of research on the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the range of psychological symptoms HCPs developed following their sustained exposure to COVID-19 including burnout, feelings of isolation, insomnia, grief, emotional exhaustion, depression, post-traumatic stress and depersonalization, some of which have persisted over time [ 14 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. The consequences of HCPs’ declining psychological health and well-being has had impacts on the quality of patient care and indirectly on patient outcomes through inadequate staffing [ 18 ]. Compromises in HCPs’ ability to provide optimal clinical care can have serious consequences, including the worsening of patient conditions and the increased transmission of the infection from patients to others in the hospital [ 18 ]. In addition, compassion fatigue may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially leading to moral injury, decreased productivity, increased turnover, and reduced quality of care [ 23 ]. Moreover, a growing body of literature suggests that challenges across health systems will persist although COVID-19 is no longer a global health emergency [ 24 , 25 ]. As such, it is important to have a fulsome understanding of COVID-19’s toll on HCPs and tailor health system strategies accordingly.

As health care systems continue to experience a health human resources crisis, it is important to identify and understand the prevalence of compassion fatigue, identify contributing factors, and increase understanding of the consequences and actions that can be taken to address compassion fatigue among HCPs. While there has been in an increase in the body of published literature on the health and well-being of HCPs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there continues to be a knowledge gap mapping the incidence of compassion fatigue, its resultant impact on HCP well-being, and its potential influence on patient care provision [ 11 , 17 ]. A comprehensive review of the literature on compassion fatigue among HCPs can inform policy and practice initiatives to improve the current health human resources crisis experienced by many health systems. It may also aid in identifying prospective research foci.

The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize and provide a synopsis of the literature on compassion fatigue among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand its broader impact. The review was guided by the following question: What is the current state of knowledge on compassion fatigue among HCPs over the course of COVID-19?

Project registration

This scoping review was registered under Open Science Framework. A project outline was submitted including the study hypotheses, design, and data collection procedures. The DOI for the registered project is as follows: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F4T7N . In addition, a scoping review protocol for this review has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069843 ).

Study design

A systematic scoping review strategy was chosen to explore the existing body of literature pertaining to the research topic. The objective of a scoping review is to identify relevant literature on a given topic, without focusing on evaluating research quality or conducting a thorough analysis of selected studies, as systematic reviews typically do. Current gaps in research and directions for future research can be identified by means of summarizing emerging literature on compassion fatigue in HCPs.

The current scoping review used two methodological tools, namely the Arksey and O’Mally scoping review framework as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. The Arksey and O’Malley framework comprises five stages, which include: (1) formulating the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies for inclusion; (4) extracting and organizing the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the findings [ 26 ]. While scoping reviews typically do not require article appraisal, all articles were evaluated by one author (CO) using the methodology established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to enhance the overall quality of the review [ 27 ]. No articles were excluded based on their quality, in accord with the Arksey and O’Malley framework [ 26 ].

Stage I: Identifying the research question(s)

The research objective and question were drafted by the authors (AG, LH, CO, SB) and can be found in the previous section under “Research aim”.

Stage II: Identifying relevant studies

As outlined by the JBI methodology, a three-step approach was used to identify relevant studies. These steps include: (1) conducting a preliminary search of at least two suitable databases; (2) identifying relevant keywords and index terms to perform a secondary search across all chosen databases; and (3) manually examining the reference lists of the included articles to discover additional relevant studies [ 28 ]   (p11) .

Preliminary literature search

To establish the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, an initial and restricted search was conducted on the subject of interest. The preliminary literature exploration encompassed three scholarly electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science. The search employed the keywords “compassion fatigue” and incorporated the timeframe March 1, 2020, to June 15, 2022, so that the most impactful waves of the COVID-19 pandemic were represented in the included literature, resulting in 1519, 2489, and 2246 studies, from the respective databases. These three databases were selected due to their likelihood of yielding results relevant to the research topic. To construct a comprehensive search strategy, a collection of keywords and index terms were identified from the titles and abstracts of relevant articles. The search strategy was further refined in collaboration with a social science librarian.

Structured search strategy

A systematic search was conducted across six scholarly electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were deliberately chosen to encompass a broad range of relevant findings within the current knowledge landscape regarding the research topic. The systematic search of the literature commenced once the scoping review was peer reviewed and revisions were addressed by the authors. Using the selected vocabulary and Boolean connectors as shown in Table 1 , a string of relevant search terms was developed. The search strategy was adapted accordingly for each individual database (e.g., Medical Subject Headings [MeSH] terms for MEDLINE [Ovid]). In the final stage of the search strategy, the reference lists of all included studies were manually examined to identify additional relevant studies.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for this review was formulated using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) mnemonic developed by JBI (Table 1 ). The participants included in this review were HCPs who were employed across healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., physicians, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and licensed clinical social workers). The concept explored in this review focused on compassion fatigue among HCPs working in healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. The context of the study encompassed various care settings where HCPs carry out their professional activities across different clinical specialties (e.g., surgery, critical care, palliative care), as well as clinical settings (e.g., inpatient and outpatient). For the purposes of this scoping review, formal healthcare settings were broadly classified as those that provided health services and were situated within and administered by healthcare institutions.

This scoping review only included articles published in English. A time filter was applied to encompass studies conducted between 2020 to 2023, spanning the period from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to the present. A range of study designs were included in the review (i.e., experiments, quasi-experimental studies, analytical observational studies, descriptive observational studies, mixed-methods studies, and qualitative studies).

Exclusion criteria

Through the past two decades, compassion fatigue has been defined in different ways, sometimes being considered synonymous with burnout and secondary traumatic stress, or as an outcome resulting from both components [ 12 , 13 ]. Yet recently, it has been suggested that compassion fatigue is a focal concept related to the management of traumatic situations whereas burnout is a general concept that may have multiple contributors [ 26 ]. Due to the conceptual ambiguity surrounding compassion fatigue, articles that solely examine the components of compassion fatigue, such as burnout and secondary trauma, without directly addressing compassion fatigue itself, were excluded from consideration.

Studies that failed to meet the inclusion criteria or lacked full-text availability were excluded from the review. Additionally, editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and reviews were also excluded as they did not offer sufficient information for addressing the research questions.

Stage III: Study selection

After the full database searches were conducted, all identified citations were compiled and uploaded into Covidence. Any duplicate citations were automatically excluded.

Three reviewers (LH, CO, AG) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies to assess their eligibility according to the pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, the full texts of 736 selected studies were evaluated to arrive at the final list of articles for data extraction. The reasons for excluding specific studies were documented. Throughout the process, any disagreements that arose at each stage of study selection were resolved through discussions with a third reviewer (AG, SB).

