parts of a literature review paper

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

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.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is a good literature review?
• Types of Literature Reviews
• What are the parts of a Literature Review?
• What is the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review?

Parts of a Literature Review

Introduction      .

• To explain the focus and establish the importance of the subject
• provide the framework, selection criteria, or parameters of your literature review
• provide background or history
• outline what kind of work has been done on the topic
• briefly identify any controversies within the field or any recent research that has raised questions about earlier assumptions
• In a stand-alone literature review, this statement will sum up and evaluate the current state of this field of research
• In a review that is an introduction or preparatory to a thesis or research report, it will suggest how the review findings will lead to the research the writer proposes to undertake.
• To summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in the field
• To note major themes or topics, the most important trends, and any findings about which researchers agree or disagree
• Often divided by headings/subheadings
• If the review is preliminary to your own thesis or research project, its purpose is to make an argument that will justify your proposed research. Therefore, the literature review will discuss only that research which leads directly to your own project.
• To summarize the evidence presented and show its significance
• Rather than restating your thesis or purpose statement, explain what your review tells you about the current state of the field
• If the review is an introduction to your own research, the conclusion highlights gaps and indicates how previous research leads to your own research project and chosen methodology. 
• If the review is a stand-alone assignment for a course, the conclusion should suggest any practical applications of the research as well as the implications and possibilities for future research.
• Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, ASA)
• Follow the guidelines to format citations and create a reference list or bibliography
• Cite Your Sources

This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0  International License. adapted from UofG,McLaughlin Library

• << Previous: Types of Literature Reviews
• Next: What is the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review? >>
• Last Updated: Nov 21, 2023 12:49 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lamission.edu/c.php?g=1190903

Los Angeles Mission College. All rights reserved. - 13356 Eldridge Avenue, Sylmar, CA 91342. 818-364-7600 | LACCD.edu | ADA Compliance Questions or comments about this web site? Please leave Feedback

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

How to Structure Your Literature Review - Quick Guide with Examples

Table of Contents

A literature review is a process of reviewing the existing scholarly literature based on a specific topic. It is one of the critical components of your own research paper. By conducting a thorough literature review, you will get a synopsis of the relevant methods, theories, and research gaps of the existing research on the related topic.

However, writing a good literature review is not as easy as it sounds. It requires rigorous research and extensive exploration of hundreds of journal articles to land on the pertinent information. So, it’s essential to learn the components of a literature review structure before you start writing one.

That’s why this article exists — to help you understand how to structure a literature review in a research paper. Read through the article to get the gist of the components used and how to structure them.

Role of literature review structure in research

Why do you think structuring your literature review is crucial in your research? It plays a significant role in organizing and presenting the research evidence and information effectively to the readers.

A well-structured literature review ensures clarity and coherence in the research which enables readers to follow the logical flow of ideas. It helps researchers to logically present their arguments and findings, making it easier for readers to comprehend the research's context and contribution.

Furthermore, it aids in identifying relationships between diverse studies, identifying key themes, and highlighting any research gaps. In fact, one of the prominent reasons why the proper format of a literature review is important is that it provides a framework for the researchers to present their ideas in a systematic and organized sequence.

Overall, a well structured literature review provides a roadmap for readers to navigate through the existing research or existing knowledge. By clearly indicating the main sections and sub-sections of the research, readers can easily locate the information they are interested in.

It is essential for researchers who are conducting a literature review to gain an overview of a specific topic or to find relevant studies and build a concrete framework for their research.

When should I structure my literature review?

Writing and structuring a literature review imparts the required knowledge to the readers only when you do it at the right time. So, be sure to map out the structure after you conduct a thorough literature review of the existing sources.

You should structure the review once you’re done with reading and digesting the research papers and before you start writing your thesis, dissertation, or research paper. It bridges the gap between reviewing literature and writing a research paper.

In simpler words, once you’ve comprehended the existing literature and gained enough knowledge of the theories, key concepts, and research gaps of your study or topic, you will be in a position to map out a literature review structure. It gives you a boost to set the stage for your research paper writing. Once the structure is ready, you can reiterate or restructure it based on the flow of your research work.

Tip: Use SciSpace Literature Review to compare and contrast multiple research papers on a single screen, saving a significant amount of time. And to comprehend the research papers easily, utilize Copilot which explains even the most complicated nomenclature and context in the simplest way possible. Above all, these tools support 75+ languages making your literature review and research paper reading a breeze.

How to structure a literature review?

A literature review is also one of the chapters or sections in your research paper. The structure varies from one study to another depending on diverse factors. However, a typical structure of a literature review has 3 main parts — an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Let's get into them in detail.

a) Introduction of the literature review

The literature review introduction should give the readers an overview of what will you cover in the study and how the study is correlated. Ideally, it should provide the outline of your research and also explain the scope of your literature review. The introduction section is the most suitable segment to share your stance or perspective about the research topic and gently convey your contributions to the field through this study.

Since it happens to be the first paragraph, you must include and define its purpose, organization, and critical aspects of your research project.

