Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / How to Get From a Literature Review to Variables Methodology

How to Get From a Literature Review to Variables Methodology

9.1. Introduction

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

Literature reviews tin have two major forms. The most prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" department within a periodical newspaper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). Information technology may besides provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed written report, substantiate the presence of the enquiry problem, justify the research every bit one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed written report (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

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

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

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth noesis base of operations; (c) to illustrate each review blazon with one or 2 examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015), in that location are half dozen generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

  1. formulating the enquiry question(s) and objective(s),

  2. searching the extant literature,

  3. screening for inclusion,

  4. assessing the quality of primary studies,

  5. extracting information, and

  6. analyzing data.

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

Formulating the enquiry question(s) and objective(south): As a offset footstep, members of the review team must accordingly justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), place the review'due south master objective(s) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they as well demand to articulate the research question(s) they suggest to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, nosotros concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are primal ingredients that guide the unabridged review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and option of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis.

Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions well-nigh the suitability of material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There exist three chief coverage strategies. Showtime, exhaustive coverage means an endeavour is made to be as comprehensive as possible in lodge to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of well-nigh other works in a given field or surface area. Ofttimes authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant manufactures in a small number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the tertiary strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that accept been key or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The post-obit step consists of evaluating the applicability of the cloth identified in the preceding stride (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). One time a grouping of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This practice requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avert biases or mistakes. Every bit discussed afterward in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least ii contained reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a process to resolve disagreements must also be in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may demand to appraise the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal cess, which is unremarkably conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the last sample, determine whether or non the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each main study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or accept not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

Extracting information: The post-obit stride involves gathering or extracting applicable data from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). Notwithstanding, important information may too be gathered virtually how, when, where and past whom the principal study was conducted, the research pattern and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results (Cooper & Hedges, 2009).

Analyzing and synthesizing data: Every bit a concluding pace, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must exist presented in a meaningful manner that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature (Jesson et al., 2011). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. In that location exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (due east.one thousand., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (eastward.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

nine.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.i. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" mode of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put just, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team often undertakes the job of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attending paid to sure studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of data from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin can atomic number 82 to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured arroyo (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a book of literature in a specific bailiwick area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its master purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current noesis and highlighting the significance of new inquiry (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to utilize narrative reviews in the classroom considering they are ofttimes more upwards to engagement than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Dark-green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews tin inspire research ideas past identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of cognition, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Chiefly, narrative reviews can also be used equally educational manufactures to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues (Light-green et al., 2006).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more than rigour in narrative reviews that volition elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, amidst others, take contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a "traditional" review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each pace of the review procedure. Equally some other methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a serial of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Final, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to place primary studies within a feasible telescopic, extract relevant content from identified manufactures, synthesize and clarify the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources earlier embarking on their work.

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

An case of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered past DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical information science literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical information science citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical information science articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average almanac growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over fourth dimension with 2 notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to narrate the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest information technology may exist a maturing subject field (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.three. Scoping Reviews

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

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole betoken of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the enquiry questions. It is also recommended that at least 2 independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the total articles for written report selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized show from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

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

9.three.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

Systematic reviews try to amass, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical show that come across a prepare of previously specified eligibility criteria in social club to answer a clearly formulated and ofttimes narrow research question on a particular topic of involvement to support evidence-based do (Liberati et al., 2009). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Greenish, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The utilize of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large torso of inquiry testify, assess whether effects or relationships are in the aforementioned management and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies betwixt study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every effect of involvement based on the quality of included studies and the full general consistency among them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

  1. Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).

  2. Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.

  3. Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing adventure of bias in a indistinguishable manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.

  4. Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.

  5. Presenting results in summary of findings tables.

  6. Interpreting results and cartoon conclusions.

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

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

Meta-analyses are regarded every bit powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Even so, at that place are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor advisable to puddle studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can apply qualitative synthesis methods such equally vote counting, content analysis, nomenclature schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This grade of review is known equally qualitative systematic review.

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new arroyo for synthesizing cognition that seeks to unpack the machinery of how "complex interventions" work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it nearly this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative prove. As a theory-edifice approach, a realist review normally starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available show to notice out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Principal studies found in the extant literature are viewed equally instance studies which can test and change the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to wellness service commitment and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, nearly importantly, how variations in outcomes can exist explained. The enquiry team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to place means in which patient portals may contribute to health service commitment and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the enquiry team selected the manufactures using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-pace process. The authors so extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, 1 for each event category. They organized data to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.vi. Disquisitional Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a detail topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important problems with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Different other review types, critical reviews attempt to have a cogitating business relationship of the inquiry that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisement instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars virtually the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen noesis development by giving focus and management to studies for further comeback (Kirkevold, 1997).