The outcomes of the study selection process were presented in a flow diagram adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (Fig.  1 ) [ 29 ]. Additionally, all the included studies underwent an assessment of their risk of bias (quality) using established critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for Evidence Synthesis [ 30 ]. Although not mandatory for scoping reviews, appraisals of study quality will contribute to the subsequent implications and future steps stemming from this scoping review [ 31 ]. The JBI provides critical appraisal checklists for various study designs, encompassing experimental, quasi-experimental, randomized controlled trials, observational, and qualitative study designs. One reviewer (CO) conducted the assessments of all the included studies, and a second reviewer (AG) verified the evaluations. Any discrepancies that arose were discussed and resolved in consultation with both reviewers. In line with the methodology of scoping reviews, no studies were excluded based on their quality assessments, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the current state of the literature on compassion fatigue among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. A summary of the quality assessments were presented in the results section of the review, while the full appraisals can be found in Additional file 1 .

PRISMA flow chart [ 28 ]

Stage IV: Data extraction

To facilitate data extraction aligned with the research objectives, a data-extraction template was developed by one reviewer (LH). This template encompassed various aspects of the included studies (i.e., authors, publication year, study populations, country, study design, aims, sample size, assessment instruments, risk factors, protective factors, consequences of compassion fatigue, and measures to prevent/manage/reduce compassion fatigue). Utilizing Covidence, two independent reviewers (LH, CO) extracted the relevant data from the studies included in the final list of citations.

Stage V: Risk of bias

Standardized tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute for respective study types were used to assess risk of bias (quality) for all studies included in the review [ 27 ]. The study appraisals were conducted by one reviewer (CO) and reviewed by another reviewer (AG). Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved together. While no studies were excluded based on the appraisal scores to ensure a comprehensive presentation of the available literature on compassion fatigue among healthcare providers, the findings for the risk of bias assessments are summarized in the results section and the full appraisals are presented in Additional file 1 .

Stage VI: Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

To summarize and synthesize the findings, the study followed a three-step approach proposed by Levac et al. [ 32 ]: (1) collating and analyzing the collected data; (2) reporting the results and outcomes to address the study objectives; and (3) discussing the potential implications that findings hold for future research and policy considerations [ 31 ]. The review process adhered to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist, which provided guidance for conducting the review and reporting the findings [ 26 ].

Search results

Figure  1 displays the PRISMA-ScR flowchart of the scoping review search strategy. The search and reference list initially yielded 11,715 studies. Of these, 5769 were excluded as duplicates. Following the title and abstract screening of the remaining studies, 5179 studies were excluded as they met the exclusion criteria. Finally, the full-texts of the remaining 736 studies were screened, and 712 were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. In total, 24 eligible studies were included in the review for further analysis.

Risk of bias of included studies

The complete assessment of risk of bias of all 24 included studies is available in Additional file 1 . Within the two mixed-methods studies risk of bias primarily stemmed from the quantitative strand of the studies with a lack of clarity provided about study inclusion criteria, study setting, and identification of confounding factors [ 29 ]. Other sources of bias in other quantitative studies were vagueness around the criteria used for outcome measurement [ 30 ] and only one study identified potential cofounding factors along with strategies to manage them [ 31 ]. Further shortcomings related to the failure to provide transparency around the use of valid and reliable outcome measures [ 23 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Within qualitative studies not all provided information about the researchers’ theoretical stance [ 29 , 41 , 43 ] and two studies did not provide documentation of ethics approval for the conducted research [ 43 , 44 ]. One included case report met most assessment criteria for risk of bias although more description of assessment, post-assessment condition and adverse events were warranted [ 45 ].

Characteristics of studies

Study characteristics are presented in Table 2 . Of the 24 eligible studies, 18 studies used quantitative methods [ 23 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], 3 studies used qualitative methods [ 43 , 44 , 45 ], and the remaining studies used mixed-methods approaches [ 29 , 41 , 52 ]. Additionally, 13 studies focused on the antecedents of compassion fatigue [ 23 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] and 5 studies examined the consequences of compassion fatigue [ 30 , 37 , 43 , 44 , 49 ]. Six studies were conducted in the United States, with the others being conducted in a range of countries including Ecuador, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Uganda, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, China, and India. These studies primarily focused on nurses, physicians, and other allied health professionals. The study samples included both male and female HCPs. Only one study focused exclusively on female HCPs [ 43 ].

A variety of assessment tools were used to measure compassion fatigue across included studies. Common tools included Compassion Fatigue Short Scale (CFSS) [ 33 , 47 , 48 ], Compassion Fatigue Scale (CFS) [ 30 , 49 ], Professional Quality of Life Scale Version 5 (ProQoL 5) [ 23 , 29 , 29 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 50 , 51 ], Work-Related Quality of Life Scale (WRQoL) [ 46 ], and Compassion Fatigue and Satisfaction Self-Test (CFST) [ 37 , 52 ] (Table 3 ).

The time period of the study period shows that most of the studies were conducted in the first six months of 2020, coinciding with the World Health Organization’s declaration of the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic [ 54 ]. No studies included in the review were conducted between March 2021 and May 2023 (Fig.  2 ).

The time trend of study periods on compassion fatigue in HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic

Findings were synthesized and presented using the following 4 themes: (1) prevalence of compassion fatigue, (2) antecedents of compassion fatigue (individual-Level, organizational-Level, and systems-level factors), (3) consequences of compassion fatigue, and (4) interventions for compassion fatigue.

Theme 1: Prevalence of compassion fatigue

Of the studies reviewed, five measured the prevalence of compassion fatigue among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 23 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 41 ]. In a study conducted in Spain, 306 out of 506 (60.4%) HCPs reported high levels of compassion fatigue while 170 (33.6%) showed moderate levels of compassion fatigue (ProQoL 5: M = 19.9, SD = 7.6) [ 36 ]. In a sample composed of 395 Ugandan frontline nurses, 49.11% of the nurses reported high levels of compassion fatigue, while 29.6% experienced moderate levels of compassion fatigue [ 23 ]. Over half of the nurses in the study (54.94%) reported direct exposure to COVID-19 cases. A study conducted in Greece found that in a sample of 105 nurses, the majority of nurses (51.4%) experienced moderate levels of compassion fatigue (ProQoL 5: M = 22.26, SD = 6.76) [ 41 ]. In a Taiwanese study of 503 HCPs, the majority of the participants (63.2%) experienced low levels of compassion fatigue (ProQoL 5: M = 20.9, SD = 7.6) [ 31 ]. Finally, in a Filipino sample composed of 270 frontline nurses, 61.4% of the nurses reported low levels of compassion fatigue (CFS: M = 2.213, SD = 0.979) [ 30 ].