Your introduction should give the following relevant background information to the readers:

• The “why” of the review? — should provide a reason for why you’re writing the review
• The “takeaway” of the review? — should portray the importance of the research
• Articulate the topics covered in the research in a sequential manner
• “What” of the review? — scope of the review
• How or where your topic is aligned with the niche or subject area

b) Body of the literature reviews

The format and structure of the central body part are of utmost importance in writing a good literature review.. This is the section where you summarize, synthesize, analyze, and critically evaluate your research work. Therefore, you must use sections and subsections to divide the body for each methodological approach or theme aspect of further research.

In this part, you will have to organize and present your discussion in a clear and coherent manner. There are different types of structural approaches to adhere to while organizing the main body part of the literature review. Let’s explore the types based on the length and format of your review.

i) Chronological literature reviews

The chronological approach to building literature review format has been described as one of the most straightforward approaches. It helps you articulate the growth and development of the research topic over time in chronological order.

However, do not restrict yourself to just making a list or summarizing the reference resources. Instead, write a brief discussion and analysis of the critical arguments, research, and trends that have shaped the current status of your research topic.

Additionally, you must provide an interpretation of these events in your curated version. This approach gives you a space to discuss the latest developments, key debates, trends, and gaps focused on your research topic.

Example: Locoregional Management of Breast Cancer: A Chronological Review This chronological review discusses the evolution of locoregional management through some key clinical trials and aims to highlight important points in the time period in which the evidence was generated and emphasize the 10-year outcomes for the comparability of results. Source: SciSpace

ii) Thematic literature review

The thematic literature review is the best way to structure your literature review based on the theme or category of your research. The format of a literature review is structured in sections and sub-sections based on the observed themes or patterns in your review.

Every part stays dedicated to presenting a different aspect of your chosen topic. For example, if you’re working on a topic of climatic conditions in Nigeria, you might find themes such as monsoon climate, tropical savannah climate, and so on. Unlike the chronological approach, the primary focus here is on different aspects of a particular topic, or issue instead of the progression of certain events. Example: A Thematic Review of Current Literature Examining Evidence-Based Practices and Inclusion

This paper provides a thematic summary of current literature combining the topics of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and inclusive settings and summarizes key findings from 27 peer-reviewed articles written in English and published between 2012-2022.

Source: SciSpace

iii) Methodological literature review

The methodological approach helps you formulate the structure of a literature review based on the research methodologies used. These methodologies could be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed. You can present your literature review structure in a form by showing a comparison between crucial findings, gatherings, and outcomes from different research methods.

If you’re working on research derived from different disciplines and methodologies, this approach would be more suitable to structure your literature review. This method majorly focuses on the type of analysis method used in the research (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed).

Example: Methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: protocol and rationale

The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA, which will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs that are being updated.

iv) Theoretical literature review

Theoretical literature reviews are often used to discuss and analyze vital concepts and theories. Adopting this approach such a way that, you can significantly put forth the relevance and critical findings of a particular field or theoretical method. Proceeding in the same way, you can also outline an entirely new research framework.

Example: Theoretical Review Study: Peran Dan Fungsi Mutu Pelayanan Kesehatan Di Rumah Sakit

This paper analyzes various theories on the role and function of quality management in hospitals, where the authors investigate how the role and functions of the quality of health services in hospitals.

c) Conclusion of the literature review

The conclusion of your literature review must be focused on your key findings, and their results, and an elaborate emphasis on the significance of all aspects. Describing the research gaps and your contributions can be helpful in case you are writing a dissertation or thesis.

Moreover, you must specify the procedure and research methodology for developing the framework of your research topic. Additionally, if the relevant literature review is a standalone assignment for you, present the conclusion centered on the implications and suggestions for future references.

Lastly, you must ensure that your research paper does not lack any critical aspects and must not contain any grammatical or spelling mistakes. For this, you must proofread and edit it to perfection.

Overall, your conclusion should provide the reader with the following information:

• Provide an overview of the literature review.
• Highlight key areas for future research on the topic.
• Establish a connection between the review and your research.

Tip: Keep this checklist handy before writing your literature review!

• Outline the purpose and scope of the study
• Identify relevant and credible scholarly sources (research papers/literature)
• Use AI tools to streamline the literature review process
• Capture the bibliographical details of the sources
• Analyze and interpret the findings
• Identify research gaps in the literature
• Investigate methodologies/theories/hypotheses
• Brainstorm and research multiple standpoints
• Craft an introduction, a body, and a conclusion
• Final proofreading and all set!!

Wrapping up!

If you are working on your thesis, ensure to emphasize structuring your literature reviews and be keen in presenting it in a clear, coherent, and organized manner. The structure of a literature review is critical as it assists researchers in building upon existing knowledge, creating a theoretical framework, identifying relationships between studies, highlighting key concepts, and guiding readers through the research.

Scientific research can be made more accessible, informative, and impactful by structuring the literature review according to the different types of approaches discussed in this blog.

Frequently Asked Questions

When conducting a literature review, it's important to avoid:

1.Disorganization: Keep your review structured and coherent.

2.Lack of alignment: Ensure that your review aligns with your research objectives and questions.