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

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the primary types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the primary characteristics that distinguish one review blazon from another. Information technology besides includes fundamental references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that tin be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Table ix.one

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

As shown in Table nine.1, each review type addresses different kinds of inquiry questions or objectives, which afterwards define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Green et al., 2006). Researchers are often relatively complimentary to use a multifariousness of approaches to search, place, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized past their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the assay and synthesis procedure (Higgins & Dark-green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.chiliad., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior enquiry (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the well-nigh appropriate blazon of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the enquiry synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.five. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

References

  • Ammenwerth Eastward., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Computer science. 2004;44(ane):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]

  • Anderson South., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Request the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Enquiry Policy and Systems. 2008;6(7):1–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]

  • Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.East. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Computer science Association. 2011;xviii(4):515–522. [PMC costless article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]

  • Arksey H., O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Periodical of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.

  • A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Briefing on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.

  • Baumeister R. F., Leary 1000.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(3):311–320.

  • Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Light-green Due south., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.

  • Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.

  • Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Register of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]

  • Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of enquiry synthesis and meta-analysis. second ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Inquiry synthesis as a scientific process; pp. iii–17.

  • Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Gild. 1988;1(i):104–126.

  • Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan Grand. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step arroyo. British Periodical of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]

  • Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient cocky-management: A review. Health Information science Periodical. 2015 (online before impress). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]

  • Daudt H. K., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:48. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]

  • Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(iii-4):365–378.

  • Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green Due south., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.

  • Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.Thou. Publication trends in the medical computer science literature: twenty years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Computer science and Decision Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC costless article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]

  • Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative prove: a review of possible methods. Journal of Wellness Services Research and Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]

  • Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson Eastward.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Avant-garde Nursing. 2013;69(one):194–204. [PMC gratuitous commodity: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]

  • Grady B., Myers K. 1000., Nelson E. Fifty., Belz N., Bennett 50., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Testify-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and Eastward Health. 2011;17(2):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]

  • Greenish B. North., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the merchandise. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;v(3):101–117. [PMC free article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]

  • Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp Thou., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC free article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]

  • Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Motorcar J. Mobile telephone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC free commodity: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]

  • Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.

  • Higgins J. P. T., Dark-green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.

  • Jesson J., Matheson 50., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.

  • King W. R., He J. Understanding the office and methods of meta-assay in IS inquiry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16:ane.

  • Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing inquiry — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing exercise. Journal of Avant-garde Nursing. 1997;25(v):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]

  • Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Study Version 2.three. Keele & Durham. uk: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.

  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of dwelling house telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Periodical of Medical Internet Research. 2013;xv(vii):e150. [PMC gratis article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]

  • Kitsiou Due south., Paré K., Jaana Thou. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Net Research. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]

  • Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems arroyo to conduct an effective literature review in support of data systems research. Informing Science. 2006;ix:181–211.

  • Liberati A., Altman D. One thousand., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Caption and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]

  • Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy G. B., Fischer G. Southward. et al. McTigue Thou. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]

  • Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Conclusion Making. 2014;14:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]

  • Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]

  • Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. Fifty., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cantankerous-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:ii. [PMC free article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]

  • Mulrow C. D. The medical review commodity: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]

  • Okoli C., Schabram G. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of data systems research. ssrn Electronic Periodical. 2010

  • Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. One thousand., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are accomplished through patient portals: a realist review. Periodical of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC free article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]

  • Paré K., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems cognition: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(two):183–199.

  • Patsopoulos North. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative commendation impact of various written report designs in the health sciences. Periodical of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(nineteen):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]

  • Paul Grand. G., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. East., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch Grand.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Wellness Management. 2015;18(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]

  • Pawson R. Show-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.

  • Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey Chiliad., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;ten(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]

  • Petersen G., Vakkalanka South., Kuzniarz Fifty. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Applied science. 2015;64:one–xviii.

  • Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.

  • Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Prove in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's total weight of scientific noesis through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008;2(1):475–515.

  • Rowe F. What literature review is non: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.

  • Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells 1000. A., Bouter L. Yard., Kristjansson East., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(ten):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]

  • Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus South., Clarke M., Eccles 1000. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can nosotros systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8):e1000086. [PMC free article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]

  • Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-wellness: A review of current land in 2015. Periodical of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]

  • Smith Five., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11(1):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]

  • Sylvester A., Tate K., Johnstone D. Across synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & It. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.

  • Templier Thou., Paré K. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Data Systems. 2015;37(half-dozen):112–137.

  • Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative enquiry in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008;eight(1):45. [PMC gratis article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]

  • Reconstructing the behemothic: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Newspaper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italia. 2009.

  • Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to set for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(2):11.

  • Whitlock Eastward. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson Grand.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

spaffordforrind.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/