why is related literature important in research

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which 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.

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].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded 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 to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

PUB - Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient) for drug development

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

PUB - Health Economics of Data Modeling

Health economics in clinical trials

Comments are closed.

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
• Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
• v.35(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

Department of Dermatology, K J Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

In an era of information overload, it is important to know how to obtain the required information and also to ensure that it is reliable information. Hence, it is essential to understand how to perform a systematic literature search. This article focuses on reliable literature sources and how to make optimum use of these in dermatology and venereology.

INTRODUCTION

A thorough review of literature is not only essential for selecting research topics, but also enables the right applicability of a research project. Most importantly, a good literature search is the cornerstone of practice of evidence based medicine. Today, everything is available at the click of a mouse or at the tip of the fingertips (or the stylus). Google is often the Go-To search website, the supposed answer to all questions in the universe. However, the deluge of information available comes with its own set of problems; how much of it is actually reliable information? How much are the search results that the search string threw up actually relevant? Did we actually find what we were looking for? Lack of a systematic approach can lead to a literature review ending up as a time-consuming and at times frustrating process. Hence, whether it is for research projects, theses/dissertations, case studies/reports or mere wish to obtain information; knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to look, is of prime importance today.

Literature search

Fink has defined research literature review as a “systematic, explicit and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners.”[ 1 ]

Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) Selecting your sources (iii) Choosing search terms (iv) Running your search (v) Applying practical screening criteria (vi) Applying methodological screening criteria/quality appraisal (vii) Synthesizing the results.[ 1 ]

This article will primarily concentrate on refining techniques of literature search.

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

PubMed is currently the most widely used among these as it contains over 23 million citations for biomedical literature and has been made available free by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the availability of free full text articles depends on the sources. Use of options such as advanced search, medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, free full text, PubMed tutorials, and single citation matcher makes the database extremely user-friendly [ Figure 1 ]. It can also be accessed on the go through mobiles using “PubMed Mobile.” One can also create own account in NCBI to save searches and to use certain PubMed tools.

PubMed home page showing location of different tools which can be used for an efficient literature search

Tips for efficient use of PubMed search:[ 2 , 3 , 4 ]

Use of field and Boolean operators

When one searches using key words, all articles containing the words show up, many of which may not be related to the topic. Hence, the use of operators while searching makes the search more specific and less cumbersome. Operators are of two types: Field operators and Boolean operators, the latter enabling us to combine more than one concept, thereby making the search highly accurate. A few key operators that can be used in PubMed are shown in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 and illustrated in Figures ​ Figures2 2 and ​ and3 3 .

Field operators used in PubMed search

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

PubMed search results page showing articles on donovanosis using the field operator [TIAB]; it shows all articles which have the keyword “donovanosis” in either title or abstract of the article

PubMed search using Boolean operators ‘AND’, ‘NOT’; To search for articles on treatment of lepra reaction other than steroids, after clicking the option ‘Advanced search’ on the home page, one can build the search using ‘AND’ option for treatment and ‘NOT’ option for steroids to omit articles on steroid treatment in lepra reaction

Use of medical subject headings terms

These are very specific and standardized terms used by indexers to describe every article in PubMed and are added to the record of every article. A search using MeSH will show all articles about the topic (or keywords), but will not show articles only containing these keywords (these articles may be about an entirely different topic, but still may contain your keywords in another context in any part of the article). This will make your search more specific. Within the topic, specific subheadings can be added to the search builder to refine your search [ Figure 4 ]. For example, MeSH terms for treatment are therapy and therapeutics.

PubMed search using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for management of gonorrhea. Click on MeSH database ( Figure 1 ) →In the MeSH search box type gonorrhea and click search. Under the MeSH term gonorrhea, there will be a list of subheadings; therapy, prevention and control, click the relevant check boxes and add to search builder →Click on search →All articles on therapy, prevention and control of gonorrhea will be displayed. Below the subheadings, there are two options: (1) Restrict to medical subject headings (MeSH) major topic and (2) do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. These can be used to further refine the search results so that only articles which are majorly about treatment of gonorrhea will be displayed

Two additional options can be used to further refine MeSH searches. These are located below the subheadings for a MeSH term: (1) Restrict to MeSH major topic; checking this box will retrieve articles which are majorly about the search term and are therefore, more focused and (2) Do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. This option will again give you more focused articles as it excludes the lower specific terms [ Figure 4 ].

Similar feature is available with Cochrane library (also called MeSH), EMBASE (known as EMTREE) and PsycINFO (Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms).

Saving your searches

Any search that one has performed can be saved by using the ‘Send to’ option and can be saved as a simple word file [ Figure 5 ]. Alternatively, the ‘Save Search’ button (just below the search box) can be used. However, it is essential to set up an NCBI account and log in to NCBI for this. One can even choose to have E-mail updates of new articles in the topic of interest.

Saving PubMed searches. A simple option is to click on the dropdown box next to ‘Send to’ option and then choose among the options. It can be saved as a text or word file by choosing ‘File’ option. Another option is the “Save search” option below the search box but this will require logging into your National Center for Biotechnology Information account. This however allows you to set up alerts for E-mail updates for new articles

Single citation matcher

This is another important tool that helps to find the genuine original source of a particular research work (when few details are known about the title/author/publication date/place/journal) and cite the reference in the most correct manner [ Figure 6 ].

Single citation matcher: Click on “Single citation matcher” on PubMed Home page. Type available details of the required reference in the boxes to get the required citation

Full text articles

In any search clicking on the link “free full text” (if present) gives you free access to the article. In some instances, though the published article may not be available free, the author manuscript may be available free of charge. Furthermore, PubMed Central articles are available free of charge.

Managing filters

Filters can be used to refine a search according to type of article required or subjects of research. One can specify the type of article required such as clinical trial, reviews, free full text; these options are available on a typical search results page. Further specialized filters are available under “manage filters:” e.g., articles confined to certain age groups (properties option), “Links” to other databases, article specific to particular journals, etc. However, one needs to have an NCBI account and log in to access this option [ Figure 7 ].

Managing filters. Simple filters are available on the ‘search results’ page. One can choose type of article, e.g., clinical trial, reviews etc. Further options are available in the “Manage filters” option, but this requires logging into National Center for Biotechnology Information account

The Cochrane library

Although reviews are available in PubMed, for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Cochrane library is a much better resource. The Cochrane library is a collection of full length systematic reviews, which can be accessed for free in India, thanks to Indian Council of Medical Research renewing the license up to 2016, benefitting users all over India. It is immensely helpful in finding detailed high quality research work done in a particular field/topic [ Figure 8 ].

Cochrane library is a useful resource for reliable, systematic reviews. One can choose the type of reviews required, including trials

An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a broad range of potentially useful studies. Examples: Date of publication (last 5 years only; gives you most recent updates), participants or subjects (humans above 18 years), publication language (English only) (2) methodological: To identify best available studies (for example, excluding studies not involving control group or studies with only randomized control trials).

Selecting the right quality of literature is the key to successful research literature review. The quality can be estimated by what is known as “The Evidence Pyramid.” The level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools are depicted in Figure 9 . Systematic reviews obtained from Cochrane library constitute level 1 evidence.

Evidence pyramid: Depicting the level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools

Thus, a systematic literature review can help not only in setting up the basis of a good research with optimal use of available information, but also in practice of evidence-based medicine.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Strategies to Find Sources

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Strategies to Find Sources

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

The Research Process

Planning : Before searching for articles or books, brainstorm to develop keywords that better describe your research question.

Searching : While searching, take note of what other keywords are used to describe your topic, and use them to conduct additional searches

     ♠ Most articles include a keyword section

     ♠ Key concepts may change names throughout time so make sure to check for variations

Organizing : Start organizing your results by categories/key concepts or any organizing principle that make sense for you . This will help you later when you are ready to analyze your findings

Analyzing : While reading, start making notes of key concepts and commonalities and disagreement among the research articles you find.

♠ Create a spreadsheet  to record what articles you are finding useful and why.

♠ Create fields to write summaries of articles or quotes for future citing and paraphrasing .

Writing : Synthesize your findings. Use your own voice to explain to your readers what you learned about the literature on your topic. What are its weaknesses and strengths? What is missing or ignored?

Repeat : At any given time of the process, you can go back to a previous step as necessary.

Advanced Searching

All databases have Help pages that explain the best way to search their product. When doing literature reviews, you will want to take advantage of these features since they can facilitate not only finding the articles that you really need but also controlling the number of results and how relevant they are for your search. The most common features available in the advanced search option of databases and library online catalogs are:

• Boolean Searching (AND, OR, NOT): Allows you to connect search terms in a way that can either limit or expand your search results 
• Proximity Searching (N/# or W/#): Allows you to search for two or more words that occur within a specified number of words (or fewer) of each other in the database
• Limiters/Filters : These are options that let you control what type of document you want to search: article type, date, language, publication, etc.
• Question mark (?) or a pound sign (#) for wildcard: Used for retrieving alternate spellings of a word: colo?r will retrieve both the American spelling "color" as well as the British spelling "colour." 
• Asterisk (*) for truncation: Used for retrieving multiple forms of a word: comput* retrieves computer, computers, computing, etc.

Want to keep track of updates to your searches? Create an account in the database to receive an alert when a new article is published that meets your search parameters!

• EBSCOhost Advanced Search Tutorial Tips for searching a platform that hosts many library databases
• Library's General Search Tips Check the Search tips to better used our library catalog and articles search system
• ProQuest Database Search Tips Tips for searching another platform that hosts library databases

There is no magic number regarding how many sources you are going to need for your literature review; it all depends on the topic and what type of the literature review you are doing:

► Are you working on an emerging topic? You are not likely to find many sources, which is good because you are trying to prove that this is a topic that needs more research. But, it is not enough to say that you found few or no articles on your topic in your field. You need to look broadly to other disciplines (also known as triangulation ) to see if your research topic has been studied from other perspectives as a way to validate the uniqueness of your research question.

► Are you working on something that has been studied extensively? Then you are going to find many sources and you will want to limit how far back you want to look. Use limiters to eliminate research that may be dated and opt to search for resources published within the last 5-10 years.

• << Previous: How to Pick a Topic
• Next: Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

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 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.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

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

5 Reasons the Literature Review Is Crucial to Your Paper

3-minute read

• 8th November 2016

People often treat writing the literature review in an academic paper as a formality. Usually, this means simply listing various studies vaguely related to their work and leaving it at that.

But this overlooks how important the literature review is to a well-written experimental report or research paper. As such, we thought we’d take a moment to go over what a literature review should do and why you should give it the attention it deserves.

What Is a Literature Review?

Common in the social and physical sciences, but also sometimes required in the humanities, a literature review is a summary of past research in your subject area.

Sometimes this is a standalone investigation of how an idea or field of inquiry has developed over time. However, more usually it’s the part of an academic paper, thesis or dissertation that sets out the background against which a study takes place.

There are several reasons why we do this.

Reason #1: To Demonstrate Understanding

In a college paper, you can use a literature review to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter. This means identifying, summarizing and critically assessing past research that is relevant to your own work.

Reason #2: To Justify Your Research

The literature review also plays a big role in justifying your study and setting your research question . This is because examining past research allows you to identify gaps in the literature, which you can then attempt to fill or address with your own work.

Find this useful?

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

Reason #3: Setting a Theoretical Framework

It can help to think of the literature review as the foundations for your study, since the rest of your work will build upon the ideas and existing research you discuss therein.

A crucial part of this is formulating a theoretical framework , which comprises the concepts and theories that your work is based upon and against which its success will be judged.

Reason #4: Developing a Methodology

Conducting a literature review before beginning research also lets you see how similar studies have been conducted in the past. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, you can thus make sure you adopt the most appropriate methods, data sources and analytical techniques for your own work.

Reason #5: To Support Your Own Findings

The significance of any results you achieve will depend to some extent on how they compare to those reported in the existing literature. When you come to write up your findings, your literature review will therefore provide a crucial point of reference.

If your results replicate past research, for instance, you can say that your work supports existing theories. If your results are different, though, you’ll need to discuss why and whether the difference is important.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

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

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

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

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on July 7.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Literature Review in Research Writing

• 4 minute read
• 426.6K views

Table of Contents

Research on research? If you find this idea rather peculiar, know that nowadays, with the huge amount of information produced daily all around the world, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep up to date with all of it. In addition to the sheer amount of research, there is also its origin. We are witnessing the economic and intellectual emergence of countries like China, Brazil, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates, for example, that are producing scholarly literature in their own languages. So, apart from the effort of gathering information, there must also be translators prepared to unify all of it in a single language to be the object of the literature survey. At Elsevier, our team of translators is ready to support researchers by delivering high-quality scientific translations , in several languages, to serve their research – no matter the topic.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a study – or, more accurately, a survey – involving scholarly material, with the aim to discuss published information about a specific topic or research question. Therefore, to write a literature review, it is compulsory that you are a real expert in the object of study. The results and findings will be published and made available to the public, namely scientists working in the same area of research.

How to Write a Literature Review

First of all, don’t forget that writing a literature review is a great responsibility. It’s a document that is expected to be highly reliable, especially concerning its sources and findings. You have to feel intellectually comfortable in the area of study and highly proficient in the target language; misconceptions and errors do not have a place in a document as important as a literature review. In fact, you might want to consider text editing services, like those offered at Elsevier, to make sure your literature is following the highest standards of text quality. You want to make sure your literature review is memorable by its novelty and quality rather than language errors.

Writing a literature review requires expertise but also organization. We cannot teach you about your topic of research, but we can provide a few steps to guide you through conducting a literature review:

• Choose your topic or research question: It should not be too comprehensive or too limited. You have to complete your task within a feasible time frame.
• Set the scope: Define boundaries concerning the number of sources, time frame to be covered, geographical area, etc.
• Decide which databases you will use for your searches: In order to search the best viable sources for your literature review, use highly regarded, comprehensive databases to get a big picture of the literature related to your topic.
• Search, search, and search: Now you’ll start to investigate the research on your topic. It’s critical that you keep track of all the sources. Start by looking at research abstracts in detail to see if their respective studies relate to or are useful for your own work. Next, search for bibliographies and references that can help you broaden your list of resources. Choose the most relevant literature and remember to keep notes of their bibliographic references to be used later on.
• Review all the literature, appraising carefully it’s content: After reading the study’s abstract, pay attention to the rest of the content of the articles you deem the “most relevant.” Identify methodologies, the most important questions they address, if they are well-designed and executed, and if they are cited enough, etc.