3.Lack of synthesis: Connect and integrate the findings from different sources rather than presenting them in isolation.

Common challenges we encounter while organizing a literature review include:

1.Managing an exhaustive volume of scientific publications.

2.Ensuring coherence and flow between different sections.

3.Striving to maintain objectivity and relevance to your research topic.

When structuring a literature review, you should avoid including irrelevant or outdated sources, biased information, and repetitive content.

No, a literature review is typically not arranged in alphabetical order. Instead, it's usually organized thematically, chronologically, or by relevance to the research topic.

Love using SciSpace tools? Enjoy discounts! Use SR40 (40% off yearly) and SR20 (20% off monthly). Claim yours here 👉 SciSpace Premium

You might also like

AI for Meta Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

Cybersecurity in Higher Education: Safeguarding Students and Faculty Data

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Research Proposal

83 Components of the Literature Review

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal.  The following sections present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea.  After reading the introduction your reader should:

• Understand what it is you want to do;
• Have a sense of your passion for the topic;
• Be excited about the study´s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs.  Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research?  Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important, and to whom or to what are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal.  In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words.  A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation.  If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5-7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem.  While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing.  Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. As key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal and it is a key component of the research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate.  Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed.  Chapter V, “ The Literature Review ,” describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop.  As such, it is important to know how to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic.  Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review.  However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data.  For example, an unexpected finding may develop as one collects and/or analyzes the data and it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding.  This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of the authors of this textbook´s research related to community resilience.  During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall.  Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized.  This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.  Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods.  In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods.  For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider what methods have not been employed but could be.  Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

• Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.
• Specify the research operations you will undertake and he way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.
• Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually do the methods (i.e. coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research and describe how you will address these barriers.
• Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research.  For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, new theoretical understanding, or a new method for analyzing data?  How might your study influence future studies?  What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field?  Who or what may benefit from your study?  How might your study contribute to social, economic, environmental issues?  While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings.  In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation.  Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how and in what ways you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal and it provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study.  Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

• Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.
• Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.
• Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other design and methods were not chosen.
• State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,
• Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence related to the research problem.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal.  In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography.  A reference list does what the name suggests, it lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal.  All references in the reference list, must appear in the body of the research proposal.  Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …”  As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself.  Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.  In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal.  Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Literature Review

Learn what a literature review is, where it is used, and the structure it should follow, including how to refer to studies and establish themes. We provides tips on writing a literature review, such as stating your research question, selecting key terms, and finding relevant literature on your topic.

Updated on May 17, 2023

A literature review is an overview of the existing literature on a particular topic. It provides a concise summary and critical analysis of existing publications. This justifies why the study was conducted. It also helps the reader understand the topic and see areas for future research. It can be part of a manuscript’s introduction section or a required part of an academic thesis. It can also be a standalone paper, such as a narrative review.

This article discusses what a literature review is when it’s part of a research paper. It provides strategies, tools, and tips for writing a good review.

What is a literature review, and where is it used?

A literature review is an organized summary of existing literature on a topic or research question. It’s used to help readers understand what has been done before related to the topic you’re writing on.

It shows how your study fits into the literature, why your study is needed, and what novel insights your study will bring to the literature.

In that sense, a literature review justifies your work and its potential impact. Literature reviews are also valuable for other researchers, as they can overview a specific topic.

A literature review is used in academic documents, including manuscripts, theses and dissertations, and in standalone papers such as systematic reviews and narrative reviews.

In a manuscript or dissertation, the literature review is presented as background information in the introduction section. Here, it summarizes prior research on the key concepts the paper focuses on, identifies gaps in the literature, and provides context for why the current study is needed. It focuses on summarizing articles that provide specific evidence relating to the topic of the larger manuscript and is very narrowly focused.

In contrast, a standalone literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing research and literature on a specific topic. It synthesizes the current state of knowledge on the topic, identifies gaps, contradictions, and future directions for research. A literature review paper is typically longer, more comprehensive, and applies a study methodology.

What structure do literature reviews follow?

Literature reviews follow a logical structure, meaning every sentence logically leads to the next. They begin with a broad overview of the topic and then narrow down to specific research carried out on that topic in a way that builds on the previous information. Supporting studies are discussed one-by-one or they’re grouped by themes. They may or may not specifically indicate the authors by name. That depends on personal style and guidelines.

Referring to studies

For example, the literature review in Howden et al. (2018), reporting on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on fitness and heart failure, first states the overall theme: sedentary aging’s association with worsening cardiovascular health. In concise sentences, it then lists the themes along with subscript numbers of the supporting literature, e.g., “...middle age is the strongest predictor of future heart failure.5–7”. No authors are named. This may be because of the referencing style (using numbers leading to the References list, unlike, for instance, APA, which uses last names), or it may be the authors’ preference.

Tramontano et al. (2021), on remote work , lists authors’ names along with the supporting research. In some cases, the names are in parentheses (per APA style) and in other cases, (e.g., ...Gonzales Vazquez and colleagues (2019) indicated...) the names represent the study. Again, it’s a combination of referencing style and authors’ preference.

