literature analysis and synthesis

Literature Syntheis 101

How To Synthesise The Existing Research (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | August 2023

One of the most common mistakes that students make when writing a literature review is that they err on the side of describing the existing literature rather than providing a critical synthesis of it. In this post, we’ll unpack what exactly synthesis means and show you how to craft a strong literature synthesis using practical examples.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Literature Synthesis

• What exactly does “synthesis” mean?
• Aspect 1: Agreement
• Aspect 2: Disagreement
• Aspect 3: Key theories
• Aspect 4: Contexts
• Aspect 5: Methodologies
• Bringing it all together

What does “synthesis” actually mean?

As a starting point, let’s quickly define what exactly we mean when we use the term “synthesis” within the context of a literature review.

Simply put, literature synthesis means going beyond just describing what everyone has said and found. Instead, synthesis is about bringing together all the information from various sources to present a cohesive assessment of the current state of knowledge in relation to your study’s research aims and questions .

Put another way, a good synthesis tells the reader exactly where the current research is “at” in terms of the topic you’re interested in – specifically, what’s known , what’s not , and where there’s a need for more research .

So, how do you go about doing this?

Well, there’s no “one right way” when it comes to literature synthesis, but we’ve found that it’s particularly useful to ask yourself five key questions when you’re working on your literature review. Having done so,  you can then address them more articulately within your actual write up. So, let’s take a look at each of these questions.

1. Points Of Agreement

The first question that you need to ask yourself is: “Overall, what things seem to be agreed upon by the vast majority of the literature?”

For example, if your research aim is to identify which factors contribute toward job satisfaction, you’ll need to identify which factors are broadly agreed upon and “settled” within the literature. Naturally, there may at times be some lone contrarian that has a radical viewpoint , but, provided that the vast majority of researchers are in agreement, you can put these random outliers to the side. That is, of course, unless your research aims to explore a contrarian viewpoint and there’s a clear justification for doing so. 

Identifying what’s broadly agreed upon is an essential starting point for synthesising the literature, because you generally don’t want (or need) to reinvent the wheel or run down a road investigating something that is already well established . So, addressing this question first lays a foundation of “settled” knowledge.

Need a helping hand?

2. Points Of Disagreement

Related to the previous point, but on the other end of the spectrum, is the equally important question: “Where do the disagreements lie?” .

In other words, which things are not well agreed upon by current researchers? It’s important to clarify here that by disagreement, we don’t mean that researchers are (necessarily) fighting over it – just that there are relatively mixed findings within the empirical research , with no firm consensus amongst researchers.

This is a really important question to address as these “disagreements” will often set the stage for the research gap(s). In other words, they provide clues regarding potential opportunities for further research, which your study can then (hopefully) contribute toward filling. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a research gap, be sure to check out our explainer video covering exactly that .

3. Key Theories

The next question you need to ask yourself is: “Which key theories seem to be coming up repeatedly?” .

Within most research spaces, you’ll find that you keep running into a handful of key theories that are referred to over and over again. Apart from identifying these theories, you’ll also need to think about how they’re connected to each other. Specifically, you need to ask yourself:

• Are they all covering the same ground or do they have different focal points  or underlying assumptions ?
• Do some of them feed into each other and if so, is there an opportunity to integrate them into a more cohesive theory?
• Do some of them pull in different directions ? If so, why might this be?
• Do all of the theories define the key concepts and variables in the same way, or is there some disconnect? If so, what’s the impact of this ?

Simply put, you’ll need to pay careful attention to the key theories in your research area, as they will need to feature within your theoretical framework , which will form a critical component within your final literature review. This will set the foundation for your entire study, so it’s essential that you be critical in this area of your literature synthesis.

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of our limited-time offer to get 60% off the standard price.

4. Contexts

The next question that you need to address in your literature synthesis is an important one, and that is: “Which contexts have (and have not) been covered by the existing research?” .

For example, sticking with our earlier hypothetical topic (factors that impact job satisfaction), you may find that most of the research has focused on white-collar , management-level staff within a primarily Western context, but little has been done on blue-collar workers in an Eastern context. Given the significant socio-cultural differences between these two groups, this is an important observation, as it could present a contextual research gap .

In practical terms, this means that you’ll need to carefully assess the context of each piece of literature that you’re engaging with, especially the empirical research (i.e., studies that have collected and analysed real-world data). Ideally, you should keep notes regarding the context of each study in some sort of catalogue or sheet, so that you can easily make sense of this before you start the writing phase. If you’d like, our free literature catalogue worksheet is a great tool for this task.