If it’s the first time you’ve published a literature review, note that it is important to follow a special structure. Just like in a thesis, for example, it is expected that you have an introduction – giving the general idea of the central topic and organizational pattern – a body – which contains the actual discussion of the sources – and finally the conclusion or recommendations – where you bring forward whatever you have drawn from the reviewed literature. The conclusion may even suggest there are no agreeable findings and that the discussion should be continued.

Why are literature reviews important?

Literature reviews constantly feed new research, that constantly feeds literature reviews…and we could go on and on. The fact is, one acts like a force over the other and this is what makes science, as a global discipline, constantly develop and evolve. As a scientist, writing a literature review can be very beneficial to your career, and set you apart from the expert elite in your field of interest. But it also can be an overwhelming task, so don’t hesitate in contacting Elsevier for text editing services, either for profound edition or just a last revision. We guarantee the very highest standards. You can also save time by letting us suggest and make the necessary amendments to your manuscript, so that it fits the structural pattern of a literature review. Who knows how many worldwide researchers you will impact with your next perfectly written literature review.

Know more: How to Find a Gap in Research .

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

What is a Research Gap

Types of Scientific Articles

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

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

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

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2024

The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review

• Maritta Välimäki 1 , 2 ,
• Shuang Hu 3 ,
• Tella Lantta 1 ,
• Kirsi Hipp 1 , 4 ,
• Jaakko Varpula 1 ,
• Jiarui Chen 3 ,
• Gaoming Liu 5 ,
• Yao Tang 3 ,
• Wenjun Chen 3 &
• Xianhong Li 3  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  452 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

458 Accesses

Metrics details

The central component in impactful healthcare decisions is evidence. Understanding how nurse leaders use evidence in their own managerial decision making is still limited. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes.

We included articles using any type of research design. We referred nurses, nurse managers or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context when they attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group in an organization using an evidence-based approach. Seven databases were searched until 11 November 2021. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to evaluate the Risk of bias in quasi-experimental studies, case series, mixed methods studies, respectively. The JBI approach to mixed methods systematic reviews was followed, and a parallel-results convergent approach to synthesis and integration was adopted.

Thirty-one publications were eligible for the analysis: case series ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and quasi-experimental studies ( n  = 1). All studies were included regardless of methodological quality. Leadership problems were related to the implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of nursing care and the resource availability. Organizational data was used in 27 studies to understand leadership problems, scientific evidence from literature was sought in 26 studies, and stakeholders’ views were explored in 24 studies. Perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership focused on nurses’ performance, organizational outcomes, and clinical outcomes. Economic data were not available.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe its measured and perceived effects from different sites. Although a variety of perceptions and effects were identified on nurses’ performance as well as on organizational and clinical outcomes, available knowledge concerning evidence-based leadership is currently insufficient. Therefore, more high-quality research and clinical trial designs are still needed.

Trail registration

The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624).

Peer Review reports

Global health demands have set new roles for nurse leaders [ 1 ].Nurse leaders are referred to as nurses, nurse managers, or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context who attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group based on goals that are congruent with organizational goals [ 2 ]. They are seen as professionals “armed with data and evidence, and a commitment to mentorship and education”, and as a group in which “leaders innovate, transform, and achieve quality outcomes for patients, health care professionals, organizations, and communities” [ 3 ]. Effective leadership occurs when team members critically follow leaders and are motivated by a leader’s decisions based on the organization’s requests and targets [ 4 ]. On the other hand, problems caused by poor leadership may also occur, regarding staff relations, stress, sickness, or retention [ 5 ]. Therefore, leadership requires an understanding of different problems to be solved using synthesizing evidence from research, clinical expertise, and stakeholders’ preferences [ 6 , 7 ]. If based on evidence, leadership decisions, also referred as leadership decision making [ 8 ], could ensure adequate staffing [ 7 , 9 ] and to produce sufficient and cost-effective care [ 10 ]. However, nurse leaders still rely on their decision making on their personal [ 11 ] and professional experience [ 10 ] over research evidence, which can lead to deficiencies in the quality and safety of care delivery [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. As all nurses should demonstrate leadership in their profession, their leadership competencies should be strengthened [ 15 ].

Evidence-informed decision-making, referred to as evidence appraisal and application, and evaluation of decisions [ 16 ], has been recognized as one of the core competencies for leaders [ 17 , 18 ]. The role of evidence in nurse leaders’ managerial decision making has been promoted by public authorities [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Evidence-based management, another concept related to evidence-based leadership, has been used as the potential to improve healthcare services [ 22 ]. It can guide nursing leaders, in developing working conditions, staff retention, implementation practices, strategic planning, patient care, and success of leadership [ 13 ]. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] in their systematic review and meta-analysis examined 83 studies regarding leadership development interventions. They found that leadership training can result in significant improvement in participants’ skills, especially in knowledge level, although the training effects varied across studies. Cummings et al. [ 24 ] reviewed 100 papers (93 studies) and concluded that participation in leadership interventions had a positive impact on the development of a variety of leadership styles. Clavijo-Chamorro et al. [ 25 ] in their review of 11 studies focused on leadership-related factors that facilitate evidence implementation: teamwork, organizational structures, and transformational leadership. The role of nurse managers was to facilitate evidence-based practices by transforming contexts to motivate the staff and move toward a shared vision of change.

As far as we are aware, however, only a few systematic reviews have focused on evidence-based leadership or related concepts in the healthcare context aiming to analyse how nurse leaders themselves uses evidence in the decision-making process. Young [ 26 ] targeted definitions and acceptance of evidence-based management (EBMgt) in healthcare while Hasanpoor et al. [ 22 ] identified facilitators and barriers, sources of evidence used, and the role of evidence in the process of decision making. Both these reviews concluded that EBMgt was of great importance but used limitedly in healthcare settings due to a lack of time, a lack of research management activities, and policy constraints. A review by Williams [ 27 ] showed that the usage of evidence to support management in decision making is marginal due to a shortage of relevant evidence. Fraser [ 28 ] in their review further indicated that the potential evidence-based knowledge is not used in decision making by leaders as effectively as it could be. Non-use of evidence occurs and leaders base their decisions mainly on single studies, real-world evidence, and experts’ opinions [ 29 ]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses rarely provide evidence of management-related interventions [ 30 ]. Tate et al. [ 31 ] concluded based on their systematic review and meta-analysis that the ability of nurse leaders to use and critically appraise research evidence may influence the way policy is enacted and how resources and staff are used to meet certain objectives set by policy. This can further influence staff and workforce outcomes. It is therefore important that nurse leaders have the capacity and motivation to use the strongest evidence available to effect change and guide their decision making [ 27 ].

Despite of a growing body of evidence, we found only one review focusing on the impact of evidence-based knowledge. Geert et al. [ 32 ] reviewed literature from 2007 to 2016 to understand the elements of design, delivery, and evaluation of leadership development interventions that are the most reliably linked to outcomes at the level of the individual and the organization, and that are of most benefit to patients. The authors concluded that it is possible to improve individual-level outcomes among leaders, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Some of the most effective interventions included, for example, interactive workshops, coaching, action learning, and mentoring. However, these authors found limited research evidence describing how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to support their managerial decisions in nursing and what the outcomes are.

To fill the knowledge gap and compliment to existing knowledgebase, in this mixed methods review we aimed to (1) examine what leadership problems nurse leaders solve using an evidence-based approach and (2) how they use evidence to solve these problems. We also explored (3) the measured and (4) perceived effects of the evidence-based leadership approach in healthcare settings. Both qualitative and quantitative components of the effects of evidence-based leadership were examined to provide greater insights into the available literature [ 33 ]. Together with the evidence-based leadership approach, and its impact on nursing [ 34 , 35 ], this knowledge gained in this review can be used to inform clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 33 ]. The study is registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624). The methods used in this review were specified in advance and documented in a priori in a published protocol [ 36 ]. Key terms of the review and the search terms are defined in Table  1 (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, context, other).

In this review, we used a mixed methods approach [ 37 ]. A mixed methods systematic review was selected as this approach has the potential to produce direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners [ 38 ]. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie [ 39 ] have defined mixed methods research as “the class of research in which the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” Therefore, we combined quantitative and narrative analysis to appraise and synthesize empirical evidence, and we held them as equally important in informing clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 34 ]. In this review, a comprehensive synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed first and then discussed in discussion part (parallel-results convergent design) [ 40 ]. We hoped that different type of analysis approaches could complement each other and deeper picture of the topic in line with our research questions could be gained [ 34 ].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study are described in Table  1 .

Search strategy

A three-step search strategy was utilized. First, an initial limited search with #MEDLINE was undertaken, followed by analysis of the words used in the title, abstract, and the article’s key index terms. Second, the search strategy, including identified keywords and index terms, was adapted for each included data base and a second search was undertaken on 11 November 2021. The full search strategy for each database is described in Additional file 1 . Third, the reference list of all studies included in the review were screened for additional studies. No year limits or language restrictions were used.

Information sources

The database search included the following: CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (academic database for medicine and health science and nursing), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (academic database across all scientific and technical disciplines, ranging from medicine and social sciences to arts and humanities). These databases were selected as they represent typical databases in health care context. Subject headings from each of the databases were included in the search strategies. Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used to combine the search terms. An information specialist from the University of Turku Library was consulted in the formation of the search strategies.

Study selection

All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence software (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia www.covidence.org ), and duplicates were removed by the software. Titles and abstracts were screened and assessed against the inclusion criteria independently by two reviewers out of four, and any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved in full and archived in Covidence. Access to one full-text article was lacking: the authors for one study were contacted about the missing full text, but no full text was received. All remaining hits of the included studies were retrieved and assessed independently against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers of four (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and the reasons for exclusion were recorded in Covidence. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussions with XL.

Assessment of methodological quality

Eligible studies were critically appraised by two independent reviewers (YT, SH). Standardized critical appraisal instruments based on the study design were used. First, quasi-experimental studies were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies [ 44 ]. Second, case series were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series [ 45 ]. Third, mixed methods studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [ 46 ].

To increase inter-reviewer reliability, the review agreement was calculated (SH) [ 47 ]. A kappa greater than 0.8 was considered to represent a high level of agreement (0–0.1). In our data, the agreement was 0.75. Discrepancies raised between two reviewers were resolved through discussion and modifications and confirmed by XL. As an outcome, studies that met the inclusion criteria were proceeded to critical appraisal and assessed as suitable for inclusion in the review. The scores for each item and overall critical appraisal scores were presented.

Data extraction

For data extraction, specific tables were created. First, study characteristics (author(s), year, country, design, number of participants, setting) were extracted by two authors independently (JC, MV) and reviewed by TL. Second, descriptions of the interventions were extracted by two reviewers (JV, JC) using the structure of the TIDIeR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist (brief name, the goal of the intervention, material and procedure, models of delivery and location, dose, modification, adherence and fidelity) [ 48 ]. The extractions were confirmed (MV).

Third, due to a lack of effectiveness data and a wide heterogeneity between study designs and presentation of outcomes, no attempt was made to pool the quantitative data statistically; the findings of the quantitative data were presented in narrative form only [ 44 ]. The separate data extraction tables for each research question were designed specifically for this study. For both qualitative (and a qualitative component of mixed-method studies) and quantitative studies, the data were extracted and tabulated into text format according to preplanned research questions [ 36 ]. To test the quality of the tables and the data extraction process, three authors independently extracted the data from the first five studies (in alphabetical order). After that, the authors came together to share and determine whether their approaches of the data extraction were consistent with each other’s output and whether the content of each table was in line with research question. No reason was found to modify the data extraction tables or planned process. After a consensus of the data extraction process was reached, the data were extracted in pairs by independent reviewers (WC, TY, SH, GL). Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and with a third reviewer (MV).

Data analysis

We were not able to conduct a meta-analysis due to a lack of effectiveness data based on clinical trials. Instead, we used inductive thematic analysis with constant comparison to answer the research question [ 46 , 49 ] using tabulated primary data from qualitative and quantitative studies as reported by the original authors in narrative form only [ 47 ]. In addition, the qualitizing process was used to transform quantitative data to qualitative data; this helped us to convert the whole data into themes and categories. After that we used the thematic analysis for the narrative data as follows. First, the text was carefully read, line by line, to reveal topics answering each specific review question (MV). Second, the data coding was conducted, and the themes in the data were formed by data categorization. The process of deriving the themes was inductive based on constant comparison [ 49 ]. The results of thematic analysis and data categorization was first described in narrative format and then the total number of studies was calculated where the specific category was identified (%).

Stakeholder involvement

The method of reporting stakeholders’ involvement follows the key components by [ 50 ]: (1) people involved, (2) geographical location, (3) how people were recruited, (4) format of involvement, (5) amount of involvement, (6) ethical approval, (7) financial compensation, and (8) methods for reporting involvement.

In our review, stakeholder involvement targeted nurses and nurse leader in China. Nurse Directors of two hospitals recommended potential participants who received a personal invitation letter from researchers to participate in a discussion meeting. Stakeholders’ participation was based on their own free will. Due to COVID-19, one online meeting (1 h) was organized (25 May 2022). Eleven participants joined the meeting. Ethical approval was not applied and no financial compensation was offered. At the end of the meeting, experiences of stakeholders’ involvement were explored.

The meeting started with an introductory presentation with power points. The rationale, methods, and preliminary review results were shared with the participants [ 51 ].The meeting continued with general questions for the participants: (1) Are you aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership?; (2) How important is it to use evidence to support decisions among nurse leaders?; (3) How is the evidence-based approach used in hospital settings?; and (4) What type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)?

Two people took notes on the course and content of the conversation. The notes were later transcripted in verbatim, and the key points of the discussions were summarised. Although answers offered by the stakeholders were very short, the information was useful to validate the preliminary content of the results, add the rigorousness of the review, and obtain additional perspectives. A recommendation of the stakeholders was combined in the Discussion part of this review increasing the applicability of the review in the real world [ 50 ]. At the end of the discussion, the value of stakeholders’ involvement was asked. Participants shared that the experience of participating was unique and the topic of discussion was challenging. Two authors of the review group further represented stakeholders by working together with the research team throughout the review study.