Theme 2: Antecedents of compassion fatigue

Individual-level factors.

Age and sex were key factors associated with compassion fatigue among participant HCPs. Younger HCPs with less experience were more likely to experience mental health issues and conflicting feelings with regards to providing care to COVID-19 patients [ 23 , 29 , 44 , 46 ]. Seven studies included in the review determined that female HCPs were more likely than male HCPs to experience compassion fatigue [ 23 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 50 , 52 ]. Physicians were also reported to have higher levels of compassion fatigue compared to nurses in three studies [ 36 , 38 , 39 ]. While nursing assistants had higher levels of compassion fatigue when compared to nurses in one study (ProQol 5: Nursing assistants = 29.15 ± 6.94; Nurse = 25.68 ± 5.87) [ 29 ]. Furthermore, the risk was higher in permanent workers compared to temporary workers (ProQoL 5: Permanent = 2.48 ± 1.29; Temporary = 2.11 ± 1.15; P -value < 0.05) [ 35 ]. One included study determined that marital status and education levels were not correlated with compassion fatigue [ 23 ]. Psychiatric comorbidities such as past trauma, burnout, stress, anxiety, and depression exacerbated HCPs’ psychological well-being across a number of included studies [ 31 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 49 , 50 ]. Other psychological factors such as excessive empathetic engagement, sensitive sensory processes, and overidentification from frequent witnessing of patient suffering and deaths were found to aggravate the development of compassion fatigue [ 34 , 39 , 45 ]. The inability to cope with the rapidly evolving landscape of healthcare provision and a lack of self-care contributed to increased burden and blurring of role boundaries between professional and private lives [ 29 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 51 , 52 ]. One study that used Compassion Fatigue and Satisfaction Self-Tests and a questionnaire of personal and professional characteristics found that feelings of underappreciation, insufficient compensations, and social isolation incurred psychological burden on pediatric sub-specialists [ 52 ]. Additionally, a decrease in occupational hardiness, as measured by the Occupational Hardiness Questionnaire, increased the risk of compassion fatigue among HCPs in two studies [ 42 , 50 ]. Negative outcomes to the HCPs’ families and concerns revolving around their patients’ families also predicted higher risk of experiencing compassion fatigue [ 45 , 48 , 52 ]. Finally, HCPs’ fear of COVID-19 with regards to infection and transmission was identified as a predictor of compassion fatigue [ 29 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 47 ].

Two studies identified social support from family, friends, peers, and hospital leadership as a crucial protective factor for compassion fatigue [ 43 , 52 ]. Coping mechanisms such as venting and exercising were found to help alleviate stress among HCPs [ 44 ]. Psychological qualities such as compassion satisfaction, professional satisfaction, resilience, vigor, and hardiness were found to help protect the psychological health of HCPs as well as reducing turnover intention and increasing perceived quality of care [ 30 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 46 , 50 ]. Self-care, self-awareness of limitations, and self-regulation of emotions were crucial for reducing risk of compassion fatigue in two studies comprised of physicians and nurses [ 44 , 50 ]. Lastly, spirituality, religiosity, and meditation also served as protective factors in three studies on compassion fatigue in HCPs [ 41 , 44 , 51 ].

Organizational-level factors

In five of the articles reviewed, increased workload [ 23 , 29 , 44 , 45 ], long working hours [ 23 , 29 , 44 , 45 ], and increased number of patients [ 50 ] were identified as common predictors of compassion fatigue. Furthermore, providing direct care to COVID-19 patients, which were often emotionally challenging cases, exacerbated the psychological risks to HCPs [ 23 , 36 , 46 , 48 , 50 ]. Chronic exposure to a dynamic work environment also increased the risk of compassion fatigue among HCPs [ 29 ]. Lack of access to suitable PPEs and lack of foresight from management and human resources teams regarding infection control guidelines contributed to HCPs’ distress [ 29 ]. Adjusting to the discomfort caused by wearing PPEs presented as a challenge to maintaining the efficiency of work activities [ 29 ]. Lastly, in two studies, HCPs identified that while there were plenty of wellness resources provided by healthcare organizations to support mindfulness, there was a lack of practical and pragmatic resources for social and emotional support, work-life balance, and remuneration [ 23 , 43 ].

Positive work conditions, such as a visible presence and engagement by leadership and management, as well as a positive work culture allowing HCPs to seek help without fear of judgment was found to be important protective factors against the development of compassion fatigue [ 44 ]. The social aspects of teamwork facilitated the sharing of feelings of trauma which in turn contributed to resilience and improved psychological well-being among HCPs in three studies [ 41 , 43 , 44 ]. One study observed that workplace wellness activities and a sense of feeling valued can prevent high levels of compassion fatigue [ 52 ]. Words of appreciation from supervisors boosted morale for some HCPs [ 44 ]. Attention to workplace safety in the form of PPEs and early access to vaccines alleviated the fear of infection [ 44 ]. Finally, two studies determined that adequate preparation and education to handle COVID-19 cases and increased autonomy decreased the risk of compassion fatigue and increased professional fulfillment [ 42 , 44 ].

Systems-level factors

Significant and frequently changing public health measures over the course of the pandemic presented a challenge as they were disruptive to workflow and resulted in uncertainty, feelings of inadequacy, and distress among HCPs across a range of geographical contexts [ 29 , 41 , 43 , 49 ]. Increases in the incidence of COVID-19 cases also contributed to a rise in the number of hospital admissions, aggravating HCPs’ workload [ 35 ]. Social-distancing policies precluded informal team interactions, such as sharing meals together, which posed a risk to HCPs’ psychological well-being by decreasing social support [ 43 , 52 ]. Transitions to tele-health also increased social isolation [ 43 ]. A theme that emerged was the negative impact of stigma on HCPs, with their proximity to contagion, as a possible risk factor [ 35 , 41 ]. Aggressive behaviors and verbal abuse from patients were sources of emotional stress for some HCPs [ 44 ]. Finally, negative peer pressure was identified as a barrier to HCPs engaging in self-care as they felt pressure to conform to sociocultural norms of an expected level of dedication [ 44 ]. In contrast to the impacts of stigma, a positive perception of one’s own profession is related to increased commitment and decreased compassion fatigue [ 46 ].