Establish themes

As the literature review progresses, you synthesize the information from the articles. Articles are grouped together by theme or evidence (i.e., supporting or contrasting), with relevant citations giving support. Typically, findings are condensed and summarized concisely (i.e., in one or a couple of sentences).

For example, if you were exploring how processed food affects heart health, articles in the literature review might be grouped into categories such as heart health in general, processed foods, and the negative effects of processed foods on general heart health. You’d then summarize the key findings for each category with relevant citations.

As such, a literature review in a manuscript is not simply a chronological list of articles and their findings. Rather, it’s a report and analysis of the existing literature. It weaves a narrative that underpins your own study.

Writing your literature review

State your research question .

The first step to writing a good literature review is stating your research question.

If you’re writing a manuscript or dissertation, you likely already know what your research question is. Be sure it’s clearly presented at the end of the introductory paragraph so the reader immediately knows what the study will be about.

Select key terms

Next, identify several key words/terms/phrases that will be used to query your search for relevant literature.

For example, if your manuscript is about the effects of processed foods on heart health, you will want to use keywords such as “cardiovascular,” “processed foods,” and “heart disease” to retrieve relevant publications.

Find relevant literature on your topic

Most researchers have a specialty or a few specialties. Reading other studies should already be part of your day-to-day practice. So it’s very unusual to start a literature review from zero. You probably already have a folder full of PDFs (or, ideally, a reference manager full of well-organized articles in digital format).

For your current research, you’ll then add further literature in more specific and specialized areas. You’ll need to update your personal library. And you may find you lack sufficient publications in a certain area of research. Your literature review will address all these issues. Methods for diving in include databases, review articles, and asking colleagues and other researchers.

Online databases

Searching with databases often requires a combination of free and paid sources.

Google Scholar is probably the most commonly known search engine for academic literature because, well, it’s Google. Type titles, keywords, authors, or other entries to find papers on your topic of interest. You don’t need to create an account, but just because a publication is listed in Scholar doesn’t mean you can access the full text. Still, its powerful search features can help you rapidly narrow your search. You can then find publications in a database for which you have a subscription.

EBSCO and ProQuest are commonly available in universities’ online libraries, and databases like PubMed are comprehensive scientific collections. Some databases are open access, while others require a subscription to fully access the articles. Hopefully, you have access through your university or institution.

There are also publisher-managed search engines and databases like ScienceDirect or Scopus , as well as Wiley Online Library . These usually require a subscription.

Elicit is an AI-based search engine. Ask a research question and find relevant literature. It also suggests questions based on your input for better results. No account is needed.

Zendy is a search engine dedicated to open access journals. It’s accessible once you create an account.

Colleagues, fellow researchers

Asking your colleagues or fellow researchers in your field can be a great resource for finding additional studies. You can also look for highly cited papers in your field or search for articles from known experts in your field.

Other literature reviews, review articles, and reference lists

Previous review papers on your topic, introduction sections of articles (which contain their own literature reviews), are reference lists of papers are all great tools for finding additional articles. Look through the reference lists of previous prior review papers to locate other relevant articles.

With this approach, you’ll find yourself diving down one rabbit hole after another. And it can get overwhelming, so scan quickly, keep notes, and use a good reference manager (see below). After a while, you’ll start to see the same publications emerge. You’ll start to recognize the seminal pieces as well as highly specific studies on limited populations.

Software and reference managers

Apps like Connected Papers can help expand your collection and ensure you’re not missing any articles. With this tool, you can search for a work and then see it visualized through other articles it references, and that referenced it. It’s shown as a network of connected papers – fantastic for visual types.

Reference managers like EndNote and Mendeley are helpful tools for organizing your papers and adding citations to your manuscript. You can download them to your computer and easily search for the information you’ve read before, saving a lot of time in the writing process. While they both require creating an account, Mendeley is free. Paperpile is an excellent lighter-weight option.

Organize your sources

When you’ve compiled sufficient publications via your literature search, extract relevant information for your research question.

Identify themes

First, identify the most relevant papers for your research question. One good approach is to read the abstract and methods sections to understand the main findings.

Narrow down your list to articles that have a research question as similar as possible to yours. Then, group them by themes or evidence. For instance, group articles showing that processed foods lead to increased rates of heart disease in one section.

Include contradictory evidence to fully cover the scope of the topic. This will help you better organize the sections for your review later.

Define your key concepts

Every good review section begins with specific definitions of the concepts the paper will focus on. They should be defined in the abstract and introduction.

Write an outline

Write an outline with subheadings representing categories or themes your review will cover. Under each theme, enter a few references or key points that reflect what you want to convey to your reader in that section.

Organize the subheadings logically so that one idea flows into the next. Don’t jump back and forth between concepts. For example, if you’re establishing a common, evidence-supported definition of heart disease, focus only on that. Bringing in other diseases will confuse the reader. If you need to compare with other diseases, that’s probably cause for another subsection.

Review previous articles on your topic and check how the authors structured their introduction section to get ideas for your outline.

For longer reviews, you can use tables to present the literature and key themes more clearly for the reader. Tables are especially useful in dedicated review papers like narrative reviews.