Search results

From seven different electronic databases, 6053 citations were identified as being potentially relevant to the review. Then, 3133 duplicates were removed by an automation tool (Covidence: www.covidence.org ), and one was removed manually. The titles and abstracts of 3040 of citations were reviewed, and a total of 110 full texts were included (one extra citation was found on the reference list but later excluded). Based on the eligibility criteria, 31 studies (32 hits) were critically appraised and deemed suitable for inclusion in the review. The search results and selection process are presented in the PRISMA [ 52 ] flow diagram Fig.  1 . The full list of references for included studies can be find in Additional file 2 . To avoid confusion between articles of the reference list and studies included in the analysis, the studies included in the review are referred inside the article using the reference number of each study (e.g. ref 1, ref 2).

Search results and study selection and inclusion process [ 52 ]

Characteristics of included studies

The studies had multiple purposes, aiming to develop practice, implement a new approach, improve quality, or to develop a model. The 31 studies (across 32 hits) were case series studies ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and a quasi-experimental study ( n  = 1). All studies were published between the years 2004 and 2021. The highest number of papers was published in year 2020.

Table  2 describes the characteristics of included studies and Additional file 3 offers a narrative description of the studies.

Methodological quality assessment

Quasi-experimental studies.

We had one quasi-experimental study (ref 31). All questions in the critical appraisal tool were applicable. The total score of the study was 8 (out of a possible 9). Only one response of the tool was ‘no’ because no control group was used in the study (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Case series studies . A case series study is typically defined as a collection of subjects with common characteristics. The studies do not include a comparison group and are often based on prevalent cases and on a sample of convenience [ 53 ]. Munn et al. [ 45 ] further claim that case series are best described as observational studies, lacking experimental and randomized characteristics, being descriptive studies, without a control or comparator group. Out of 27 case series studies included in our review, the critical appraisal scores varied from 1 to 9. Five references were conference abstracts with empirical study results, which were scored from 1 to 3. Full reports of these studies were searched in electronic databases but not found. Critical appraisal scores for the remaining 22 studies ranged from 1 to 9 out of a possible score of 10. One question (Q3) was not applicable to 13 studies: “Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?” Only two studies had clearly reported the demographic of the participants in the study (Q6). Twenty studies met Criteria 8 (“Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported?”) and 18 studies met Criteria 7 (“Q7: Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?”) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Mixed-methods studies

Mixed-methods studies involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. This is a common design and includes convergent design, sequential explanatory design, and sequential exploratory design [ 46 ]. There were three mixed-methods studies. The critical appraisal scores for the three studies ranged from 60 to 100% out of a possible 100%. Two studies met all the criteria, while one study fulfilled 60% of the scored criteria due to a lack of information to understand the relevance of the sampling strategy well enough to address the research question (Q4.1) or to determine whether the risk of nonresponse bias was low (Q4.4) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Intervention or program components

The intervention of program components were categorized and described using the TiDier checklist: name and goal, theory or background, material, procedure, provider, models of delivery, location, dose, modification, and adherence and fidelity [ 48 ]. A description of intervention in each study is described in Additional file 5 and a narrative description in Additional file 6 .

Leadership problems

In line with the inclusion criteria, data for the leadership problems were categorized in all 31 included studies (see Additional file 7 for leadership problems). Three types of leadership problems were identified: implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of clinical care, and resources in nursing care. A narrative summary of the results is reported below.

Implementing knowledge into practice

Eleven studies (35%) aimed to solve leadership problems related to implementation of knowledge into practice. Studies showed how to support nurses in evidence-based implementation (EBP) (ref 3, ref 5), how to engage nurses in using evidence in practice (ref 4), how to convey the importance of EBP (ref 22) or how to change practice (ref 4). Other problems were how to facilitate nurses to use guideline recommendations (ref 7) and how nurses can make evidence-informed decisions (ref 8). General concerns also included the linkage between theory and practice (ref 1) as well as how to implement the EBP model in practice (ref 6). In addition, studies were motivated by the need for revisions or updates of protocols to improve clinical practice (ref 10) as well as the need to standardize nursing activities (ref 11, ref 14).

The quality of the care

Thirteen (42%) focused on solving problems related to the quality of clinical care. In these studies, a high number of catheter infections led a lack of achievement of organizational goals (ref 2, ref 9). A need to reduce patient symptoms in stem cell transplant patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (ref 24) was also one of the problems to be solved. In addition, the projects focused on how to prevent pressure ulcers (ref 26, ref 29), how to enhance the quality of cancer treatment (ref 25) and how to reduce the need for invasive constipation treatment (ref 30). Concerns about patient safety (ref 15), high fall rates (ref 16, ref 19), dissatisfaction of patients (ref 16, ref 18) and nurses (ref 16, ref 30) were also problems that had initiated the projects. Studies addressed concerns about how to promote good contingency care in residential aged care homes (ref 20) and about how to increase recognition of human trafficking problems in healthcare (ref 21).

Resources in nursing care

Nurse leaders identified problems in their resources, especially in staffing problems. These problems were identified in seven studies (23%), which involved concerns about how to prevent nurses from leaving the job (ref 31), how to ensure appropriate recruitment, staffing and retaining of nurses (ref 13) and how to decrease nurses’ burden and time spent on nursing activities (ref 12). Leadership turnover was also reported as a source of dissatisfaction (ref 17); studies addressed a lack of structured transition and training programs, which led to turnover (ref 23), as well as how to improve intershift handoff among nurses (ref 28). Optimal design for new hospitals was also examined (ref 27).

Main features of evidence-based leadership

Out of 31 studies, 17 (55%) included all four domains of an evidence-based leadership approach, and four studies (13%) included evidence of critical appraisal of the results (see Additional file 8 for the main features of evidence-based Leadership) (ref 11, ref 14, ref 23, ref 27).

Organizational evidence

Twenty-seven studies (87%) reported how organizational evidence was collected and used to solve leadership problems (ref 2). Retrospective chart reviews (ref 5), a review of the extent of specific incidents (ref 19), and chart auditing (ref 7, ref 25) were conducted. A gap between guideline recommendations and actual care was identified using organizational data (ref 7) while the percentage of nurses’ working time spent on patient care was analyzed using an electronic charting system (ref 12). Internal data (ref 22), institutional data, and programming metrics were also analyzed to understand the development of the nurse workforce (ref 13).

Surveys (ref 3, ref 25), interviews (ref 3, ref 25) and group reviews (ref 18) were used to better understand the leadership problem to be solved. Employee opinion surveys on leadership (ref 17), a nurse satisfaction survey (ref 30) and a variety of reporting templates were used for the data collection (ref 28) reported. Sometimes, leadership problems were identified by evidence facilitators or a PI’s team who worked with staff members (ref 15, ref 17). Problems in clinical practice were also identified by the Nursing Professional Council (ref 14), managers (ref 26) or nurses themselves (ref 24). Current practices were reviewed (ref 29) and a gap analysis was conducted (ref 4, ref 16, ref 23) together with SWOT analysis (ref 16). In addition, hospital mission and vision statements, research culture established and the proportion of nursing alumni with formal EBP training were analyzed (ref 5). On the other hand, it was stated that no systematic hospital-specific sources of data regarding job satisfaction or organizational commitment were used (ref 31). In addition, statements of organizational analysis were used on a general level only (ref 1).

Scientific evidence identified

Twenty-six studies (84%) reported the use of scientific evidence in their evidence-based leadership processes. A literature search was conducted (ref 21) and questions, PICO, and keywords were identified (ref 4) in collaboration with a librarian. Electronic databases, including PubMed (ref 14, ref 31), Cochrane, and EMBASE (ref 31) were searched. Galiano (ref 6) used Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library while Hoke (ref 11) conducted an electronic search using CINAHL and PubMed to retrieve articles.

Identified journals were reviewed manually (ref 31). The findings were summarized using ‘elevator speech’ (ref 4). In a study by Gifford et al. (ref 9) evidence facilitators worked with participants to access, appraise, and adapt the research evidence to the organizational context. Ostaszkiewicz (ref 20) conducted a scoping review of literature and identified and reviewed frameworks and policy documents about the topic and the quality standards. Further, a team of nursing administrators, directors, staff nurses, and a patient representative reviewed the literature and made recommendations for practice changes.

Clinical practice guidelines were also used to offer scientific evidence (ref 7, ref 19). Evidence was further retrieved from a combination of nursing policies, guidelines, journal articles, and textbooks (ref 12) as well as from published guidelines and literature (ref 13). Internal evidence, professional practice knowledge, relevant theories and models were synthesized (ref 24) while other study (ref 25) reviewed individual studies, synthesized with systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. The team reviewed the research evidence (ref 3, ref 15) or conducted a literature review (ref 22, ref 28, ref 29), a literature search (ref 27), a systematic review (ref 23), a review of the literature (ref 30) or ‘the scholarly literature was reviewed’ (ref 18). In addition, ‘an extensive literature review of evidence-based best practices was carried out’ (ref 10). However, detailed description how the review was conducted was lacking.

Views of stakeholders

A total of 24 studies (77%) reported methods for how the views of stakeholders, i.e., professionals or experts, were considered. Support to run this study was received from nursing leadership and multidisciplinary teams (ref 29). Experts and stakeholders joined the study team in some cases (ref 25, ref 30), and in other studies, their opinions were sought to facilitate project success (ref 3). Sometimes a steering committee was formed by a Chief Nursing Officer and Clinical Practice Specialists (ref 2). More specifically, stakeholders’ views were considered using interviews, workshops and follow-up teleconferences (ref 7). The literature review was discussed with colleagues (ref 11), and feedback and support from physicians as well as the consensus of staff were sought (ref 16).

A summary of the project findings and suggestions for the studies were discussed at 90-minute weekly meetings by 11 charge nurses. Nurse executive directors were consulted over a 10-week period (ref 31). An implementation team (nurse, dietician, physiotherapist, occupational therapist) was formed to support the implementation of evidence-based prevention measures (ref 26). Stakeholders volunteered to join in the pilot implementation (ref 28) or a stakeholder team met to determine the best strategy for change management, shortcomings in evidence-based criteria were discussed, and strategies to address those areas were planned (ref 5). Nursing leaders, staff members (ref 22), ‘process owners (ref 18) and program team members (ref 18, ref 19, ref 24) met regularly to discuss the problems. Critical input was sought from clinical educators, physicians, nutritionists, pharmacists, and nurse managers (ref 24). The unit director and senior nursing staff reviewed the contents of the product, and the final version of clinical pathways were reviewed and approved by the Quality Control Commission of the Nursing Department (ref 12). In addition, two co-design workshops with 18 residential aged care stakeholders were organized to explore their perspectives about factors to include in a model prototype (ref 20). Further, an agreement of stakeholders in implementing continuous quality services within an open relationship was conducted (ref 1).

Critical appraisal

In five studies (16%), a critical appraisal targeting the literature search was carried out. The appraisals were conducted by interns and teams who critiqued the evidence (ref 4). In Hoke’s study, four areas that had emerged in the literature were critically reviewed (ref 11). Other methods were to ‘critically appraise the search results’ (ref 14). Journal club team meetings (ref 23) were organized to grade the level and quality of evidence and the team ‘critically appraised relevant evidence’ (ref 27). On the other hand, the studies lacked details of how the appraisals were done in each study.

The perceived effects of evidence-based leadership

Perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance.

Eleven studies (35%) described perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in four groups: awareness and knowledge, competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, and engagement. First, regarding ‘awareness and knowledge’, different projects provided nurses with new learning opportunities (ref 3). Staff’s knowledge (ref 20, ref 28), skills, and education levels improved (ref 20), as did nurses’ knowledge comprehension (ref 21). Second, interventions and approaches focusing on management and leadership positively influenced participants’ competence level to improve the quality of services. Their confidence level (ref 1) and motivation to change practice increased, self-esteem improved, and they were more positive and enthusiastic in their work (ref 22). Third, some nurses were relieved that they had learned to better handle patients’ needs (ref 25). For example, a systematic work approach increased nurses’ awareness of the patients who were at risk of developing health problems (ref 26). And last, nurse leaders were more engaged with staff, encouraging them to adopt the new practices and recognizing their efforts to change (ref 8).

Perceived effects on organizational outcomes

Nine studies (29%) described the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership). These were categorized into three groups: use of resources, staff commitment, and team effort. First, more appropriate use of resources was reported (ref 15, ref 20), and working time was more efficiently used (ref 16). In generally, a structured approach made implementing change more manageable (ref 1). On the other hand, in the beginning of the change process, the feedback from nurses was unfavorable, and they experienced discomfort in the new work style (ref 29). New approaches were also perceived as time consuming (ref 3). Second, nurse leaders believed that fewer nursing staff than expected left the organization over the course of the study (ref 31). Third, the project helped staff in their efforts to make changes, and it validated the importance of working as a team (ref 7). Collaboration and support between the nurses increased (ref 26). On the other hand, new work style caused challenges in teamwork (ref 3).

Perceived effects on clinical outcomes

Five studies (16%) reported the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on clinical outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: general patient outcomes and specific clinical outcomes. First, in general, the project assisted in connecting the guideline recommendations and patient outcomes (ref 7). The project was good for the patients in general, and especially to improve patient safety (ref 16). On the other hand, some nurses thought that the new working style did not work at all for patients (ref 28). Second, the new approach used assisted in optimizing patients’ clinical problems and person-centered care (ref 20). Bowel management, for example, received very good feedback (ref 30).

The measured effects of evidence-based leadership

The measured effects on nurses’ performance.

Data were obtained from 20 studies (65%) (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership) and categorized nurse performance outcomes for three groups: awareness and knowledge, engagement, and satisfaction. First, six studies (19%) measured the awareness and knowledge levels of participants. Internship for staff nurses was beneficial to help participants to understand the process for using evidence-based practice and to grow professionally, to stimulate for innovative thinking, to give knowledge needed to use evidence-based practice to answer clinical questions, and to make possible to complete an evidence-based practice project (ref 3). Regarding implementation program of evidence-based practice, those with formal EBP training showed an improvement in knowledge, attitude, confidence, awareness and application after intervention (ref 3, ref 11, ref 20, ref 23, ref 25). On the contrary, in other study, attitude towards EBP remained stable ( p  = 0.543). and those who applied EBP decreased although no significant differences over the years ( p  = 0.879) (ref 6).