Theme 3: Consequences of compassion fatigue

The findings of one study suggested that compassion fatigue associated with HCP’s professional practice impacted their private lives, predicting greater parental burnout ( r  = 0.542), child abuse ( r  = 0.468), child neglect ( r  = 0.493), spouse conflict ( r  = 0.340), and substance abuse ( r  = 0.298) [ 48 ]. This study identified factors such as direct care of COVID-19 patients ( r  = 0.255), exposure to patient death and suffering due to COVID-19 ( r  = 0.281), and family income loss due to COVID-19 ( r  = 0.366) as risk factors for compassion fatigue [ 48 ]. Additionally, at an organizational-level, two studies conducted in 2020 and 2021 observed that Turkish and Filipino HCPs who reported compassion fatigue also reported lower job satisfaction and reduced professional commitment [ 30 , 46 ]. Consequently, elevated compassion fatigue also increased organizational turnover intent among Filipino HCPs (β = 0.301, P -value = 0.001) [ 30 ]. A study conducted in China found that compassion fatigue predicted negative behavioral intentions towards treating COVID-19 patients, as measured by the Attitude, Subjective Norms, and Behavioral Intention of Nurses toward Mechanically Ventilated Patients (ASIMP) questionnaire [ 33 ]. This suggests that quality of care may be adversely impacted [ 33 ]. Finally, an American study observed that compassion fatigue among HCPs was associated with deteriorating workplace culture [ 52 ].

• Patient care

The provision of care during the pandemic was impacted by the general lack of preparation for handling novel tasks experienced by many HCPs [ 23 ]. Findings from one study found that many HCPs (73%) experienced a shift in their clinical practice setting, for example, from in-personal care to virtual telehealth consults as a result of the pandemic [ 43 ]. HCPs also experienced an increase in the need to provide palliative care as a result of the negative health impacts of COVID-19, something they may have had limited prior experience with [ 43 ]. In a case study conducted in Japan, the physician reported feeling inexperienced with handling the psychological impact of the pandemic experienced by not only the patients but also the patients’ family [ 45 ]. The consequences of not being able to provide optimal care was found to exacerbate feelings of guilt, powerlessness, and frustration in HCPs [ 41 , 43 ]. In turn, study findings suggest that worsening compassion fatigue may reduce the quality of care provided by HCPs because it has been found to be a significant predictor of negative behavioral intention [ 30 , 33 , 40 , 52 ].

Theme 4: Interventions for compassion fatigue

Two studies in Japan and Uganda investigated potential interventions to support HCPs experiencing COVID-19 related compassion fatigue. On an individual-level, regularly engaging in self-care activities such as expressions of gratitude as well as learning how to recognize signs and symptoms of compassion fatigue were identified as crucial first steps in its management [ 45 , 52 ]. Emotional support from colleagues and mental health specialists was found to be effective in improving the mental health of a Japanese physician experiencing compassion fatigue [ 45 ]. Findings of two studies identified the need for a systematic approach to monitor the progression of psychological symptoms and providing tailored resources in a timely manner to HCPs to help ameliorate compassion fatigue and its consequences [ 29 , 45 ]. Suggested strategies included: facilitating regular consultations with each department [ 45 , 52 ], increasing the staffing number of HCPs in busy departments [ 23 , 45 ], and providing PPEs and vaccines in a timely manner [ 23 , 52 ]. Lastly, findings from two studies in Uganda and the United States suggested that increased remuneration may prevent or minimize compassion fatigue [ 23 , 52 ].

Key findings

This scoping review sought to provide a comprehensive summary of the literature published between January 2020 and May 2023 on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on compassion fatigue among HCPs and its subsequent impact on patient care. Most of the included studies were conducted in 2020 and used cross-sectional study designs. Given that the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a global health emergency in early 2020 [ 1 ], cross-sectional study designs were well-placed to provide prompt and important insights on compassion fatigue across the HCP population. Review findings were presented using four themes addressing the prevalence, antecedents, consequences, and consequences of compassion fatigue in HCPs. The prevalence of compassion fatigue was observed to vary across countries. The negative psychological outcomes reported by included studies were precipitated by individual-level factors such as age and occupational role; organizational-factors such as lack of access to PPE; and systems-level factors such as loss of social engagement and stigma. The consequences of compassion fatigue impacted HCPs’ personal and professional roles. Findings suggest an urgent need for policy makers, health managers, and team leaders to develop and implement strategies that target the potential root causes of compassion fatigue in HCPs.

Prevalence of compassion fatigue

Among the five studies that measured prevalence of compassion fatigue, results were highly variable across countries [ 23 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 41 ]. This may be attributed to differences in preparedness for infection containment and variability among health systems’ preparation and ability to respond to supply chain issues [ 53 ]. Taiwan provides an example of how digital technologies were adopted to improve disease surveillance and monitor medical supply chains [ 55 ]. Using the stringent Identify-Isolate-Inform model in conjunction with public mask-wearing and physical distancing, the spread of the disease was effectively contained in Taiwan [ 53 ]. Consequently, despite not enforcing lockdowns, Taiwan blocked the first wave of cases and slowed down subsequent outbreaks, which may contribute to the observed low prevalence of compassion fatigue among HCPs [ 56 ]. In the Philippines, responses to disease outbreaks varied across different municipalities and provinces [ 57 ]. Effective containment measures such as strict border control and early lockdowns in addition to plentiful medical supplies and personnel allowed certain regions to mount a strong response to this public health emergency, subsequently resulting in the observed low prevalence of compassion fatigue among HCPs [ 57 ]. In Uganda, there were generally low levels of preparedness with regards to the infection identification, PPE supply, access to hand-washing facilities, and establishment of isolation facilities [ 58 ]. This may have contributed to an overwhelmed healthcare system and overworked HCPs as the surge of cases was exacerbated by the shortage of disease containment resources [ 58 ]. In April 2020, Spain experienced the second highest infection incidence in the world [ 59 ]. The Spanish health system was overwhelmed by the abundance of patients due to lack of HCPs [ 60 ], hospital capacity, and material supplies [ 59 ]. An increase in compassion fatigue among HCPs was also observed in recent studies from Italy and Canada [ 61 , 62 ]. Overall, the various strategies used to address the resultant COVID-19-related public health crisis presented distinctive challenges to HCPs in different countries. Caution must be taken when interpreting the study findings given the contextual differences across various healthcare systems. The psychological burden and prevalence of compassion fatigue subsequently varied depending on the context.