Write your literature review

Following your outline, expand on your notes with sentences and paragraphs, including relevant citations (see the section above for examples of how these are typically written). Use clear and concise language. Make sure all your paragraphs have a dedicated topic sentence that reflects what the rest of the paragraph is about.

Start your review broadly, then use your prior research to narrow down to why your research question is needed. For example, define what heart disease is broadly, then narrow down to how specific processed foods can impact it and what still needs to be investigated (i.e., with your study).

Review your work

After finishing your first draft, revise and refine your work. Here are some key steps.

Refine your literature review

As you write, you may need to expand sections or include more evidence. Read over your review several times and determine if it’s conveying the information you want to get across clearly and adjust accordingly.

Omit unnecessary information

In scientific communication, less is more, so avoid making your review too long. Remove unnecessary information and avoid being too wordy. As a general rule, aim for just one idea per sentence and no more than around 15–20 words per sentence.

A credible citation (or citations) should support every assertion. But it can also get tempting to follow irrelevant paths that aren’t immediately relevant to the study you’re doing now.

Professional editing can also help you refine wordiness.

Check the logical structure

Check that each section in your review relates to the main research question. Check that every paragraph transitions smoothly to the next and that the ideas flow logically from one argument to the next. Ask yourself, “Does this idea directly relate to my next idea?” (and vice versa).

Also, check for consistency and completeness. Be sure you used the same wording for key concepts throughout your review and that you included all relevant evidence for your arguments.

Check for and remove/correct plagiarism

There are many ways to plagiarize , and some authors don’t even know when they’re doing it. It can be a critical mistake.

Journals use tools such as i Thenticate to detect plagiarism. And being caught plagiarizing can be a cause for a rapid rejection . Avoid plagiarizing by ensuring you cite the original source and don’t copy/paste text unless you use quotation marks. You can check for plagiarism using apps like Grammarly or Trinka , which can also help you improve your writing style and correct grammar mistakes.

Get outside perspectives

Ask a senior researcher or colleague to read your work and provide feedback or criticism. Ask junior researchers as well. Put your ego on the line for the good of rigorous science. Often, those with less experience may be able to see the more basic gaps in logic and clarity, as they bring a less honed and specialized perspective.

Check that you’ve included all references in the format required by the journal (e.g., APA, Vancouver, AMA). Use tools like Mendeley and EndNote to automatically generate a bibliography section based on the references you enter in your document. But do double-check what the software generates. It may be relying on incorrect metadata.

Good example of a literature review in a published article

Good literature reviews should be clear, concise, and informative. They should present enough information on the topic that you can understand the importance of the topic, the relevance of the literature included for the broader field, and what’s still missing from the literature (i.e., where further research is needed).

Here’s a good example:

Heart issues, sedentary lifestyle, exercise (from Howden et al. 2018)

Readable and well-structured, this review quickly highlights the negative relationship between a sedentary lifestyle and heart issues. It concisely reviews previous literature showing the relationship between exercise and heart health, so the reader understands why the study is needed.

Bonus: What’s the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography?

An annotated bibliography is a list of references with a brief summary of the results of that reference. It can also include your personal notes on the study and why it’s relevant to your study.

Especially for students, a literature review can be confused with an annotated bibliography. Both these devices detail existing studies. However, they perform quite different functions.

Annotated bibliographies are powerful when you’re writing a dissertation or any longer research piece, as they help you keep track of everything you’ve read and why it’s relevant. You may not publish it, but you can definitely use it when you write your literature review.

So, the key differences between an annotated bibliography are:

• An annotated bibliography is a list of references with no connection established among them, while a literature review is a narrative of all the studies.
• Annotated bibliographies are organized alphabetically by reference, whereas literature reviews are organized by themes or supporting or contrasting evidence. 
• Annotated bibliographies summarize (in a few sentences) each reference, while literature reviews place the publication in context along with other publications.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content, word choice problems: how to use the right..., how to avoid plagiarism when using generative ai..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid..., how to write an essay introduction (with examples)....

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

A Survival Guide for Research Scientists pp 27–34 Cite as

Literature Review

• Ratna Tantra 2  
• First Online: 01 September 2019

1189 Accesses

Doing a literature review is an integral part of research and yet it can be a daunting process. In this chapter, I will give you practical guidelines on how to conduct an effective literature review. Overall, the process can be divided into five main steps:

Come up with a statement of purpose, to establish why you need to do the review in the first place.

Come up with key words, so that you can plug these into search engines or scientific databases, to identify relevant papers.

Manage your search (through the use of a suitable reference software) and order your papers. The reference software will help you keep track on what literature you have, as well as allow you to cite them with ease when you write papers.

Read the papers and extract the information that you want.

Adopt an effective way to absorb information from your reading material, such as the use of a spider diagram in order to condense the information. Such a diagram will enable you to see connections between ideas/sub-ideas from different papers more clearly.

• Statement of purpose
• Reference software
• Spider diagram

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Md Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9 (5), 18–26.

Google Scholar  

College Library Services CSN. (n.d.). Databases vs. Search Engines: What’s the Difference? Retrieved January 8, 2018 from https://www.csn.edu/sites/default/files/legacy/PDFFiles/Library/dbasesearch3.pdf .