Second, 10 studies (35%) described nurses’ engagement to new practices (ref 5, ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). 9 studies (29%) studies reported that there was an improvement of compliance level of participants (ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). On the contrary, in DeLeskey’s (ref 5) study, although improvement was found in post-operative nausea and vomiting’s (PONV) risk factors documented’ (2.5–63%), and ’risk factors communicated among anaesthesia and surgical staff’ (0–62%), the improvement did not achieve the goal. The reason was a limited improvement was analysed. It was noted that only those patients who had been seen by the pre-admission testing nurse had risk assessments completed. Appropriate treatment/prophylaxis increased from 69 to 77%, and from 30 to 49%; routine assessment for PONV/rescue treatment 97% and 100% was both at 100% following the project. The results were discussed with staff but further reasons for a lack of engagement in nursing care was not reported.

And third, six studies (19%) reported nurses’ satisfaction with project outcomes. The study results showed that using evidence in managerial decisions improved nurses’ satisfaction and attitudes toward their organization ( P  < 0.05) (ref 31). Nurses’ overall job satisfaction improved as well (ref 17). Nurses’ satisfaction with usability of the electronic charting system significantly improved after introduction of the intervention (ref 12). In handoff project in seven hospitals, improvement was reported in all satisfaction indicators used in the study although improvement level varied in different units (ref 28). In addition, positive changes were reported in nurses’ ability to autonomously perform their job (“How satisfied are you with the tools and resources available for you treat and prevent patient constipation?” (54%, n  = 17 vs. 92%, n  = 35, p  < 0.001) (ref 30).

The measured effects on organizational outcomes

Thirteen studies (42%) described the effects of a project on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: staff compliance, and changes in practices. First, studies reported improved organizational outcomes due to staff better compliance in care (ref 4, ref 13, ref 17, ref 23, ref 27, ref 31). Second, changes in organization practices were also described (ref 11) like changes in patient documentation (ref 12, ref 21). Van Orne (ref 30) found a statistically significant reduction in the average rate of invasive medication administration between pre-intervention and post-intervention ( p  = 0.01). Salvador (ref 24) also reported an improvement in a proactive approach to mucositis prevention with an evidence-based oral care guide. On the contrary, concerns were also raised such as not enough time for new bedside report (ref 16) or a lack of improvement of assessment of diabetic ulcer (ref 8).

The measured effects on clinical outcomes

A variety of improvements in clinical outcomes were reported (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership): improvement in patient clinical status and satisfaction level. First, a variety of improvement in patient clinical status was reported. improvement in Incidence of CAUTI decreased 27.8% between 2015 and 2019 (ref 2) while a patient-centered quality improvement project reduced CAUTI rates to 0 (ref 10). A significant decrease in transmission rate of MRSA transmission was also reported (ref 27) and in other study incidences of CLABSIs dropped following of CHG bathing (ref 14). Further, it was possible to decrease patient nausea from 18 to 5% and vomiting to 0% (ref 5) while the percentage of patients who left the hospital without being seen was below 2% after the project (ref 17). In addition, a significant reduction in the prevalence of pressure ulcers was found (ref 26, ref 29) and a significant reduction of mucositis severity/distress was achieved (ref 24). Patient falls rate decreased (ref 15, ref 16, ref 19, ref 27).

Second, patient satisfaction level after project implementation improved (ref 28). The scale assessing healthcare providers by consumers showed improvement, but the changes were not statistically significant. Improvement in an emergency department leadership model and in methods of communication with patients improved patient satisfaction scores by 600% (ref 17). In addition, new evidence-based unit improved patient experiences about the unit although not all items improved significantly (ref 18).

Stakeholder involvement in the mixed-method review

To ensure stakeholders’ involvement in the review, the real-world relevance of our research [ 53 ], achieve a higher level of meaning in our review results, and gain new perspectives on our preliminary findings [ 50 ], a meeting with 11 stakeholders was organized. First, we asked if participants were aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership. Responses revealed that participants were familiar with the concept of evidence-based practice, but the topic of evidence-based leadership was totally new. Examples of nurses and nurse leaders’ responses are as follows: “I have heard a concept of evidence-based practice but never a concept of evidence-based leadership.” Another participant described: “I have heard it [evidence-based leadership] but I do not understand what it means.”

Second, as stakeholder involvement is beneficial to the relevance and impact of health research [ 54 ], we asked how important evidence is to them in supporting decisions in health care services. One participant described as follows: “Using evidence in decisions is crucial to the wards and also to the entire hospital.” Third, we asked how the evidence-based approach is used in hospital settings. Participants expressed that literature is commonly used to solve clinical problems in patient care but not to solve leadership problems. “In [patient] medication and care, clinical guidelines are regularly used. However, I am aware only a few cases where evidence has been sought to solve leadership problems.”

And last, we asked what type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)? The participants were aware that different types of information were collected in their organization on a daily basis (e.g. patient satisfaction surveys). However, the information was seldom used to support decision making because nurse leaders did not know how to access this information. Even so, the participants agreed that the use of evidence from different sources was important in approaching any leadership or managerial problems in the organization. Participants also suggested that all nurse leaders should receive systematic training related to the topic; this could support the daily use of the evidence-based approach.

To our knowledge, this article represents the first mixed-methods systematic review to examine leadership problems, how evidence is used to solve these problems and what the perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership are on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes. This review has two key findings. First, the available research data suggests that evidence-based leadership has potential in the healthcare context, not only to improve knowledge and skills among nurses, but also to improve organizational outcomes and the quality of patient care. Second, remarkably little published research was found to explore the effects of evidence-based leadership with an efficient trial design. We validated the preliminary results with nurse stakeholders, and confirmed that nursing staff, especially nurse leaders, were not familiar with the concept of evidence-based leadership, nor were they used to implementing evidence into their leadership decisions. Our data was based on many databases, and we screened a large number of studies. We also checked existing registers and databases and found no registered or ongoing similar reviews being conducted. Therefore, our results may not change in the near future.

We found that after identifying the leadership problems, 26 (84%) studies out of 31 used organizational data, 25 (81%) studies used scientific evidence from the literature, and 21 (68%) studies considered the views of stakeholders in attempting to understand specific leadership problems more deeply. However, only four studies critically appraised any of these findings. Considering previous critical statements of nurse leaders’ use of evidence in their decision making [ 14 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 55 ], our results are still quite promising.

Our results support a previous systematic review by Geert et al. [ 32 ], which concluded that it is possible to improve leaders’ individual-level outcomes, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] particularly found that leadership training resulted in significant knowledge and skill improvements, although the effects varied widely across studies. In our study, evidence-based leadership was seen to enable changes in clinical practice, especially in patient care. On the other hand, we understand that not all efforts to changes were successful [ 56 , 57 , 58 ]. An evidence-based approach causes negative attitudes and feelings. Negative emotions in participants have also been reported due to changes, such as discomfort with a new working style [ 59 ]. Another study reported inconvenience in using a new intervention and its potential risks for patient confidentiality. Sometimes making changes is more time consuming than continuing with current practice [ 60 ]. These findings may partially explain why new interventions or program do not always fully achieve their goals. On the other hand, Dubose et al. [ 61 ] state that, if prepared with knowledge of resistance, nurse leaders could minimize the potential negative consequences and capitalize on a powerful impact of change adaptation.

We found that only six studies used a specific model or theory to understand the mechanism of change that could guide leadership practices. Participants’ reactions to new approaches may be an important factor in predicting how a new intervention will be implemented into clinical practice. Therefore, stronger effort should be put to better understanding the use of evidence, how participants’ reactions and emotions or practice changes could be predicted or supported using appropriate models or theories, and how using these models are linked with leadership outcomes. In this task, nurse leaders have an important role. At the same time, more responsibilities in developing health services have been put on the shoulders of nurse leaders who may already be suffering under pressure and increased burden at work. Working in a leadership position may also lead to role conflict. A study by Lalleman et al. [ 62 ] found that nurses were used to helping other people, often in ad hoc situations. The helping attitude of nurses combined with structured managerial role may cause dilemmas, which may lead to stress. Many nurse leaders opt to leave their positions less than 5 years [ 63 ].To better fulfill the requirements of health services in the future, the role of nurse leaders in evidence-based leadership needs to be developed further to avoid ethical and practical dilemmas in their leadership practices.

It is worth noting that the perceived and measured effects did not offer strong support to each other but rather opened a new venue to understand the evidence-based leadership. Specifically, the perceived effects did not support to measured effects (competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, use of resources, team effort, and specific clinical outcomes) while the measured effects could not support to perceived effects (nurse’s performance satisfaction, changes in practices, and clinical outcomes satisfaction). These findings may indicate that different outcomes appear if the effects of evidence-based leadership are looked at using different methodological approach. Future study is encouraged using well-designed study method including mixed-method study to examine the consistency between perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership in health care.

There is a potential in nursing to support change by demonstrating conceptual and operational commitment to research-based practices [ 64 ]. Nurse leaders are well positioned to influence and lead professional governance, quality improvement, service transformation, change and shared governance [ 65 ]. In this task, evidence-based leadership could be a key in solving deficiencies in the quality, safety of care [ 14 ] and inefficiencies in healthcare delivery [ 12 , 13 ]. As WHO has revealed, there are about 28 million nurses worldwide, and the demand of nurses will put nurse resources into the specific spotlight [ 1 ]. Indeed, evidence could be used to find solutions for how to solve economic deficits or other problems using leadership skills. This is important as, when nurses are able to show leadership and control in their own work, they are less likely to leave their jobs [ 66 ]. On the other hand, based on our discussions with stakeholders, nurse leaders are not used to using evidence in their own work. Further, evidence-based leadership is not possible if nurse leaders do not have access to a relevant, robust body of evidence, adequate funding, resources, and organizational support, and evidence-informed decision making may only offer short-term solutions [ 55 ]. We still believe that implementing evidence-based strategies into the work of nurse leaders may create opportunities to protect this critical workforce from burnout or leaving the field [ 67 ]. However, the role of the evidence-based approach for nurse leaders in solving these problems is still a key question.

Limitations

This study aimed to use a broad search strategy to ensure a comprehensive review but, nevertheless, limitations exist: we may have missed studies not included in the major international databases. To keep search results manageable, we did not use specific databases to systematically search grey literature although it is a rich source of evidence used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis [ 68 ]. We still included published conference abstract/proceedings, which appeared in our scientific databases. It has been stated that conference abstracts and proceedings with empirical study results make up a great part of studies cited in systematic reviews [ 69 ]. At the same time, a limited space reserved for published conference publications can lead to methodological issues reducing the validity of the review results [ 68 ]. We also found that the great number of studies were carried out in western countries, restricting the generalizability of the results outside of English language countries. The study interventions and outcomes were too different across studies to be meaningfully pooled using statistical methods. Thus, our narrative synthesis could hypothetically be biased. To increase transparency of the data and all decisions made, the data, its categorization and conclusions are based on original studies and presented in separate tables and can be found in Additional files. Regarding a methodological approach [ 34 ], we used a mixed methods systematic review, with the core intention of combining quantitative and qualitative data from primary studies. The aim was to create a breadth and depth of understanding that could confirm to or dispute evidence and ultimately answer the review question posed [ 34 , 70 ]. Although the method is gaining traction due to its usefulness and practicality, guidance in combining quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods systematic reviews is still limited at the theoretical stage [ 40 ]. As an outcome, it could be argued that other methodologies, for example, an integrative review, could have been used in our review to combine diverse methodologies [ 71 ]. We still believe that the results of this mixed method review may have an added value when compared with previous systematic reviews concerning leadership and an evidence-based approach.

Our mixed methods review fills the gap regarding how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to guide their leadership role and what the measured and perceived impact of evidence-based leadership is in nursing. Although the scarcity of controlled studies on this topic is concerning, the available research data suggest that evidence-based leadership intervention can improve nurse performance, organizational outcomes, and patient outcomes. Leadership problems are also well recognized in healthcare settings. More knowledge and a deeper understanding of the role of nurse leaders, and how they can use evidence in their own managerial leadership decisions, is still needed. Despite the limited number of studies, we assume that this narrative synthesis can provide a good foundation for how to develop evidence-based leadership in the future.

Implications

Based on our review results, several implications can be recommended. First, the future of nursing success depends on knowledgeable, capable, and strong leaders. Therefore, nurse leaders worldwide need to be educated about the best ways to manage challenging situations in healthcare contexts using an evidence-based approach in their decisions. This recommendation was also proposed by nurses and nurse leaders during our discussion meeting with stakeholders.

Second, curriculums in educational organizations and on-the-job training for nurse leaders should be updated to support general understanding how to use evidence in leadership decisions. And third, patients and family members should be more involved in the evidence-based approach. It is therefore important that nurse leaders learn how patients’ and family members’ views as stakeholders are better considered as part of the evidence-based leadership approach.

Future studies should be prioritized as follows: establishment of clear parameters for what constitutes and measures evidence-based leadership; use of theories or models in research to inform mechanisms how to effectively change the practice; conducting robust effectiveness studies using trial designs to evaluate the impact of evidence-based leadership; studying the role of patient and family members in improving the quality of clinical care; and investigating the financial impact of the use of evidence-based leadership approach within respective healthcare systems.

Data availability

The authors obtained all data for this review from published manuscripts.

World Health Organization. State of the world’s nursing 2020: investing in education, jobs and leadership. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hersey P, Campbell R. Leadership: a behavioral science approach. The Center for; 2004.

Cline D, Crenshaw JT, Woods S. Nurse leader: a definition for the 21st century. Nurse Lead. 2022;20(4):381–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2021.12.017 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen SS. Leadership styles and organization structural configurations. J Hum Resource Adult Learn. 2006;2(2):39–46.

Google Scholar  

McKibben L. Conflict management: importance and implications. Br J Nurs. 2017;26(2):100–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haghgoshayie E, Hasanpoor E. Evidence-based nursing management: basing Organizational practices on the best available evidence. Creat Nurs. 2021;27(2):94–7. https://doi.org/10.1891/CRNR-D-19-00080 .