Antecedents of compassion fatigue

The findings of this review suggest that individual characteristics such as age and occupational role are significant contributing factors to the development of compassion fatigue during COVID-19 [ 63 ]. Specifically, older HCPs were less likely to experience compassion fatigue than younger HCPs according to regression analyses [ 23 , 29 , 44 , 46 ]. This observation may be attributed to their increased work experience. Resilience was also positively linearly related to age [ 64 ]. Factors identified as potential contributors to the observed age-related advantage in wellbeing were access to job resources, better job security, work-life balance, and coping skills [ 64 ]. The compounding of stressors such as an increase in workload during the COVID-19 pandemic could have exacerbated the psychological health of younger HCPs. In the context of telework, older employees tended to create clear boundaries between work and non-work responsibilities [ 64 ]. The rise in telework among HCPs was mostly a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic which may have increased the psychological burden on younger HCPs [ 65 ]. In addition, a study examining demographic predictors of resilience in nurses reported that younger nurses had less exposure to stress, and thus have fewer opportunities to develop skills in stress management [ 66 ]. As a result of these factors, the younger HCPs were at high risk for compassion fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, three of the included studies in this review also observed that physicians were at a higher risk of compassion fatigue compared to nurses [ 36 , 38 , 39 ]. This difference may be attributed to the burden of responsibility in relation to breaking bad news, a task that is often the physicians’ responsibility [ 67 ]. A study examining compassion fatigue in HCPs determined that conflict arising during patient interactions placed HCPs at a risk for compassion fatigue [ 68 ]. Delivery of bad or uncertain news also predicted a greater mental health burden in HCPs [ 68 ].

At the organizational level, findings from the studies included in this review identified that a lack of access to PPE was a contributor to compassion fatigue in HCPs during COVID-19 [ 29 , 52 ]. Specifically, one study reported that the fear of infection and transmission to patients, family, and friends added to the concern of HCPs working in high-risk environments [ 69 ]. This finding can potentially be explained by the increased vulnerability that HCPs experience following a lag in the provision of PPE. Several organizational factors were determined as potential barriers to the distribution of PPE; the unprecedented nature of the pandemic presented challenges for maintaining domestic inventories [ 70 ]. Disruptions to the PPE global supply chain also amplified the equipment shortage [ 70 ]. This finding highlights the importance of monitoring and ensuring that domestic health supplies are adequately stocked.

At the system level, loss of social engagement [ 43 , 52 ] and stigma [ 35 , 41 ] were identified in the studies included in the review as antecedents to compassion fatigue. Public policies such as social-distancing and occupancy capacity limits negatively impact social interactions which may explain the loss of social engagement in addition to worsening mental health well-being in HCPs [ 71 ]. As certain practices transition to telehealth, other studies have found increased mental fatigue and difficulty with maintaining empathetic rapport, which has important implications on patient care [ 72 , 73 ]. In addition, other studies have found that given the proximity of their role to contagion, stigma towards HCPs from patients increased during COVID-19 [ 74 , 75 ]. Consequently, the combinatorial experience of being socially isolated and stigmatized may worsen mental health outcomes [ 76 ]. This points to a need for increased access to support services for HCPs such as virtual communities.

Consequences of compassion fatigue

Review findings suggest that compassion fatigue impacted the private and professional lives of HCPs. The risk for parental burnout has increased across many occupations during the pandemic [ 77 ]. Factors related to low levels of social support, lack of leisure time, and greater parental responsibilities in face of education disruptions adds to the psychological burden of parents [ 77 ]. HCPs were placed in a unique position having to work in highly stressful environments while also balancing household responsibilities and increased challenges related to childcare [ 48 , 78 ]. This finding highlights a need for the provision of child support services for HCPs or a reduction in workload to alleviate the burden of parental and homecare responsibilities particularly in times of public health crises.

Beyond their private lives, this review has found that decreases in HCPs’ professional commitment due to compassion fatigue, may endanger the quality of patient care delivered [ 79 ]. In particular, this may be attributed to the surge in palliative care cases during the pandemic in conjunction with an unprepared workforce, creating psychological stress for HCPs [ 80 ]. In a study examining palliative care preparedness during the pandemic, a lack of core palliative care training and expertise among frontline HCPs [ 81 ] meant many felt emotionally unprepared to address cases with seriously ill patients [ 45 ]. An increased frequency of breaking bad news to patients’ families was associated with negative psychological outcomes [ 82 ]. Providing training on relevant communication skills may protect HCPs from compassion fatigue [ 83 , 84 ].

Implications

The findings of this review highlight the urgency to provide support for HCPs who may be at risk for compassion fatigue which could have subsequent impacts on the provision of patient care [ 85 ]. To address the antecedents of compassion fatigue, this scoping review has identified a need for increased staffing, recruitment, and retention efforts on the part of hospital human resources departments [ 23 , 45 ]. Interventions suggested by studies included in the review encompass the monitoring of psychological well-being among HCPs to inform timely provision of resources [ 29 , 45 ]. Specifically, structured debriefing, training on self-care routine, reduced workload, and normalization of trauma-related therapy are essential interventions [ 86 ]. Additionally, a study identified that fostering collaborative workplace culture encourages social and emotional support among staff [ 45 ]. Certain hospitals have adopted “wobble rooms” as a private unwinding and venting space for employees [ 87 ]. Studies have observed that interventions aimed at improving the well-being of HCPs resulted in enhanced quality and safety of care being delivered [ 75 ].

Strengths and limitations

There are both strengths and limitations in this review. Although some literature reviews focused on the psychological health status of HCPs (e.g., burnout, anxiety, depression), very few studies have specifically explored compassion fatigue. Reviews that considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCPs were even more limited. It is known that compassion is a cornerstone of quality health care improvement and increases successful medical outcomes [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Nevertheless, prolonged exposure to distressing events by HCPs, such as patient death and suffering, results in the absorption of negative emotional responses and leads to the development of compassion fatigue [ 91 ]. This scoping review presents an extensive exploration of the current body of literature on compassion fatigue among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Another strength in this study lies in the transparency and reproducibility of the methodology. The scoping review protocol has been published in a peer-reviewed journal to establish high methodological standards for the final scoping review [ 92 ]. Additionally, the study plan was pre-registered with Open Science Framework to ensure commitment to the methodology. Double extraction was performed to ensure that a comprehensive descriptive summary of the studies was achieved.

Some limitations include the short time frame chosen for the included studies that were published since the COVID-19, which may have constrained the breadth and quality of the studies. Longitudinal studies may not be captured in the review as this study methodology requires a prolonged period of time to yield meaningful observations. More data is needed to support conclusions on the impact of compassion fatigue on patient care. Additionally, none of the studies included in the review were conducted between March 2021 and May 2023, which may miss out on meaningful trends in levels of compassion fatigue in HCPs. This scoping review only included literature published in English so studies published in other languages were not assessed. Additionally, no comparisons of compassion fatigue were made among the HCP groups in spite of potentially relevant differences such as patient exposure. There was also a lack of allied health profession representation, with the majority of the study population being nurses or physicians. Lastly, grey literature was not included in this scoping review which may delimitate the information included in the scoping review.