Durbin, C. G. (2009). How to read a scientific research paper. Respiratory Care, 54 , 1366–1371.

Espacenet - Home page. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ .

European Patent Office, & European Commission. (2007). Why researchers should care about patents . European Commission, (pp. 1–8). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/patents_for_researchers.pdf .

Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Google Patents. (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2018, from https://patents.google.com/ .

Khare, R., Leaman, R., & Lu, Z. (2014). Accessing biomedical literature in the current information landscape. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, N.J.), 1159 , 11–31.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kramer, D. (2005). How to read a patent. ASHRAE Journal, 47 (5), 90–92.

O’Leary, Z. (2005). Researching real-world problems: A guide to methods of inquiry . Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Shah, P. (1998). Successful study: The essential skills . Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Tantra, R., Brown, R. J. C., Milton, M. J. T., & Gohil, D. (2008). A practical method to fabricate gold substrates for surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Applied Spectroscopy, 62 (9), 992–1000.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections. (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2018, from https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Portsmouth, UK

Ratna Tantra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Tantra, R. (2019). Literature Review. In: A Survival Guide for Research Scientists. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05435-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05435-9_3

Published : 01 September 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-05434-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-05435-9

eBook Packages : Chemistry and Materials Science Chemistry and Material Science (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

When you need an introduction for a literature review, what to include in a literature review introduction, examples of literature review introductions, steps to write your own literature review introduction.

A literature review is a comprehensive examination of the international academic literature concerning a particular topic. It involves summarizing published works, theories, and concepts while also highlighting gaps and offering critical reflections.

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

Instead, you should always offer some form of introduction to orient the reader and clarify what they can expect.

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

• Academic literature review papers: When your literature review constitutes the entirety of an academic review paper, a more substantial introduction is necessary. This introduction should resemble the standard introduction found in regular academic papers.
• Literature review section in an academic paper or essay: While this section tends to be brief, it’s important to precede the detailed literature review with a few introductory sentences. This helps orient the reader before delving into the literature itself.
• Literature review chapter or section in your thesis/dissertation: Every thesis and dissertation includes a literature review component, which also requires a concise introduction to set the stage for the subsequent review.

You may also like: How to write a fantastic thesis introduction (+15 examples)

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Here’s a structured breakdown based on length and the necessary information:

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

• The research problem: Clearly articulate the problem or question that your literature review aims to address.
• The research gap: Highlight the existing gaps, limitations, or unresolved aspects within the current body of literature related to the research problem.
• The research relevance: Explain why the chosen research problem and its subsequent investigation through a literature review are significant and relevant in your academic field.
• The literature review method: If applicable, describe the methodology employed in your literature review, especially if it is a systematic review or follows a specific research framework.
• The main findings or insights of the literature review: Summarize the key discoveries, insights, or trends that have emerged from your comprehensive review of the literature.
• The main argument of the literature review: Conclude the introduction by outlining the primary argument or statement that your literature review will substantiate, linking it to the research problem and relevance you’ve established.
• Preview of the literature review’s structure: Offer a glimpse into the organization of the literature review paper, acting as a guide for the reader. This overview outlines the subsequent sections of the paper and provides an understanding of what to anticipate.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will provide a clear and structured overview of what readers can expect in your literature review paper.

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

Most academic articles or essays incorporate regular literature review sections, often placed after the introduction. These sections serve to establish a scholarly basis for the research or discussion within the paper.

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

• An introduction to the topic: When delving into the academic literature on a specific topic, it’s important to provide a smooth transition that aids the reader in comprehending why certain aspects will be discussed within your literature review.
• The core argument: While literature review sections primarily synthesize the work of other scholars, they should consistently connect to your central argument. This central argument serves as the crux of your message or the key takeaway you want your readers to retain. By positioning it at the outset of the literature review section and systematically substantiating it with evidence, you not only enhance reader comprehension but also elevate overall readability. This primary argument can typically be distilled into 1-2 succinct sentences.

In some cases, you might include:

• Methodology: Details about the methodology used, but only if your literature review employed a specialized method. If your approach involved a broader overview without a systematic methodology, you can omit this section, thereby conserving word count.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will effectively integrate your literature review into the broader context of your academic paper or essay. This will, in turn, assist your reader in seamlessly following your overarching line of argumentation.

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

The literature review typically constitutes a distinct chapter within a thesis or dissertation. Often, it is Chapter 2 of a thesis or dissertation.

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

• Purpose of the literature review and its relevance to the thesis/dissertation research: Explain the broader objectives of the literature review within the context of your research and how it contributes to your thesis or dissertation. Essentially, you’re telling the reader why this literature review is important and how it fits into the larger scope of your academic work.
• Primary argument: Succinctly communicate what you aim to prove, explain, or explore through the review of existing literature. This statement helps guide the reader’s understanding of the review’s purpose and what to expect from it.
• Preview of the literature review’s content: Provide a brief overview of the topics or themes that your literature review will cover. It’s like a roadmap for the reader, outlining the main areas of focus within the review. This preview can help the reader anticipate the structure and organization of your literature review.
• Methodology: If your literature review involved a specific research method, such as a systematic review or meta-analysis, you should briefly describe that methodology. However, this is not always necessary, especially if your literature review is more of a narrative synthesis without a distinct research method.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will empower your literature review to play a pivotal role in your thesis or dissertation research. It will accomplish this by integrating your research into the broader academic literature and providing a solid theoretical foundation for your work.