Majers JS, Warshawsky N. Evidence-based decision-making for nurse leaders. Nurse Lead. 2020;18(5):471–5.

Tichy NM, Bennis WG. Making judgment calls. Harvard Business Rev. 2007;85(10):94.

Sousa MJ, Pesqueira AM, Lemos C, Sousa M, Rocha Á. Decision-making based on big data analytics for people management in healthcare organizations. J Med Syst. 2019;43(9):1–10.

Guo R, Berkshire SD, Fulton LV, Hermanson PM. %J L in HS. Use of evidence-based management in healthcare administration decision-making. 2017;30(3): 330–42.

Liang Z, Howard P, Rasa J. Evidence-informed managerial decision-making: what evidence counts?(part one). Asia Pac J Health Manage. 2011;6(1):23–9.

Hasanpoor E, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Haghgoshayie E. Using the evidence-based medicine and evidence-based management to minimise overuse and maximise quality in healthcare: a hybrid perspective. BMJ evidence-based Med. 2020;25(1):3–5.

Shingler NA, Gonzalez JZ. Ebm: a pathway to evidence-based nursing management. Nurs 2022. 2017;47(2):43–6.

Farokhzadian J, Nayeri ND, Borhani F, Zare MR. Nurse leaders’ attitudes, self-efficacy and training needs for implementing evidence-based practice: is it time for a change toward safe care? Br J Med Med Res. 2015;7(8):662.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

American Nurses Association. ANA leadership competency model. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.

Royal College of Nursing. Leadership skills. 2022. https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/your-career/nurse/leadership-skills . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Kakemam E, Liang Z, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Mohaghegh B, Gholizadeh M. Leadership and management competencies for hospital managers: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis. J Healthc Leadersh. 2020;12:59.

Liang Z, Howard PF, Leggat S, Bartram T. Development and validation of health service management competencies. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32(2):157–75.

World Health Organization. Global Strategic Directions for Nursing and Midwifery. 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/344562/9789240033863-eng.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

NHS Leadership Academy. The nine leadership dimensions. 2022. https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/resources/healthcare-leadership-model/nine-leadership-dimensions/ . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Canadian Nurses Association. Evidence-informed decision-making and nursing practice: Position statement. 2018. https://hl-prod-ca-oc-download.s3-ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CNA/2f975e7e-4a40-45ca-863c-5ebf0a138d5e/UploadedImages/documents/Evidence_informed_Decision_making_and_Nursing_Practice_position_statement_Dec_2018.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hasanpoor E, Hajebrahimi S, Janati A, Abedini Z, Haghgoshayie E. Barriers, facilitators, process and sources of evidence for evidence-based management among health care managers: a qualitative systematic review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018;28(5):665–80.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Collins DB, Holton EF III. The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: a meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Hum Res Dev Q. 2004;15(2):217–48.

Cummings GG, Lee S, Tate K, Penconek T, Micaroni SP, Paananen T, et al. The essentials of nursing leadership: a systematic review of factors and educational interventions influencing nursing leadership. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;115:103842.

Clavijo-Chamorro MZ, Romero-Zarallo G, Gómez-Luque A, López-Espuela F, Sanz-Martos S, López-Medina IM. Leadership as a facilitator of evidence implementation by nurse managers: a metasynthesis. West J Nurs Res. 2022;44(6):567–81.

Young SK. Evidence-based management: a literature review. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2002;10(3):145–51.

Williams LL. What goes around comes around: evidence-based management. Nurs Adm Q. 2006;30(3):243–51.

Fraser I. Organizational research with impact: working backwards. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1:S52–9.

Roshanghalb A, Lettieri E, Aloini D, Cannavacciuolo L, Gitto S, Visintin F. What evidence on evidence-based management in healthcare? Manag Decis. 2018;56(10):2069–84.

Jaana M, Vartak S, Ward MM. Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers? Eval Health Prof. 2014;37(3):314–34.

Tate K, Hewko S, McLane P, Baxter P, Perry K, Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Learning to lead: a review and synthesis of literature examining health care managers’ use of knowledge. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24(1):57–70.

Geerts JM, Goodall AH, Agius S, %J SS. Medicine. Evidence-based leadership development for physicians: a systematic literature review. 2020;246: 112709.

Barends E, Rousseau DM, Briner RB. Evidence-based management: The basic principles. Amsterdam; 2014. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42141986/complete+dissertation.pdf#page=203 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2108–18. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169 .

Lancet T. 2020: unleashing the full potential of nursing. Lancet (London, England). 2019. p. 1879.

Välimäki MA, Lantta T, Hipp K, Varpula J, Liu G, Tang Y, et al. Measured and perceived impacts of evidence-based leadership in nursing: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e055356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055356 .

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. Joanna Briggs Inst. 2014; 88–91.

Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):121–31.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004;33(7):14–26.

Hong, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Reviews. 2017;6(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 .

Ramis MA, Chang A, Conway A, Lim D, Munday J, Nissen L. Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1996. pp. 71–2.

Goodman JS, Gary MS, Wood RE. Bibliographic search training for evidence-based management education: a review of relevant literatures. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2014;13(3):322–53.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020; https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. 2020;18(10): 2127–33.

Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018: user guide. Montreal: McGill University; 2018.

McKenna J, Jeske D. Ethical leadership and decision authority effects on nurses’ engagement, exhaustion, and turnover intention. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(1):198–206.

Maxwell M, Hibberd C, Aitchison P, Calveley E, Pratt R, Dougall N, et al. The TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist. The patient Centred Assessment Method for improving nurse-led biopsychosocial assessment of patients with long-term conditions: a feasibility RCT. NIHR Journals Library; 2018.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Reviews. 2018;7:1–26.

Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evid Policy. 2005;1(2):173–93.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2021;10(1):1–11.

Porta M. Pilot investigation, study. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press Oxford; 2014. p. 215.

Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.

Joseph ML, Nelson-Brantley HV, Caramanica L, Lyman B, Frank B, Hand MW, et al. Building the science to guide nursing administration and leadership decision making. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(1):19–26.

Gifford W, Davies BL, Graham ID, Tourangeau A, Woodend AK, Lefebre N. Developing Leadership Capacity for Guideline Use: a pilot cluster Randomized Control Trial: Leadership Pilot Study. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2013;10(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x .

Hsieh HY, Henker R, Ren D, Chien WY, Chang JP, Chen L, et al. Improving effectiveness and satisfaction of an electronic charting system in Taiwan. Clin Nurse Specialist. 2016;30(6):E1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000250 .

McAllen E, Stephens K, Swanson-Biearman B, Kerr K, Whiteman K. Moving Shift Report to the Bedside: an evidence-based Quality Improvement Project. OJIN: Online J Issues Nurs. 2018;23(2). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02PPT22 .

Thomas M, Autencio K, Cesario K. Positive outcomes of an evidence-based pressure injury prevention program. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2020;47:S24.

Cullen L, Titler MG. Promoting evidence-based practice: an internship for Staff nurses. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1(4):215–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04027.x .

DuBose BM, Mayo AM. Resistance to change: a concept analysis. Nursing forum. Wiley Online Library; 2020. pp. 631–6.

Lalleman PCB, Smid GAC, Lagerwey MD, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Schuurmans MJ. Curbing the urge to care: a bourdieusian analysis of the effect of the caring disposition on nurse middle managers’ clinical leadership in patient safety practices. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;63:179–88.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martin E, Warshawsky N. Guiding principles for creating value and meaning for the next generation of nurse leaders. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(9):418–20.

Griffiths P, Recio-Saucedo A, Dall’Ora C, Briggs J, Maruotti A, Meredith P, et al. The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(7):1474–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13564 .

Lúanaigh PÓ, Hughes F. The nurse executive role in quality and high performing health services. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2016;24(1):132–6.

de Kok E, Weggelaar-Jansen AM, Schoonhoven L, Lalleman P. A scoping review of rebel nurse leadership: descriptions, competences and stimulating/hindering factors. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(17–18):2563–83.

Warshawsky NE. Building nurse manager well-being by reducing healthcare system demands. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(4):189–91.

Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evidence-Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.

McAuley L, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1228–31.

Sarah S. Introduction to mixed methods systematic reviews. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4689215/8.1+Introduction+to+mixed+methods+systematic+reviews . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the funding bodies, the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme, the Department of Nursing Science at the University of Turku, and Xiangya School of Nursing at the Central South University. We also would like to thank the nurses and nurse leaders for their valuable opinions on the topic.

The work was supported by the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme (grant number 26/270/2020) and the University of Turku (internal fund 26003424). The funders had no role in the study design and will not have any role during its execution, analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp & Jaakko Varpula

School of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki

Xiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China

Shuang Hu, Jiarui Chen, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen & Xianhong Li

School of Health and Social Services, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland

Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410008, China

Gaoming Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: MV, XL. Literature search and study selection: MV, KH, TL, WC, XL. Quality assessment: YT, SH, XL. Data extraction: JC, MV, JV, WC, YT, SH, GL. Analysis and interpretation: MV, SH. Manuscript writing: MV. Critical revisions for important intellectual content: MV, XL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xianhong Li .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethical approval was required for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Differences between the original protocol

We modified criteria for the included studies: we included published conference abstracts/proceedings, which form a relatively broad knowledge base in scientific knowledge. We originally planned to conduct a survey with open-ended questions followed by a face-to-face meeting to discuss the preliminary results of the review. However, to avoid extra burden in nurses due to COVID-19, we decided to limit the validation process to the online discussion only.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, supplementary material 6, supplementary material 7, supplementary material 8, supplementary material 9, supplementary material 10, 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.

Välimäki, M., Hu, S., Lantta, T. et al. The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review. BMC Nurs 23 , 452 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

Download citation

Received : 28 April 2023

Accepted : 13 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

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

• Evidence-based leadership
• Health services administration
• Organizational development
• Quality in healthcare

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

College & Research Libraries ( C&RL ) is the official, bi-monthly, online-only scholarly research journal of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association.

C&RL is now on Instragram! Follow us today.

Jung Mi Scoulas is Assistant Professor and Assessment Coordinator, University Library, University of Illinois Chicago, email: [email protected] .

Sandra L. De Groote is Professor and Head of Assessment and Scholarly Communications, University Library, University of Illinois Chicago.

C&RL News

ALA JobLIST

Advertising Information

• Research is an Activity and a Subject of Study: A Proposed Metaconcept and Its Practical Application (76932 views)
• Information Code-Switching: A Study of Language Preferences in Academic Libraries (40095 views)
• Three Perspectives on Information Literacy in Academia: Talking to Librarians, Faculty, and Students (28608 views)

Use and Importance of Library Resources to Support Faculty Research and Productivity

Jung Mi Scoulas and Sandra L. De Groote *

This article explores the relationships between faculty library use, their perceptions of the importance of library resources, and its impact on their research productivity at a public research university. The authors used a self-reported faculty survey and publication records from a faculty activity reporting system to answer this question. Findings showed that faculty’s perceptions of the library resource for their research had no relationships with faculty research productivity, whereas a positive correlation was found between the frequency of use of online journals and databases, and faculty research productivity. Qualitative findings revealed that faculty viewed the library as providing and purchasing the needed library resources, and that they valued the librarians and library services as essential to their teaching and research.

Introduction

Research is an integral part of academic research institutions, and university libraries play a critical role in supporting faculty research. Maintaining key services and resources are imperative to supporting research, which can be challenging when libraries are faced with decreasing budgets and competing demands to fund databases, journal subscriptions, and other resources. Due to this environment, it is imperative for academic librarians both to identify faculty’s needs and to demonstrate the library’s value and impact on faculty research productivity.

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between faculty research productivity and faculty perceptions, and use, of the academic library in supporting their academic research. This paper also examines disciplinary differences between faculty perceptions and use of the academic library’s resources and services. Faculty at a research-intensive doctoral granting institution were surveyed about their perceptions on the importance of library resources, their perceptions of the library’s impact on their research, and their use of library resources. Faculty responses were examined along with faculty demographic information, including their publication productivity (books, book chapters, and conference proceedings, and journals) in recent years to explore possible relationships. By analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data this paper will provide deeper understanding of faculty’s perceptions of the library, their library use, and the library’s impact on their research productivity.

Literature Review

Past studies have explored relationships between research productivity and academic libraries. As part the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Research Library Impact Framework, a recent study—conducted at the same large public research university as the current study—explored the relationship between faculty productivity and their use of the library’s collection in faculty publications. 1 In exploring the number of publications produced by individual faculty in relation to their use of references in their publications, it was observed that faculty who were less productive (defined as five or fewer publications in a 15 year period) tended to use the least number of references in the publications. Faculty who were very prolific (defined as 71 or more publication in a 15 year period) used many more references in their publications compared to less productive faculty; however, they used slightly fewer references in their publications compared to faculty who were productive (defined as six to 70 publications in a 15 year period). In other words, faculty that were highly productive but not very prolific were most likely to include the greatest number of references in their publications. As this study focused primarily on journal publications and citations in journal articles, it did not explore humanities publication patterns. However, there were disciplinary differences noted in the included disciplines when average publications, as well as average references in the publications, were examined from 2015 to 2019. 2 Faculty in Engineering were found to be the most productive, publishing on average 18.61 articles per faculty member over a five-year period (2015 to 2019). Faculty in the health sciences were the next most productive group, depending on the specific discipline: Applied Health Sciences, 20.93; Medicine, 14.57; Dentistry, 12.57; Nursing, 15.85; Pharmacy, 19.58; Public Health, 14.88 (average per faculty member/five years). Those in the other disciplines typically averaged fewer publications per faculty from 2015 to 2019: social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, etc.) 6.97; social work, 6.88; business administration, 4.30; and education, 5.30. Differences were also observed in the average number of references included in publications from 2015 to 2019. Those in the social sciences generally included more references per publication: social science, 57.49 average references per publication; social work, 48.23, business administration, 61.96; education 52.12. The use of references in health sciences was slightly lower on average than in the social sciences per publication, though this varied depending on the specific discipline: applied health sciences, 42.90 average references per publication; medicine, 41.59; dentistry, 41.36; nursing, 47.36; pharmacy, 46.01; public health, 39.90. Engineering, on average, included 43.38 references per article.