There were recurring themes related to limitations in the included research studies. Several studies identified sampling issues including small sample sizes, restricted sample frame, low response rate, and selection error [ 23 , 29 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 83 ]. Other studies have called for investigations into how different sociodemographic factors, other psychiatric diseases, health care settings, and workplace environment impact compassion fatigue in HCPs [ 38 , 39 , 47 , 48 , 83 ]. One study observed a lack of homogeneity in the sample due to an overrepresentation of female HCPs in the sample [ 38 ]. Lastly, many studies employed a cross-sectional study design which limits the interpretation of the data in terms of causality [ 23 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 50 ]. While there are limitations to the study, a comprehensive summary of existing literature may be useful to inform future research and policies.

Future research is needed to examine the longitudinal impacts of COVID-19 on compassion fatigue in HCPs. Moreover, research in this area could be strengthened by including a consultation phase with external experts on compassion fatigue to improve the robustness of the scoping review.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique set of challenges to healthcare systems across the globe. This scoping review indicated that the prevalence of compassion fatigue was inconsistent across countries and may reflect the variability of pandemic preparedness among the individual countries. Primary risk factors for the development of compassion fatigue included being younger, female, a physician or nurse, and having limited access to PPE in conjunction with an excessive workload and prolonged work hours. The negative impacts of compassion fatigue were experienced at the individual and organizational level. The findings suggest there is a systemic need to assess, monitor and support health professionals’ well-being particularly during conditions of protracted health crises such as a pandemic. In addition, many health systems and sectors are facing a profound health human resources crisis and therefore ongoing efforts must be made to improve workplace environments and increase recruitment and retention efforts. Lastly, pandemic planning must include provisions to support health providers’ ability to safely do their jobs while also minimizing negative impacts to their health and well-being.

Availability of data and materials

All the material presented in the manuscript is owned by the authors and/or no permissions are required.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Accessed 16 Jan 2023. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19

Wilder-Smith A, Osman S. Public health emergencies of international concern: a historic overview. J Travel Med. 2020;27(8):taaa227. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa227 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gristina GR, Piccinni M. COVID-19 pandemic in ICU. limited resources for many patients: approaches and criteria for triaging. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021;87(12):1367–79. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15736-0 .

Chaka EE, Mekuria M, Melesie G. Access to Essential personal safety, availability of personal protective equipment and perception of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 in public hospital in West Shoa. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:2315–23. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S344763 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gholami M, Fawad I, Shadan S, et al. COVID-19 and healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;104:335–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.013 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Schug C, Geiser F, Hiebel N, et al. Sick Leave and Intention to Quit the Job among Nursing Staff in German Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041947 .

Lancet T. COVID-19: protecting health-care workers. Lancet Lond Engl. 2020;395(10228):922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30644-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Beck E, Daniels J. Intolerance of uncertainty, fear of contamination and perceived social support as predictors of psychological distress in NHS healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Health Med. Published online July 6, 2022:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2092762.

Nikeghbal K, Kouhnavard B, Shabani A, Zamanian Z. Covid-19 effects on the mental workload and quality of work life in Iranian nurses. Ann Glob Health. 2021;87(1):79. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3386.

WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed 16 Jan 2023. https://covid19.who.int

Lluch C, Galiana L, Doménech P, Sansó N. The Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction in healthcare personnel: a systematic review of the literature published during the first year of the pandemic. Healthcare. 2022;10(2):364. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020364 .

Salmond E, Salmond S, Ames M, Kamienski M, Holly C. Experiences of compassion fatigue in direct care nurses: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Evid Synth. 2019;17(5):682. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003818 .

Sinclair S, Raffin-Bouchal S, Venturato L, Mijovic-Kondejewski J, Smith-MacDonald L. Compassion fatigue: A meta-narrative review of the healthcare literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;69:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.003 .

Majid U, Hussain SAS, Zahid A, Haider MH, Arora R. Mental health outcomes in health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review. Health Promot Int. 2023;38(2):daad025. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daad025 .

Rahmani F, Hosseinzadeh M, Gholizadeh L. Complicated grief and related factors among nursing staff during the Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04562-w .

Statement on the fifteenth meeting of the IHR (2005) Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed July 6, 2023. https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Ghahramani S, Kasraei H, Hayati R, Tabrizi R, Marzaleh MA. Health care workers’ mental health in the face of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2022;0(0):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2022.2101927 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nie A, Su X, Zhang S, Guan W, Li J. Psychological impact of COVID-19 outbreak on frontline nurses: a cross-sectional survey study. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(21–22):4217–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15454 .

Jalili M, Niroomand M, Hadavand F, Zeinali K, Fotouhi A. Burnout among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(6):1345–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01695-x .

Iddrisu M, Poku CA, Mensah E, Attafuah PYA, Dzansi G, Adjorlolo S. Work-related psychosocial challenges and coping strategies among nursing workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01368-9 .

Yang BJ, Yen CW, Lin SJ, et al. Emergency nurses’ burnout levels as the mediator of the relationship between stress and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms during COVID-19 pandemic. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(9):2861–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15214 .

Fukushima H, Imai H, Miyakoshi C, Naito A, Otani K, Matsuishi K. The sustained psychological impact of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on hospital workers 2 years after the outbreak: a repeated cross-sectional study in Kobe. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):313. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04788-8 .

Amir K, Okalo P. Frontline nurses’ compassion fatigue and associated predictive factors during the second wave of COVID-19 in Kampala. Uganda Nurs Open. 2022;9(5):2390–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1253 .

Calkins K, Guttormson J, McAndrew NS, et al. The early impact of COVID-19 on intensive care nurses’ personal and professional well-being: a qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2023;76:103388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2023.103388 .

Sexton JB, Adair KC, Proulx J, et al. Emotional exhaustion among US health care workers before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019–2021. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2232748. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32748 .

Slatten LA, David Carson K, Carson PP. Compassion fatigue and burnout what managers should know. Health Care Manag. 2011;30(4):325–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e31823511f7 .

Martin J. © Joanna Briggs Institute 2017 Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Published online 2017.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation | Annals of Internal Medicine. Accessed 16 Jan 16 2023. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org

Moreno-Mulet C, Sansó N, Carrero-Planells A, et al. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on ICU healthcare professionals: a mixed methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):9243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179243 .