Comprehending the art of crafting your own literature review introduction becomes significantly more accessible when you have concrete examples to examine. Here, you will find several examples that meet, or in most cases, adhere to the criteria described earlier.

Example 1: An effective introduction for an academic literature review paper

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

The entire introduction spans 611 words and is divided into five paragraphs. In this introduction, the authors accomplish the following:

• In the first paragraph, the authors introduce the broader topic of the literature review, which focuses on innovation and its significance in the context of economic competition. They underscore the importance of this topic, highlighting its relevance for both researchers and policymakers.
• In the second paragraph, the authors narrow down their focus to emphasize the specific role of culture in relation to innovation.
• In the third paragraph, the authors identify research gaps, noting that existing studies are often fragmented and disconnected. They then emphasize the value of conducting a systematic literature review to enhance our understanding of the topic.
• In the fourth paragraph, the authors introduce their specific objectives and explain how their insights can benefit other researchers and business practitioners.
• In the fifth and final paragraph, the authors provide an overview of the paper’s organization and structure.

In summary, this introduction stands as a solid example. While the authors deviate from previewing their key findings (which is a common practice at least in the social sciences), they do effectively cover all the other previously mentioned points.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

The paper begins with a general introduction and then proceeds to the literature review, designated by the authors as their conceptual framework. Of particular interest is the first paragraph of this conceptual framework, comprising 142 words across five sentences:

“ A peripheral and marginalised nationality within a multinational though-Persian dominated Iranian society, the Kurdish people of Iranian Kurdistan (a region referred by the Kurds as Rojhelat/Eastern Kurdi-stan) have since the early twentieth century been subject to multifaceted and systematic discriminatory and exclusionary state policy in Iran. This condition has left a population of 12–15 million Kurds in Iran suffering from structural inequalities, disenfranchisement and deprivation. Mismanagement of Kurdistan’s natural resources and the degradation of its natural environmental are among examples of this disenfranchisement. As asserted by Julian Agyeman (2005), structural inequalities that sustain the domination of political and economic elites often simultaneously result in environmental degradation, injustice and discrimination against subaltern communities. This study argues that the environmental struggle in Eastern Kurdistan can be asserted as a (sub)element of the Kurdish liberation movement in Iran. Conceptually this research is inspired by and has been conducted through the lens of ‘subalternity’ ” ( Hassaniyan, 2021, p. 931 ).

In this first paragraph, the author is doing the following:

• The author contextualises the research
• The author links the research focus to the international literature on structural inequalities
• The author clearly presents the argument of the research
• The author clarifies how the research is inspired by and uses the concept of ‘subalternity’.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

While introductions to a literature review section aren’t always required to offer the same level of study context detail as demonstrated here, this introduction serves as a commendable model for orienting the reader within the literature review. It effectively underscores the literature review’s significance within the context of the study being conducted.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

The introduction to a literature review chapter can vary in length, depending largely on the overall length of the literature review chapter itself. For example, a master’s thesis typically features a more concise literature review, thus necessitating a shorter introduction. In contrast, a Ph.D. thesis, with its more extensive literature review, often includes a more detailed introduction.

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

The first example is “Benchmarking Asymmetrical Heating Models of Spider Pulsar Companions” by P. Sun, a master’s thesis completed at the University of Manchester on January 9, 2024. The author, P. Sun, introduces the literature review chapter very briefly but effectively:

PhD thesis literature review chapter introduction

The second example is Deep Learning on Semi-Structured Data and its Applications to Video-Game AI, Woof, W. (Author). 31 Dec 2020, a PhD thesis completed at the University of Manchester . In Chapter 2, the author offers a comprehensive introduction to the topic in four paragraphs, with the final paragraph serving as an overview of the chapter’s structure:

PhD thesis literature review introduction

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Having absorbed all of this information, let’s recap the essential steps and offer a succinct guide on how to proceed with creating your literature review introduction:

• Contextualize your review : Begin by clearly identifying the academic context in which your literature review resides and determining the necessary information to include.
• Outline your structure : Develop a structured outline for your literature review, highlighting the essential information you plan to incorporate in your introduction.
• Literature review process : Conduct a rigorous literature review, reviewing and analyzing relevant sources.
• Summarize and abstract : After completing the review, synthesize the findings and abstract key insights, trends, and knowledge gaps from the literature.
• Craft the introduction : Write your literature review introduction with meticulous attention to the seamless integration of your review into the larger context of your work. Ensure that your introduction effectively elucidates your rationale for the chosen review topics and the underlying reasons guiding your selection.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

The best answers to "What are your plans for the future?"

10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles.

How to peer review an academic paper

PhD thesis types: Monograph and collection of articles

How to disagree with reviewers (with examples!)