Michael Rawls utilized ARL library statistics expenditure variables and faculty publication data from a five-year period (2005–2009). 3 Research productivity was positively correlated with library investment, particularly with electronic library resource expenditures. A 2020 study also utilized ARL library reported statistics (e.g. collection expenditures, full-text article requests, and database searches) in conjunction with faculty productivity, as measured by published research articles. 4 A positive correlation was reported between number of publications and library expenditures, collection size, and full-text article requests.

Using surveys, several studies have examined the behavior of researchers to better understand how they seek, read, and use scholarly articles. A study conducted in 2002 captured an early view of the use, and satisfaction of, University of Idaho faculty’s with technology to capture, process, store, and communicate information using electronic means. 5 In this study, 71 percent of faculty reported using electronic journals and books for research purposes; however, only 65 percent reported being satisfied with the electronic resources offered by the library. While faculty found that electronic resources saved them time to search and “sped up” the research process, there were also concerns. For example, some faculty were not aware of electronic resources, not everyone’s needs were met, and a poorly designed website made accesses complicated. As a result of a longitudinal survey, which collected data over a 30-year period, Carol Tenopir, Donald W. King, Sheri Edwards and Lei Wu concluded that faculty have increased their reading compared to the number of articles they had read in the past, and that faculty were relying more on the library to provide access to articles compared to the past where they had their own personal subscriptions to journals. 6 They also found that faculty had diversified the ways in which they identified articles to read including internet searching, online journal table of contents browsing, abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases, and full-text database searching as a result of online journals. A study conducted by Carol Tenopir, Donald W. King, Lisa Christian, and Rachel Volentine found online journals were the primary source of articles read by faculty. The articles were primarily accessed through library or other institutional subscriptions. 7

In another study, faculty members from five U.S., and two Australian, Universities were surveyed about their scholarly article reading habits. 8 Faculty members whose positions were more focused on research reported reading more articles for research purposes (62 percent) compared to the teaching-oriented faculty (49 percent). The research-oriented faculty members also reported more of their reading materials were provided by the library (58 percent), in contrast to the more teaching-oriented faculty (38 percent). A positive relationship was also found between productivity, as measured by publications, and the average number of articles read per month. Faculty who read more articles also published more. This study also found that faculty members in the health science, engineering, and sciences read more scholarly journals articles on average than faculty in the social sciences and humanities.

A more recent study by Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, and Jordan Kaufman explored how researchers discovered, read, and used scholarly literature for their work. 9 The study explored how many articles faculty researchers read, how they go about accessing and using the literature, how important other types of information resources are, and demographic differences. Articles from journals were rated the most important source for scholarly information, followed by books, and conference proceedings. Overall, researchers reported reading about 20 articles a month, the majority (70 percent) being read with care. More than half of the articles were read (59 percent) specifically for research, but were also read to support writing proposals, reports, and articles, which—when counted as research related activities—raised the percentage to 67 percent. Most articles were found from browsing (34 percent), or searching (29 percent); the next most common method being finding a source in the citations of another publication (18 percent). The authors conclude that, although many articles read are still in online journals from the library or other institutional subscriptions, researchers are finding other ways to discover and access articles.

Tenopir, Christian, and Kaufman also explored disciplinary differences between the researchers they examined. 10 Almost all disciplines—life and physical sciences, math, computer science, engineering, social sciences, humanities—ranked scholarly journals as “absolutely essential,” or “very important” for their work. The exception was medical sciences, which ranked journals between “very important” and “important.” Only those in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities ranked scholarly books or book chapters as “absolutely essential” or “very important.” Tenopir et al. also explored the number of articles read each month by discipline. They found that, on average, those in the sciences read 24.10 articles a month, medical sciences read 15.07 articles a month, computer science read 16.83 articles a month, engineering read 16.48 articles a month, social sciences read 26.45 a month, and humanities and fine arts read 25.63 articles a month.

While the literature above confirmed that faculty’s library use was associated with their research productivity, it is limited in its exploration of how faculty perceived the importance of the library resources and the library’s impact on their research productivity. In addition, not only is there is a scarcity of current research, but the earlier canonical literature exploring disciplinary differences in information seeking behavior related to the academic library may no longer be applicable, as databases and access to online journals have continued to evolve, which likely impacts user behavior. This paper aims to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data from an online faculty survey that was conducted earlier this year at a public research university to deepen an understanding of faculty’s perceptions of the library, their library use, and its impact on their research productivity. It also explores disciplinary differences in faculty’s perceptions and use of the academic library.

Institutional Setting

This study took place at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), a large urban research university with 16 colleges: medicine, nursing, applied health sciences, dentistry, pharmacy, public health, social work, liberal arts and sciences, engineering, education, architecture, design and the arts, urban planning and public affairs, business administration, graduate college, honors college, and law. The University is classified as an R1 research university by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, with approximately 4,500 faculty serving more than 33,000 undergraduate and graduate students. As of Spring 2022, among 4,500 faculty, about 77 percent of them are assistant, associate and full professor, and the rest are instructors, lecturers, and postdocs. About half of the faculty are from College of Medicine in Chicago, Liberal arts and sciences, and pharmacy. On average, faculty have worked at UIC for about ten years.

Survey Instrument

The Assessment Advisory Committee developed an online survey to examine faculty perceptions of the importance of library resources, their use of library resources, and their perception of the library’s impact on their research (Appendix A). Among a total of 12 questions, six questions were based on previous survey questions distributed to faculty in 2017 and 2019, and a set of six new questions addressed topics of current interest including frequency of library use (range of library resources), potential workshop topic to gauge faculty interest, and perceptions of the library’s impact on their research and scholarship success. The survey questions were pilot tested by faculty in various departments to check the clarity of the questions and to ensure whether the goals of the survey match with the survey questions. Given this paper’s aim of examining the relationships between faculty’s perceptions on library resources, their library use, and its impact on their research productivity (measured by the number of publications in 2021 (one year) and 2017–2021 (five years), the following survey questions were selected for this paper.

• Importance of library resources for research or administrative responsibility with a nine-point Likert Scale (from one, “not at all” to nine, “extremely important,” with zero as “not applicable”) on the following list: Print books, eBooks, Online journals, Databases to find literature, Special Collections, Interlibrary Loan (ILL), Digital Images, Assistance from a subject specialist librarian, and Comprehensive literature search support.
• Frequency of library resource and service use for research with a four-point Likert Scale (0 = Never, 1 = Once a year, 2 = Once a month, 3 = Weekly or More often) on the following list: Print books, eBooks, Online Journals, Databases to find literature, Special Collections, Subject and Course guides, Interlibrary loan (ILL), Assistance from a subject specialist librarian, and Comprehensive literature support.
• Faculty’s perceptions of library impact on their teaching and research (Open-ended question).
• Faculty’s demographic information from the University’s Office of Institutional Research and their publication records from the institution’s faculty activity reporting tool were included in this paper as follows:Faculty demographics: Faculty status and their Full Time Equivalent (FTE) percentage of department.
• Faculty research productivity: This was measured by the numbers of publications including books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and journal articles published in 2021 (one year) and 2017–2021 (five years). Considering the nature of the publication, the authors carefully selected the publication time range that corresponds to the survey. While the survey was being performed in February 2022, faculty were invited to respond to questions on their library use and perceptions in the past year (as stated in the survey instruction). For these reasons, the research productivity used two time ranges: one year and five years.

Data Collection

Prior to distributing the survey, email addresses and demographic information was obtained from the institutions Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Faculty demographic information was uploaded as a “panel” in Qualtrics, along with their publication output. Publication output—when the information was available—was obtained from the institution’s faculty activity reporting tool, 11 a faculty scholarly and professional activity reporting system that automatically captures faculty scholarly productivity when indexed in database such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions authored by each faculty in 2021, and from 2017 to 2021. According to the University’s faculty activity reporting tool, 87 percent of faculty had publication information. Faculty can assess research impact using citation metrics automatically captured by the reporting tool, and other scholarship and professional activities can be manually entered. In the past five years, the average publication per faculty member— including books, book chapters, conference proceeding, and journal articles entered in the system—was 11. The survey was distributed to about 4,500 university faculty and post-docs working at UIC February 21, 2022, closing March 25, 2022. Three reminder emails were sent to faculty who did not complete the survey in Qualtrics. A total of 557 faculty completed the survey (12 percent response rate).

Survey Incentives

All survey respondents were invited to enter a drawing to win one of six items valued at $100-$200, such as smart watch and wireless headphone. Contact information was destroyed after the incentives were distributed.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (correlations and a two-way between group analysis of variance (ANOVA) were run using SPSS 28. Correlations were employed to explore if there were any relationships between: 1. faculty’s perceptions of the importance of library resources and support for their research and their research productivity; and 2. their frequency of library use and research productivity. A Pearson correlation was used to test faculty perceptions of the importance of library support for their research using a ratings scale from one (not at all) to nine (extremely important). This nine-point scale is treated as interval variable, also known as number rating scales, because it is commonly used by researchers in education field by treating responses as interval-level measures rather than just ordinal data and allows researchers to utilize statistical analysis such as Pearson correlations or ANOVA. 12 A Spearman correlation was employed to test the frequency library use, using a scale from zero (never) to three (Weekly or more often), which is considered an ordinal variable.

To examine the impact of disciplines and faculty’s library use on their publications, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. Prior to conducting a two-way ANOVA, assumptions were tested including homogeneity of variances assumption using Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances (to test whether the variance of dependent variable across the groups are equal). The results of homogeneity of variance assumption were violated (significant level is greater than .05). Therefore, the authors used more stringent significant level at the p value of less than <.01 rather than .05 when evaluating and reporting the results of the two-way ANOVA. 13

Disciplines were grouped into five categories based on the department where the faculty member had their highest FTE: arts and humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, life sciences, and health sciences. To create groups for library use, faculty’ frequency of library use (zero = never, to three = weekly or more often) were used to sum all nine library resources and services, from print book to comprehensive literature search support; the range of minimum and maximum for frequency of use were from one to 27. Using quartiles, the total number of library uses was used to group faculty members into three categories: less frequent (faculty who used library resources from one-ten), moderate (faculty who used library resources from 11–15), and high (faculty who used library resources from 16 or more).

Another goal of this paper is to explore how faculty perceived library impact for their teaching and research by examining their feedback. The open-ended responses were imported into Excel and analyzed by the Assessment Coordinator using thematic analysis, which is a popular qualitative analysis technique to analyze themes in a dataset and identify meaning. Initial codes and themes were reviewed by the Assessment Advisory Committee members and condensed after repeating this process until reaching agreement.

Below are the research questions for this study:

• What are the relationships between faculty’s perceptions on the importance of library resource, frequency of library use, and their research productivity?
• Are there differences in faculty’s library use and research productivity between disciplines?
• How do faculty perceive the importance of library resources and services as it relates to their teaching and research?

Publications by Faculty Status

Faculty publications for a one-year period (2021), and the average for a five-year period (2017–2021) respectively, were analyzed by the particular faculty’s status: assistant, associate and full professor, and others—which included instructors, lecturers, postdoctoral and visiting faculty. As shown in table 1, regardless of the type of publications, full professors published the most, followed by associate professor and assistant professors in both a one-year period and an average of a five-year period. Regarding the types of the publications, journals recorded the highest type of publication ( M =1.93, SD =3.78 in a one- year period, M =1.73, SD =3.29, an average of a five-year period).

Relationships between Faculty’s Perceptions on the Importance of Library Resource and Their Research Productivity

Faculty were asked to rate the importance of library resources on a scale from one to nine, with nine being “extremely important” and one being “not important at all.” The overall perception ratings based on 2022 survey results were as follows: online journals ( M = 8.73); scholarly databases ( M = 8.44); interlibrary loan ( M = 7.51); eBooks ( M = 7.23); subject special assistance from a librarian ( M = 6.15); print books ( M = 5.65); and special collections ( M = 4.47). 14 Faculty’s perceptions of the importance of library resources for research was further analyzed to examine whether their perceptions of library resources were correlated with their research productivity—measured by number of publications including books, book chapters, conference proceeding, and journals articles—over one year (2021) and over five years (from 2017 to 2021). The results from Pearson correlations indicated that based on importance, only one library resource (eBooks ( r [419] = -.102, p < .05) in 2021 was correlated with their research productivity, whereas Special Collections in 2017 and 2021 was correlated with their research productivity ( r [389] = -.110, p < .05). However, the directions of the correlations were negative, meaning that the higher faculty’s research productivity, the less their perceptions of eBooks in 2021, the higher faculty’s research productivity, the less their perceptions of Special Collections in 2017 and 2021 (see table 2).

Relationships between Faculty’s Library Use and Their Research Productivity

Faculty’s library resource use was further analyzed to examine whether their frequency of library resource use correlated with their research productivity (measured by number of publications including books, book chapters, conference proceeding, and journals) in a one-year period (2021) and a 5-year period (2017 to 2021). A Spearman rank correlation was employed, and the results indicate that only certain library resource uses in 2021 were correlated with their research productivity: print books ( r s [407] = -.136, p < .01), online journal ( r s [418] = .194, p < .01), databases ( r s [419] = .124, p < .05), and subject and course guides ( r s [400] = -.099, p < .05); however, the directions of the correlations were different (see table 3). That is, print books, and subject and course guides use were negatively correlated with the faculty’s research productivity, whereas journal and database use were positively correlated with their research productivity, indicating the more faculty used print books or course guides, the less productive they were. On the other hand, the more journal and database use, the higher number of publications in 2021.

When examining the relationships over a five-year period, the results were slightly different. Print books, journal, and subject and course guides uses in a five-year period remained similar in their relationship with faculty research productivity in 2021. That is, these library resources were associated with faculty research productivity in both 2021 and a five-year period. However, productivity in the five-year period appeared to be statistically associated with eBooks ( r s [413] = -.098, p < .05), whereas database use was not ( r s [419] = .088, p = .071). While it is important to demonstrate that faculty’s library resource uses were correlated with their research productivity, one should be cautious to interpret the findings, as this relationship does not warrant causation. Also, faculty library resource use over a one-year period may not be accurately represented by their publication numbers for the same year because publications are typically released well after the year in which the initial research occurred. Further investigation would be needed to fully explore this chronological disconnect.