Labrague LJ, de los Santos JAA. Resilience as a mediator between compassion fatigue, nurses’ work outcomes, and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Nurs Res. 2021;61:151476.

Su PA, Lo MC, Wang CL, et al. The correlation between professional quality of life and mental health outcomes among hospital personnel during the Covid-19 pandemic in Taiwan. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:3485–95. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S330533 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Cheng J, Cui J, Yu W, Kang H, Tian Y, Jiang X. Factors influencing nurses’ behavioral intention toward caring for COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(11):e0259658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259658 .

Pérez-Chacón M, Chacón A, Borda-Mas M, Avargues-Navarro ML. Sensory processing sensitivity and compassion satisfaction as risk/protective factors from burnout and compassion fatigue in healthcare and education professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):611. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020611 .

Ramaci T, Barattucci M, Ledda C, Rapisarda V. Social Stigma during COVID-19 and its Impact on HCWs Outcomes. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093834 .

Ruiz-Fernández MD, Ramos-Pichardo JD, Ibáñez-Masero O, Cabrera-Troya J, Carmona-Rega MI, Ortega-Galán ÁM. Compassion fatigue, burnout, compassion satisfaction and perceived stress in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 health crisis in Spain. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(21–22):4321–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15469 .

Kase SM, Gribben JL, Guttmann KF, Waldman ED, Weintraub AS. Compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction in pediatric subspecialists during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pediatr Res. 2022;91(1):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-021-01635-y .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carmassi C, Dell’Oste V, Bertelloni CA, et al. Gender and occupational role differences in work-related post-traumatic stress symptoms, burnout and global functioning in emergency healthcare workers. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2022;69:103154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103154 .

Ruiz-Fernández MD, Ramos-Pichardo JD, Ibáñez-Masero O, Carmona-Rega MI, Sánchez-Ruiz MJ, Ortega-Galán ÁM. Professional quality of life, self-compassion, resilience, and empathy in healthcare professionals during COVID-19 crisis in Spain. Res Nurs Health. 2021;44(4):620–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22158 .

Yılmaz A, Bay F, Erdem Ö, Özkalp B. The professional quality of life for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey and the influencing factors. Bezmialem Sci. 2022;10(3):361–9. https://doi.org/10.14235/bas.galenos.2021.5837 .

Missouridou E, Mangoulia P, Pavlou V, et al. Wounded healers during the COVID-19 syndemic: Compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction among nursing care providers in Greece. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2022;58(4):1421–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12946 . Published online September 10, 2021.

Zakeri MA, Rahiminezhad E, Salehi F, Ganjeh H, Dehghan M. compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue and hardiness among nurses: a comparison before and during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Front Psychol. 2022;12:815180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.815180 .

Austin EJ, Blacker A, Kalia I. “Watching the tsunami come”: a case study of female healthcare provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2021;13(4):781–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12269 .

Kong KYC, Ganapathy S. Are we in control of our demons?: understanding compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue and burnout in an asian pediatric emergency department in a pandemic. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2022;38(3):e1058. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000002656 .

Nishihara T, Ohashi A, Nakashima Y, Yamashita T, Hiyama K, Kuroiwa M. Compassion fatigue in a health care worker treating COVID-19 patients: a case report. Biopsychosoc Med. 2022;16(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-022-00239-0 .

Kaya ŞD, Mehmet N, Şafak K. Professional commitment, satisfaction and quality of life of nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Konya. Turkey Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022;32(2):393–404. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v32i2.20 .

Kottoor AS, Chacko N. Role of entrapment in relation between fear of Covid-19 and compassion fatigue among nurses. Int J Behav Sci. 2022;15(4):250–5. https://doi.org/10.30491/ijbs.2022.288846.1573 .

Stevenson MC, Schaefer CT, Ravipati VM. COVID-19 patient care predicts nurses’ parental burnout and child abuse: Mediating effects of compassion fatigue. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;130:105458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105458 .

Hochwarter W, Jordan S, Kiewitz C, et al. Losing compassion for patients? The implications of COVID-19 on compassion fatigue and event-related post-traumatic stress disorder in nurses. J Manag Psychol. 2022;37(3):206–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2021-0037 .

Cuartero-Castañer ME, Hidalgo-Andrade P, Cañas-Lerma AJ. professional quality of life, engagement, and self-care in healthcare professionals in Ecuador during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare. 2021;9(5):515. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9050515 .

Spiridigliozzi S. Exploring the relationship between faith and the experience of burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction for hospice workers during a global pandemic: a multidisciplinary study. Dr Diss Proj. Published online April 1, 2022. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3572

Gribben JL, Kase SM, Guttmann KF, Waldman ED, Weintraub AS. Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on pediatric subspecialists’ well-being and perception of workplace value. Pediatr Res. Published online January 20, 2023:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02474-9.

Chien LC, Beÿ CK, Koenig KL. Taiwan’s Successful COVID-19 mitigation and containment strategy: achieving quasi population immunity. Disaster Med Public Health Prep.:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.357.

Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta Bio-Medica Atenei Parm. 2020;91(1):157–60. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 .

Kuo S, Ou HT, Wang CJ. Managing medication supply chains: Lessons learned from Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic and preparedness planning for the future. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2021;61(1):e12–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2020.08.029 .

Cheng HY, Liu DP. Early Prompt Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Comprehensive surveillance, decisive border control, and information technology support. J Formos Med Assoc. Published online November 11, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2022.11.002.

S. Talabis DA, Babierra AL, H. Buhat CA, Lutero DS, Quindala KM, Rabajante JF. Local government responses for COVID-19 management in the Philippines. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1711. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11746-0 .

Rashid N, Nazziwa A, Nanyeenya N, Madinah N, Lwere K. Preparedness, identification and care of COVID-19 cases by front line health workers in selected health facilities in mbale district uganda: a cross-sectional study. East Afr Health Res J. 2021;5(2):144–50. https://doi.org/10.24248/eahrj.v5i2.665 .

Alfonso Viguria U, Casamitjana N. Early Interventions and Impact of COVID-19 in Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8):4026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084026 .

Rodríguez-Almagro J, Hernández-Martínez A, Romero-Blanco C, Martínez-Arce A, Prado-Laguna MD, García-Sanchez FJ. Experiences and Perceptions of Nursing Students during the COVID-19 Crisis in Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10459.

Dodek PM, Cheung EO, Burns KEA, et al. Moral distress and other wellness measures in Canadian critical care physicians. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(8):1343–51. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1118OC .