How to introduce yourself in a conference presentation (in six simple steps)

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

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:

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

Article Contents

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

• < Previous

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

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

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

• Permissions Icon Permissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Claims in the Administrative Burden Literature.

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

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

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

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

Eligibility Criteria

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

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

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

Overview of Eligibility Criteria

Literature Search

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

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

Selection Process.

Coding Strategy

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

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

Citation Analysis

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

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

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

Methodological Characteristics

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

Publication Timeline.

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

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

Methodological Characteristics of Empirical Studies.

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

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

Extended Model of Causal Claims.

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

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

Number of Papers Studying Each Causal Relationship

Arrow 1: Formal Policy Design → Experiences of Burden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrow 2: Informal Policy Design → Experiences of Burden

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

Frontline Service Delivery

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

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

Government Communication

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

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

Arrow 3: Distributive Effects

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

Citizen Factors

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

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

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

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

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

State Characteristics

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

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

Arrow 4: Experiences of Burden → Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrow 6: The Relationship Between Burden Tolerance and State Actions

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

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

Arrow 7: Factors Shaping Burden Tolerance and State Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Evidence Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Questions to Pursue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Preview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

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

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2022

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

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

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

17k Accesses

40 Citations

65 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Plain English Summary

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychiatric comorbidities

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

Anxiety disorders

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

Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD)

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

Social anxiety

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

Obsessive–compulsive disorder

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

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

Mood disorders

Depression and major depressive disorder (mdd).

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

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

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

Bipolar disorders

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

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

Personality disorders

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

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

Substance use disorders

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

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

Psychosis and schizophrenia

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

Body dysmorphic disorder

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

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

Neurodevelopmental disorders

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

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

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

Autism spectrum disorder

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

Post traumatic stress disorder

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

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

Suicidality

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

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

Anorexia nervosa

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

Bulimia nervosa

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

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

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

Binge eating disorder

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

Non-suicidal self injury

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

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

Medical comorbidities

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

Cardiovascular complications

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

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

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

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

Gastrointestinal disorders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bone health

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

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

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

Refeeding syndrome

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

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

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

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

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

Metabolic syndrome

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

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

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

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

Oral health

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

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

Vitamin deficiencies

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

Cognitive functioning

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

Reproductive health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable—all citations provided.

Abbreviations

Anorexia nervosa—restricting type

Anorexia nervosa—binge-purge type

Avoidant restrictive food intake disorder

Body mass index

Borderline personality disorder

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition

Eating disorder

Generalised anxiety disorder

International classification of diseases, 11th edition

Major depressive disorder

Night eating syndrome

Other specified feeding or eating disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Rapid review

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

Virginia Commonwealth University. Rapid review protocol. 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Ashlea Hambleton, Danielle Maloney, Stephen Touyz & Sarah Maguire

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

Genevieve Pepin

Healthcare Management Advisors, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

Danielle Maloney, Stephen Touyz & Sarah Maguire

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

National Eating Disorder Research Consortium

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

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashlea Hambleton .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

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

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA diagram.

Additional file 2.

Studies included in the Rapid Review.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2022

Accepted : 15 August 2022

Published : 05 September 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Psychiatric
• Comorbidities
• Eating disorders

Journal of Eating Disorders

ISSN: 2050-2974

• General enquiries: [email protected]

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Beyond audiovisual: novel multisensory stimulation techniques and their applications

Audio-Visual-Olfactory Immersive Digital Nature Exposure for Stress and Anxiety Reduction: A Systematic Review on Systems, Outcomes, and Challenges Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Canada

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Evidence supporting the benefits of immersive virtual reality (VR) and exposure to nature for the well-being of individuals is steadily growing. So-called digital forest bathing experiences take advantage of the immersiveness of VR to make individuals feel like they are immersed in nature, which has led to documented improvements in mental health. The majority of existing studies have relied on conventional VR experiences, which stimulate only two senses: auditory and visual. However, the principle behind forest bathing is to have one stimulate all of their senses to be completely immersed in nature. As recent advances in olfactory technologies have emerged, multisensory immersive experiences which stimulate more than two senses may provide additional benefits. In this systematic literature review, we investigate the multisensory digital nature setups used and their psychological and psychophysiological outcomes; particular focus is placed on the inclusion of smells as the third sensory modality. We searched papers published between 2016 and April 2023 on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore. Results from our quality assessment revealed that the majority of studies (twelve) were of medium or high quality, while two were classified as low quality. Overall, the findings from the reviewed studies indicate a positive effect of including smells to digital nature experiences, with outcomes often comparable to conventional exposure to natural environments.The review concludes with a discussion of limitations observed in the examined studies and proposes recommendations for future research in this domain.

Keywords: virtual reality, natural environment, Olfactory stimuli, Multisensory virtual reality, Psychological outcome, Psychophysiological outcome, stress/anxiety, Relaxation

Received: 03 Jul 2023; Accepted: 08 Apr 2024.

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

* Correspondence: Mx. Marilia Lopes, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Quebec City, Canada Dr. Tiago H. Falk, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université du Québec, Quebec City, Canada

People also looked at