Given that the amount of time it takes for books and book chapters to be published is longer than it is for conference proceeding and journals, a separate analysis of publications including only journals and conference proceedings for a five-year period (2017 to 2021) was examined to explore if there were any differences in the relationship between publications and library resource and service use (see table 4). The results remained the same as when all publication types (i.e. book, book chapters, conference proceeding and journals) were included, with the exception of special collections, which also showed a statistically significant negative relationship ( r s [403] = -.113, p < .05). This indicates that faculty’s library use for print books, eBooks, special collections, and subject guides were statistically and negatively correlated with the number of journals and conference proceedings, but positively correlated with the frequency of online journal use.

Library Impact: Library Use, Discipline and Publications

Table 5 demonstrates how well survey respondents from five discipline categories—arts and humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, life sciences, and health sciences—represent the university populations. Except for health sciences, all of the disciplines accurately represented the University population; around 10% of faculty from health sciences were less representative of those from the university health science population.

Prior to examining the impact of disciplines and library use on the research productivity, descriptive statistics were run to seek patterns between disciplines and each type of publications. As shown in figure 1, each type of publication differs by disciplines. The faculty from the arts and humanities published the highest number of books ( M =0.15) and book chapters ( M =0.41), followed by those in the physical sciences (books M =0.05; book chapters M =0.24). There were no book publications ( M =0.00) and few book chapters ( M =0.06) published by faculty from the life sciences. For the journal articles and conference proceeding publications, the patterns were different—faculty from the health sciences published the highest number of journal articles ( M =2.77), followed by faculty from physical sciences ( M =2.61). However, faculty from the life sciences did not produce conference proceedings—journal articles were their primary form of publication ( M =1.82).

Faculty’s ranking for level of importance (table 6) and frequency of library use also differs among the disciplines (table 7). Compared to the other disciplines, arts and humanities ranked books (print and electronic) the highest in terms of importance. Arts and humanities also ranked special collections, interlibrary loan, and digital images as more important compared to other disciplines. All disciplines (from life sciences, M =9.00, to physical sciences, M =8.26) ranked journal articles as the most important resource for their research. Within the rankings of databases, life sciences faculty ranked the importance of database the highest.

Similar to faculty’s perceptions of the importance of library resources for their research, more faculty from art and humanities reported using books (print and online), special collections, and digital images more frequently than other disciplines, at once a month or more often (table 7). However, frequency of using Interlibrary loan was somewhat different; faculty from physical sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities more frequently used Interlibrary loan compared to other disciplines. Most faculty in all disciplines reported using online journals at least weekly, except for those in the physical sciences, where only a little over half reported weekly use. Additionally, physical sciences faculty reported using online journals once a month. With respect to database use, faculty in the physical sciences were most likely to report at least weekly (83.9 percent) database use, compared to those in the life sciences who were the least likely to report weekly use (50 percent). While faculty from the life sciences reported the most frequent use of online journals, these faculty also report highest percentage of resources and services never used including: comprehensive literature search support (71.4 percent), Interlibrary loan (61.5 percent), assistance from a subject librarian (57.1 percent), print books (30.8 percent), and eBooks (30.8 percent).

To further examine the impact of disciplines and library use on the research productivity (table 8), as measured by the total number of publications in 2021 and the overall reported frequency of library use, a two-way ANOVA was conducted (table 9). The interaction effect between disciplines and library use groups ( F (7, 355) = 0.218, p = .981) was not statistically significant, meaning that there was no significant difference in the effect of disciplines on publications for level of library use (less frequent, moderate, and high). There was a statistically significant main effect for disciplines ( F (4, 355) = 5.909, p <.001). This finding indicates that there is a difference in the number of publications for disciplines (arts and humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, health sciences and life sciences). The magnitude of difference for disciplines was moderate (partial eta squared=.062), using Cohen’s criterion. 15 To further systematically compare each discipline, and to test whether there is a significant difference in the means of each of discipline, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test was used. As shown in Tables 8 and 10, the results indicated that the mean publication for the health sciences ( M = 3.98, SD = 5.90) was significantly higher than arts and humanities ( M = 1.46, SD = 2.44) and social sciences ( M = 1.41, SD = 2.28) at the p < .01 level. The physical sciences ( M = 3.78, SD = 3.77) and life sciences ( M = 2.42, SD = 2.43) did not differ significantly from either of the other groups. The main effect for library use ( F (2, 355) = 0.078, p =.925) did not reach statistical significance, indicating that degree of library use (less frequent, moderate, and high) does not differ in terms of their publications.

Library Impact on Faculty’s Teaching, Research, or Administrative Work

Faculty were asked to answer the open-ended question: “Thinking about your overall UIC library experience, please describe how the library has impacted your teaching, clinical practice, research, or administrative work.” A total of 267 respondents provided feedback on this question. Three themes were generated from this open-ended question using content analysis. When reporting faculty’s comments, faculty’s college was included to provide context for their feedback.

Theme 1: Invaluable Library Resources (n=181)

Many faculty perceived that accessing library resources was valuable for their teaching and research. The list of resources that impacted their teaching and research includes journals, databases, books, textbooks, and eBooks. Examples of faculty feedback on this theme follow:

• “The UIC library has always helped me to pursue my intellectual curiosity, beyond the articles/journals books that I need to pursue my research and teaching. To me, this is invaluable” (Pharmacy).
• “The UIC Library provides robust literature search engines and strong capture of this articles typically through available subscriptions but also through interlibrary loans. This is critical for poster/oral presentations, manuscript, and grant submissions. For students, this allows them to find relevant research articles to bolster their position in writing essays” (College of Medicine).
• “The library has been fantastic in purchasing electronic versions of the textbooks that I use for my course so that students don’t have to buy them” (School of Public Health).
• “The quick availability of journals is paramount in the development of new projects and in many other aspects of research productivity” (Liberal Arts and Sciences).
• “I use open educational resources in all of my classes and the library is essential to find and collect the information. Access to medical literature through PubMed and other databases is essential for my research” (Applied Health Sciences).

While most faculty valued accessing the library resources and perceived that library resources had a great impact on their teaching and research, some faculty expressed concerns of possible discontinuation of certain resources due to the limited budgets, such as in the following comments:

• “The library is a crucial asset for both teaching and research. Please do not continue to cut resources to the library in ways that result in less access to materials. The move to acquire an increase digital library during the pandemic was crucial to our collective ability to teach and research. Please keep this up for access purposes, but do not limit purchases to only digital copies” (Applied Health Sciences).
• “UIC Library resources are fine, but I know I’ll run into an access wall eventually and would love it if the library sets aside a fund to purchase access or something for people who need material in days, not a week or two” (Urban Planning & Public Affairs).
• “I mostly use art publications. Very often these books are too expensive and / or published internationally. I hope that the library continues to acquire these important resources because the internet cannot supplant them” (Architecture, Design and Arts).

Theme 2: Resourceful and Professional Librarians (n=53)

Another resource that respondents acknowledged had an impact on their teaching and research was the library staff and librarians. Sixteen librarians’ names were mentioned in the survey with appreciation (n=28). Below are examples of faculty’s feedback on this theme:

• “The responsiveness of library support has been great and I feel that the librarians go above and beyond to answer my questions and provide assistance. This has helped to facilitate my research by reducing the time it would typically take for me to find resources and determine what is available and what is not”(Liberal Arts and Sciences).
• “The library and librarians have simplified the work of bringing my students up-to-date with their background searches for their research. I cannot say enough about the help my students and I get from the library and the librarians” (Pharmacy).
• “Qualified Librarians and Experts are critical to our academic and clinical work at UIC. Assistance has always been generous” (College of Medicine).
• “The library makes my research easier and better. My liaison has made sure my students can access assigned reading by speedily acquiring e-books” (Architecture, Design and Arts).

Theme 3: Quick and Immediate Services (n=51)

The last theme is quick and immediate services impacting faculty’s teaching and research. Services mentioned by respondents include chat, ILL/I-Share, reference, and Open Access Publication Funding. Below are some examples of faculty feedback on this theme:

• “I recently did two literature review papers and used the library heavily for interlibrary loans / electronic copy of papers and book chapters—the library services met my needs. I recently requested that the library consider acquiring a couple of books in my specialty field of sickle cell disease and these were purchased” (College of Medicine- Chicago).
• “The librarians on the chat have been very helpful” (College of Medicine, Peoria).
• “I also received support from the UIC library to publish in Open Access to research papers and disseminate my work via Indigo, which is much appreciate, at the early independent career stage I am at” (Business Administration).
• “ILL is amazingly fast. I love being able to get books easily delivered or being able to pick them up” (Architecture, Design and Arts).
• “Thank you for the outstanding service that you provide! The service you provide always exceeds my expectations. RefWorks is a handy feature for sharing literature searches” (Nursing).

As described above, a vast majority of the faculty acknowledged that library resources, services and librarians have a significant impact on their teaching and research; however, some faculty (n=22) stated lack of journals they need, discontinuing journal subscriptions, challenges in accessing the most recent articles or older articles, better access to films and videos (e.g., non-digitized material including projectors), difficulty in searching on library website.

The current study used quantitative and qualitative data from an online faculty survey, as well as publication records from a faculty activity reporting system to examine faculty perceptions of the importance of library resources, frequency of library use by discipline, as well as the impact of library resources and services on their teaching and research.

There were disciplinary differences in how faculty ranked the importance of and frequency of use of library resources. Arts and humanities faculty ranked books (both print and electronic), special collections, and interlibrary loan (most likely monograph requests) as more important to their research compared to other disciplines. All disciplines except for the physical sciences ranked journal articles as the most important resource for their research. Physical sciences ranked the databases as the most important. While Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, and Jordan Kaufman also noted the majority of faculty rated articles from journals as the most important source for scholarly information, 16 this study further demonstrated the disciplinary differences in faculty members’ perceptions of the value of the library resources.

It was also discovered that faculty’s perceptions of the importance of library resources (i.e. books, online journals, databases, Interlibrary loan) had no statistical relationship with their research productivity. This result implies that faculty members’ opinions of how much they value these library resources are not related to how productive they are with their research. However, there were negative correlations found between productivity and the importance of eBooks and special collections. This suggests there are resources not utilized by the majority of faculty for their research. Those who rank them higher, such as those in the arts and humanities, tend to have lower publication counts than those in other disciplines. Faculty in the arts and humanities ranked books and special collections as important, and they were also the discipline that reported the highest use of books and special collections. They likely have a smaller scholarly output, in part because their primary output is monographs (books) which are produced less frequently than journal articles. As noted in a study exploring the use of the monograph and citation patterns in the humanities, humanities scholars mainly rely on the monographs for primary and secondary sources. 17 While articles are important to humanities research, they do not serve as a replacement for monographs.

Was faculty research productivity correlated with how frequently they used library resources? With respect to the frequency of use of library resources overall by faculty, reported uses of online journals and databases were positively correlated with faculty productivity according to 2021 publication data. When publication data from 2017 to 2021 was examined, only online journal use positively correlated with productivity, while the database use correlation was not significant. These findings are similar as those of De Groote and colleagues who found a positive correlation between faculty productivity and ARL reported statistics for full-text article requests and database searches. 18 Similarly, Tenopir and colleagues also found a positive relationship between the average number of articles read monthly and the number of publications produced. 19 On the other hand, use of print books, eBooks, and subject guides were negatively correlated with productivity between 2017 and 2021. This indicates that the more productive they were, the less likely they were to use books, or, alternatively, the more they use books to complete their research, they were less likely to have a high publication count. Given that faculty in the arts and humanities ranked print books and eBooks as important to their research compared to the other disciplines, and that they are the most likely to produce print books, this relationship makes sense given that book publication productivity is much lower in comparison to article publication productivity. There were no disciplinary differences found between frequency of use of the library and faculty research productivity, although the differences in productivity between the disciplines is significantly different.

While there were no statistically significant differences in the effect of disciplines on publications for level of library use (less frequent, moderate, and high) as well as no significant differences in publications between the level of library use, it is important to note that patterns of the average numbers of publication vary by discipline; the less frequent library use group had the highest mean scores of publications across all disciplines, except art and humanities. This may indicate that faculty with high productivity are likely searching and accessing the literature to support multiple research papers at one time. This result may also be explained by the fact that library use groups were created based on the total number of library resources use rather than specific resource use (print books, eBooks, journals etc.). As stated earlier, this study found that frequency of print books and subject course guides were negatively correlated with the faculty research productivity, whereas journals and database were positively associated with the research productivity. Additionally, it is important to know which library resources were frequently used by what discipline. For faculty from arts and humanities, the less frequent library use group did not publish any materials ( M =0.00), whereas the moderate library use group scored the highest publication average ( M =1.92).

As the quantitative findings showed that faculty’s certain library use was associated with faculty productivity, qualitative findings also corroborated that many faculty perceived library resources (journals, databases, and books), services and librarians as a significant impact on their teaching and research. The faculty’s comments revealed that faculty viewed the library as providing and purchasing the library resources, and valued the librarians and services as an essential of their teaching and research. While the research productivity was one outcome on whether faculty published books or journals, the qualitative finding further uncovered faculty’s perceptions of library impact for their teaching and research. Faculty considered the library impact when they were involved in the process of the research project such as grant submissions, development of new projects, and manuscript. By employing several datasets (i.e. survey containing multiple choices and open-ended questions, faculty’s demographic information, and their publication records), this study attempted to provide faculty’s perceptions of their library resources and its impact on their teaching and research.

Limitations

The number of publications was obtained using the faculty profile tool, which automatically gathers journal and conference proceedings through API feeds from Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, PubMed, and Crossref. A limited number of books and book chapters are also captured by these systems and brought in automatically. For those that are not, a faculty member or their designate would need to enter the publication information. The majority of colleges, though not all, were using the reporting tool at the time of the research. Therefore, some publications—primarily books and book chapters—would not have been recorded for those faculty that were not manually adding missing publications. For these reasons, book and book chapters data may be underrepresented. Some productivity comparisons looked at publication numbers in aggregate when examining the relationships with library use. These generalized findings may not apply to all disciplines. Also, it should be noted that the findings of this research may not be representative of other research universities.