Franza F, Basta R, Pellegrino F, Solomita B, Fasano V. The role of fatigue of compassion, burnout and hopelessness in healthcare: experience in the time of covid-19 outbreak. Psychiatr Danub. 32.

Coşkun Şimşek D, Günay U. Experiences of nurses who have children when caring for COVID-19 patients. Int Nurs Rev. 2021;68(2):219–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12651 .

Scheibe S, De Bloom J, Modderman T. Resilience during crisis and the role of age: involuntary telework during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031762 .

Mann DM, Chen J, Chunara R, Testa PA, Nov O. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: Evidence from the field. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2020;27(7):1132–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa072 .

Afshari D, Nourollahi-darabad M, Chinisaz N. Demographic predictors of resilience among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021;68(2):297–303. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203376 .

Monden KR, Gentry L, Cox TR. Delivering bad news to patients. Proc Bayl Univ Med Cent. 2016;29(1):101–2.

Sorenson C, Bolick B, Wright K, Hamilton R. Understanding compassion fatigue in healthcare providers: a review of current literature. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016;48(5):456–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12229 .

Alharbi J, Jackson D, Usher K. The potential for COVID-19 to contribute to compassion fatigue in critical care nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(15–16):2762–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15314 .

Cohen J, van der Meulen Rodgers Y. Contributing factors to personal protective equipment shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prev Med. 2020;141:106263.

Institute of Professional Psychology, Bahria University Karachi Campus, Karachi, Pakistan, Waris Nawaz M, Imtiaz S, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan, Kausar E, Institute of Professional Psychology, Bahria University Karachi Campus, Karachi, Pakistan. self-care of frontline health care workers: during covid-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Danub. 2020;32(3–4):557–62. https://doi.org/10.24869/psyd.2020.557 .

Mano MS, Morgan G. Telehealth, social media, patient empowerment, and physician burnout: seeking middle ground. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Am Soc Clin Oncol Annu Meet. 2022;42:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_100030 .

Myronuk L. Effect of telemedicine via videoconference on provider fatigue and empathy: Implications for the Quadruple Aim. Healthc Manage Forum. 2022;35(3):174–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211059944 .

Abuhammad S, Alzoubi KH, Al‐Azzam S, et al. Stigma toward healthcare providers from patients during COVID‐19 era in Jordan. Public Health Nurs Boston Mass. Published online March 25, 2022: https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.13071

Nashwan AJ, Valdez GFD, AL-Fayyadh S, et al. Stigma towards health care providers taking care of COVID-19 patients: a multi-country study. Heliyon. 2022;8(4):e09300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09300 .

Shiu C, Chen WT, Hung CC, Huang EPC, Lee TSH. COVID-19 stigma associates with burnout among healthcare providers: evidence from Taiwanese physicians and nurses. J Formos Med Assoc Taiwan Yi Zhi. 2022;121(8):1384–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2021.09.022 .

Griffith AK. Parental burnout and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Fam Violence. 2022;37(5):725–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00172-2 .

Çakmak G, Öztürk ZA. Being both a parent and a healthcare worker in the pandemic: who could be exhausted more? Healthcare. 2021;9(5):564. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9050564 .

Cavanagh N, Cockett G, Heinrich C, et al. Compassion fatigue in healthcare providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(3):639–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733019889400 .

Boufkhed S, Harding R, Kutluk T, Husseini A, Pourghazian N, Shamieh O. What is the preparedness and capacity of palliative care services in Middle-Eastern and North African Countries to Respond to COVID-19? a rapid survey. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;61(2):e13–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.10.025 .

Gelfman LP, Morrison RS, Moreno J, Chai E. Palliative care as essential to a hospital system’s pandemic preparedness planning: how to get ready for the next wave. J Palliat Med. 2021;24(5):656–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2020.0670 .

Messerotti A, Banchelli F, Ferrari S, et al. Investigating the association between physicians self-efficacy regarding communication skills and risk of “burnout.” Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01504-y .

Gribben JL, Kase SM, Waldman ED, Weintraub AS. A cross-sectional analysis of compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction in pediatric critical care physicians in the United States. Pediatr Crit Care Med J Soc Crit Care Med World Fed Pediatr Intensive Crit Care Soc. 2019;20(3):213–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001803 .

Sengupta M, Roy A, Gupta S, Chakrabarti S, Mukhopadhyay I. Art of breaking bad news: a qualitative study in Indian healthcare perspective. Indian J Psychiatry. 2022;64(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_346_21 .

Cross LA. Compassion fatigue in palliative care nursing: a concept analysis. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2019;21(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000477 .

Paiva-Salisbury ML, Schwanz KA. Building compassion fatigue resilience: awareness, prevention, and intervention for pre-professionals and current practitioners. J Health Serv Psychol. 2022;48(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42843-022-00054-9 .

Jun 8, information 2020 | For more, Corpuz-Bosshart contact L. ‘Wobble room’ provides time-out for COVID-19 frontliners. UBC News. Published June 8, 2020. Accessed 17 Jan 2023. https://news.ubc.ca/2020/06/08/making-a-difference-wobble-room-provides-time-out-for-covid-19-frontliners/

Gupta N, Dhamija S, Patil J, Chaudhari B. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers. Ind Psychiatry J. 2021;30(Suppl 1):S282–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.328830 .

Menon GR, Yadav J, Aggarwal S, et al. Psychological distress and burnout among healthcare worker during COVID-19 pandemic in India—a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3):e0264956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264956 .

Nishimura Y, Miyoshi T, Sato A, et al. Burnout of healthcare workers amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: a follow-up study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11581. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111581 .

Jemal K, Hailu D, Mekonnen M, Tesfa B, Bekele K, Kinati T. The importance of compassion and respectful care for the health workforce: a mixed-methods study. J Public Health. 2023;31(2):167–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01495-0 .

Hui L, Garnett A, Oleyniov C, Boamah S. Compassion fatigue in health providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e069843. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069843 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Anna Garnett & Christina Oleynikov

Medical Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Sheila Boamah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AG is responsible for conception and design of the review. AG, LH, CO & SB contributed to the acquisition and analysis of the data. AG, LH & SB interpreted the data. LH drafted the manuscript and AG was a major contributor to the final version of the manuscript. AG, LH, CO & SB read, provided feedback and approved the final manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Garnett .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was not required because this manuscript is a review of published literature.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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..

Critical appraisals of included articles.

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.

Garnett, A., Hui, L., Oleynikov, C. et al. Compassion fatigue in healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 23 , 1336 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10356-3

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2023

Accepted : 20 November 2023

Published : 01 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10356-3

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

• Compassion fatigue
• Healthcare provider
• Psychological health

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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