Implications and Conclusion

Faculty use of the library collection and the importance of the library collection for research is highlighted through the findings of this study. Our findings demonstrate that faculty publication patterns differ across the disciplines. Print books, as well as subject and course guides, were found to be negatively correlated with faculty research productivity, whereas journal and database use was found to be positively correlated. These findings indicate that the more productive faculty used print books or course guides less; the more productive faculty used journal and database more. It should be noted that interpreting this correlation should be done with caution because these are not cause and effect relationships. Journal articles, as accessed through online journals, remain important to faculty in conducting their research across all disciplines. By adding faculty publication records to the self-reported faculty input, this study demonstrated the value of library resources.

This study also revealed how faculty members felt about the library’s resources and how it affected their scholarly work. The academic librarians who work with faculty may already be aware of some of the results, but this study’s empirical findings show that faculty members’ use of the library is linked to their research output. As the academic environment changes, the library’s efforts to understand the needs of the faculty are crucial to ensuring their academic success. At the same time, this study raised an important question, how can libraries capture the library’s impact on faculty’s research productivity beyond the publications? As academic libraries are pressured to demonstrate the library’s impact and value for our users, it is possible to look at other outcomes such as grant submissions (accepted vs. not funded), number of research projects in progress, the number of reports and white papers deposited in the institutional repository, and so on.

Acknowledgement

Approval from the Institutional Review Board was granted to this research study (protocol number 2021-1409).

1. Sandra L. De Groote, et al., “Faculty Publication Patterns Over 25 Years at a Large Public University: Correlations with Literature Review,” College & Research Libraries, 85, no. 4 (2024): 442–459, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.3.442 .

2. De Groote, et al., “Faculty Publication Patterns.”

3. Michael M. Rawls, “Looking for Links: How Faculty Research Productivity Correlates with Library Investment and Why Electronic Library Materials Matter Most,”  Evidence Based Library and Information Practice  10, no. 2 (2015): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.18438/B89C70 .

4. Sandra L. De Groote, et al., “Research Productivity and Its Relationship to Library Collections,”  Evidence Based Library and Information Practice  15, no. 4 (2020): 16–32. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29736 .

5. Maria Anna Jankowska, “Identifying University Professors’ Information Needs in the Challenging Environment of Information and Communication Technologies,”  The Journal of Academic Librarianship  30, no. 1 (2004): 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2003.11.007 .

6. Carol Tenopir, et al., “Electronic Journals and Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns,” Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives , 61, no.1 (2009): 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267

7. Carol Tenopir, et al., “Scholarly Article Seeking, Reading, and Use: A Continuing Evolution from Print to Electronic in the Sciences and Social Sciences,” Learned Publishing 28, no. 2 (2015): 93–105, https://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20150203 .

8. Carol Tenopir, et al., “Variations in Article Seeking and Reading Patterns of Academics: What Makes a Difference?”  Library & Information Science Research  31, no. 3 (2009): 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.02.002 .

9. Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, and Jordan Kaufman, “Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers,” Publications 7 no. 1 (2019): 18 https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010018 .

10. Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, and Jordan Kaufman, “Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers,” Publications 7, no. 1 (2019): 18, https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010018 .

11. University of Illinois Chicago, My Activities, https://myactivities.uic.edu/homepage.html?em=false .

12. Spencer E. Harpe, “How to Analyze Likert and Other Rating Scale Data,” Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 7, no. 6 (2015): 836–850, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001 ; Jung Mi Scoulas and Sandra L. De Groote, “Faculty Perceptions, Use, and Needs of Library Resource and Services in a Public Research University,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 49, no. 1 (2023): 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102630 .

13. Julie Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using the SPSS Program (Allen & Unwin, 4 th ed. 2011).

14. Jung Mi Scoulas and Sandra L. De Groote, “Faculty Perceptions, Use, and Needs of Library Resource and Services in a Public Research University,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 49, no. 1 (2023): 102630, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102630 .

15. Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , (New Jersey: Routledge, 2nd ed., 1988).

16. Carol Tenopir, Lisa Christian, and Jordan Kaufman, “Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers,” Publications 7, no. 1 (2019): 18, https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010018 .

17. J. Wolfe Thompson, “The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship,” Libri 52, no. 3 (2002): 121–136,  https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.121 .

18. Sandra L. De Groote, et al., “Research Productivity and Its Relationship to Library Collections,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 15, no. 4 (2020): 16–32, https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29736 .

19. Tenopir, et al., “Variations in Article Seeking,”139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.02.002 .

Appendix A. 2022 Faculty Survey

The UIC Library is seeking to understand how library services and resources impact your teaching, research and scholarship. Your participation will help us develop meaningful programs and collections. Please respond to this survey in the context of the primary UIC library that you use (e.g., Daley Library, Library of Health Sciences-Chicago, Peoria, Rockford or Law Library). We will use your responses to guide our priorities.

Q1 During the past year, have you done any of the following at UIC? Select all that apply.

• □ Taught an undergraduate level course
• □ Taught a graduate level course
• □ Taught a course for professional students
• □ Taught/served in a clinical setting
• □ Engaged in research or scholarship
• □ Published a book, article or other scholarly product
• □ Served in an administrative capacity

Q2 Please rate the following in terms of importance for your teaching (9= Extremely, 1= Not at all, and 0=N/A).

Q3 Please rate the following in terms of importance for your research or administrative responsibility (9=Extremely, 1=Not at all, and 0=N/A).

Q4 How often did you use the following for your research?

Q5 How easy is it to use the university library website to access the following? (9=Extremely easy, 1=Not at all, and 0=I’ve never used this tool).

Q6 Think about the last time you needed a journal article not available through the UIC Library’s physical or digital collections. What method(s) did you use to obtain a copy? Select all that apply.

• □ Searched for a freely available version online
• □ Used interlibrary loan (ILLiad) or document delivery services provided by the UIC Library
• □ Gave up and looked for a different article that I can access
• □ Purchased it myself from the publisher or vendor
• □ Requested it from a colleague at another institution
• □ Contacted the author
• □ Requested a copy using social media (#canhazpdf on Twitter, etc.) or through Scihub
• □ Asked a librarian
• □ Obtained it from Google Scholar, Academia.edu or ResearchGate
• □ Articles I needed were readily available through the UIC Library.
• □ I do not usually use journal articles for my teaching or research.
• □ I do not recall
• □ Other ________________________________________________

Q7 What topics would you like to learn more about? Select all that apply.

• □ Bibliographic Management Software(e.g., RefWorks, EndNote)
• □ Digital scholarship tools & techniques (data visualization, text mining and analysis, natural language processing, GIS, maps, etc.)
• □ Multimedia tools & techniques (videography, podcasting, infographics, websites, digital design, etc.)
• □ Data visualization platforms/software/language for my research (Tableau, PowerBI, Google Data Studio, R, Python etc.)
• □ Qualitative data analysis platforms/software for my research (NVivo, Atlas.ti , MaxQDA, etc.)
• □ Quantitative data analysis platforms/software/language for my research (R, Python, SPSS, etc.)
• □ Managing, preserving, and sharing the data I create in my scholarship
• □ Finding and reusing data for scholarship and instruction
• □ Digital methods for gathering data (APIs, web scraping, etc.)
• □ Academic authorship platforms/software/language for my research (RStudio/Rmarkdown, Overleaf/LaTeX, Pressbooks, etc.)

Q8 How do you usually get informed of library information (e.g., collections, services and resources)? Select all that apply.

• □ Department chair
• □ UIC colleagues
• □ Liaison librarians
• □ UIC Library website (Library News)
• □ UIC mass email

Q9 What information resource support do you need from the Library for your teaching and research?

• □ Teaching ________________________________________________
• □ Clinical practice ________________________________________________
• □ Research ________________________________________________

Q10 Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements (9=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree).

Q11 Thinking about your overall UIC library experience, please describe how the library has impacted your teaching, clinical practice, research or administrative work.

________________________________________________________________

Q12 Please provide any other comments about the UIC Library, its collections, services or website.

Thank you for completing the UIC Library Faculty Survey 2022. Your responses will help us improve Library services and resources.

Did you know … ?  Your liaison librarian can provide specific resources and tips for students to complete research assignments.

If you can’t get a book at the library, we can usually obtain a copy for you through interlibrary loan or purchase it for the collection.

If you can’t get a journal article through the library’s collection, we can usually obtain a copy for you through interlibrary loan in an average of four days (often much faster).  

If you need assistance with selecting appropriate platforms to make OERs (Open Educational Resources) materials available to students, please contact Chat with a Librarian ( library.uic.edu ). 

You can link to the library through your Blackboard course site. You will not be able to return to the survey.  Once you click Next , you will be taken to a separate survey where you can enter a drawing to win one of six items valued at $100-$200.

* Jung Mi Scoulas is Assistant Professor and Assessment Coordinator, University Library, University of Illinois Chicago, email: [email protected] ; Sandra L. De Groote is Professor and Head of Assessment and Scholarly Communications, University Library, University of Illinois Chicago. ©2024 Jung Mi Scoulas and Sandra L. De Groote, Attribution-NonCommercial ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) CC BY-NC.

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

© 2024 Association of College and Research Libraries , a division of the American Library Association

Print ISSN: 0010-0870 | Online ISSN: 2150-6701

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6701

Under the Microscope: Topical Steroid Bias

By Hope Hamashige

Published On: Jul 10, 2024

Last Updated On: Jul 10, 2024

The National Eczema Association (NEA) is the largest private nonprofit funder of research for adult and pediatric eczema, investing more than $4 million to date. Ever wonder what exactly our research grant recipients are working on? Under the Microscope is where we provide an inside look at research from one of our latest grant recipients, including what they are studying and its potential impact on the eczema community.

A new look at an old treatment

Topical corticosteroids are one of the oldest and most frequently-prescribed treatments for eczema. Although topical steroids have been in use for decades, many patients and medical professionals have deep-seated fears that they can lead to serious side effects, particularly if they are used long-term and at higher potencies.

This fear has real consequences for some people with eczema. Dr. Aaron Drucker , a dermatologist and clinician-scientist at Women’s College Hospital and the University of Toronto said that many patients and healthcare providers are so hesitant to use topical steroids that some people’s eczema stays uncontrolled.

It is with this in mind that Dr. Drucker launched a multi-year research project in January 2023 to evaluate, as thoroughly as possible, the safety of long-term use of topical steroids. This research is funded by an Eczema Champion Research Grant from NEA that he was initially awarded in 2022 and received a second year of support in 2023. He plans to determine the likelihood of individuals developing five serious side effects — hypertension, glaucoma, cataracts, diabetes and/or bone fractures — over time while using topical corticosteroids. 

“There is a real bias against using topical steroids on the part of a lot of patients and some providers,” said Dr. Drucker. “Millions of people around the world use topicals, so it is incredibly important to really understand how safe they are and how best to use them.” 

Settling an old question

Over the more than 50 years that topical corticosteroids have been in use, there have been studies to determine their side effects. Dr. Drucker noted that while there is little evidence in the existing literature that connects topical corticosteroids with hypertension, glaucoma or cataracts, a few found connections to diabetes and/or bone fractures. 

Dr. Drucker hopes to improve on the existing literature by employing advanced pharmacoepidemiologic methods to provide the most reliable evidence to date on the side effects of topical corticosteroids. His approach allows him to consider not only the use of topical corticosteroids, but to account for the potency of the treatment, the duration of use and the unique formulations of different types of topical corticosteroids. He will also be able to account for confounding factors, such as whether a person was taking other medications, including oral corticosteroids, that can influence outcomes. 

Dr. Drucker is using health data from two Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, to conduct this work. These high-quality data sets include information on millions of Canadians of diverse backgrounds and ages who used topical corticosteroids between 2002 and 2021. The quality of the data and the advanced methodology should yield solid information on the odds of developing side effects based on the total topical steroid use and the potency of the treatment. 

“We have developed a method of looking at this question that is going to give us more reliable and more nuanced answers than much of what we have seen in the past,” said Dr. Drucker.

A focus on education

Even though the number of treatments for eczema has grown dramatically in recent years, it remains critical to understand the safety profile of topical corticosteroids. Dr. Drucker noted that topical steroids are still widely used and, at times, are the best treatment option. 

Dr. Drucker added that he expects to publish the results of his research in the next few years. He believes that whatever the findings, they will be important for patients and healthcare providers and will finally give them reliable advice about how to use topical corticosteroids. 

“If what we find is reassuring, patients need to know that,” said Dr. Drucker. “If what we find is cautionary, they need to know what the real risks are, and we hope to give them the best evidence possible.”

NEA grants and their impact

NEA is dedicated to increasing the number of scientists, research projects and research dollars devoted to eczema, in pursuit of better therapies, better care, better outcomes –– and one day, potentially, a cure. Learn more about our eczema research grants, their impact and how you can get involved.

Related Posts

Shaving, waxing and body hair removal guide.

Hair removal can be tricky for people with eczema, but there are ways to manage it.

New Data Reveals Low Rates of Mental Health Support for…

The National Eczema Association research team published a new paper investigating referrals to mental health services for patients with atopic dermatitis.

An Inside Look at the Seal of Acceptance…

Before a company can get the Seal logo on their product, the product goes through a rigorous testing and review process. Get an inside peek on how the process works.

Why Is Moisturizing So Important for Managing Atopic Dermatitis…

Moisturization of skin is key to managing atopic dermatitis symptoms, but there are so many different moisturizers that it is difficult to know which to choose. Here, we discuss the science underlying how moisturizing works to improve skin and the many things that science still doesn’t know about the best way to use moisturization.

Get the latest eczema news delivered to your inbox.

• Advances in research and treatments
• Lifestyle tips and hacks
• Stories from the community

NEA Newsletter Signup with Segmentation

• Email (required) *
• zip (required) * ZIP / Postal Code
• What is your primary relationship to eczema? * Select one (required) I am an adult with eczema (18 and over) I am a teen with eczema (13 - 17) I am the parent of a child with eczema I am a caregiver/partner/spouse of someone with eczema I am a supporter of someone with eczema I am an eczema healthcare professional Corporate interest Other
• I want to receive the latest eczema news in my inbox!
• Hidden SF Lead Source *
• If user exists, mark true to remove opt-out check
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The latest in eczema news, delivered

Evidence-based articles, expert-sourced lifestyle tips and stories from your community.