5. Methodological Approaches

Last but certainly not least, you need to ask yourself the question: “What types of research methodologies have (and haven’t) been used?”

For example, you might find that most studies have approached the topic using qualitative methods such as interviews and thematic analysis. Alternatively, you might find that most studies have used quantitative methods such as online surveys and statistical analysis.

But why does this matter?

Well, it can run in one of two potential directions . If you find that the vast majority of studies use a specific methodological approach, this could provide you with a firm foundation on which to base your own study’s methodology . In other words, you can use the methodologies of similar studies to inform (and justify) your own study’s research design .

On the other hand, you might argue that the lack of diverse methodological approaches presents a research gap , and therefore your study could contribute toward filling that gap by taking a different approach. For example, taking a qualitative approach to a research area that is typically approached quantitatively. Of course, if you’re going to go against the methodological grain, you’ll need to provide a strong justification for why your proposed approach makes sense. Nevertheless, it is something worth at least considering.

Regardless of which route you opt for, you need to pay careful attention to the methodologies used in the relevant studies and provide at least some discussion about this in your write-up. Again, it’s useful to keep track of this on some sort of spreadsheet or catalogue as you digest each article, so consider grabbing a copy of our free literature catalogue if you don’t have anything in place.

Bringing It All Together

Alright, so we’ve looked at five important questions that you need to ask (and answer) to help you develop a strong synthesis within your literature review.  To recap, these are:

• Which things are broadly agreed upon within the current research?
• Which things are the subject of disagreement (or at least, present mixed findings)?
• Which theories seem to be central to your research topic and how do they relate or compare to each other?
• Which contexts have (and haven’t) been covered?
• Which methodological approaches are most common?

Importantly, you’re not just asking yourself these questions for the sake of asking them – they’re not just a reflection exercise. You need to weave your answers to them into your actual literature review when you write it up. How exactly you do this will vary from project to project depending on the structure you opt for, but you’ll still need to address them within your literature review, whichever route you go.

The best approach is to spend some time actually writing out your answers to these questions, as opposed to just thinking about them in your head. Putting your thoughts onto paper really helps you flesh out your thinking . As you do this, don’t just write down the answers – instead, think about what they mean in terms of the research gap you’ll present , as well as the methodological approach you’ll take . Your literature synthesis needs to lay the groundwork for these two things, so it’s essential that you link all of it together in your mind, and of course, on paper.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

excellent , thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 6. Synthesize
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Synthesis Visualization

Synthesis matrix example.

• 7. Write a Literature Review

• Synthesis Worksheet

About Synthesis

Approaches to synthesis.

You can sort the literature in various ways, for example:

How to Begin?

Read your sources carefully and find the main idea(s) of each source

Look for similarities in your sources – which sources are talking about the same main ideas? (for example, sources that discuss the historical background on your topic)

Use the worksheet (above) or synthesis matrix (below) to get organized

This work can be messy. Don't worry if you have to go through a few iterations of the worksheet or matrix as you work on your lit review!

Four Examples of Student Writing

In the four examples below, only ONE shows a good example of synthesis: the fourth column, or  Student D . For a web accessible version, click the link below the image.

Long description of "Four Examples of Student Writing" for web accessibility

• Download a copy of the "Four Examples of Student Writing" chart

Click on the example to view the pdf.

From Jennifer Lim

• << Previous: 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• Next: 7. Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 10, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

Library Guides

Literature reviews: synthesis.

• Criticality

Synthesise Information

So, how can you create paragraphs within your literature review that demonstrates your knowledge of the scholarship that has been done in your field of study?  

You will need to present a synthesis of the texts you read.  

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains synthesis for us in the following video:  

Synthesising Texts  

What is synthesis? 

Synthesis is an important element of academic writing, demonstrating comprehension, analysis, evaluation and original creation.  

With synthesis you extract content from different sources to create an original text. While paraphrase and summary maintain the structure of the given source(s), with synthesis you create a new structure.  

The sources will provide different perspectives and evidence on a topic. They will be put together when agreeing, contrasted when disagreeing. The sources must be referenced.  

Perfect your synthesis by showing the flow of your reasoning, expressing critical evaluation of the sources and drawing conclusions.  

When you synthesise think of "using strategic thinking to resolve a problem requiring the integration of diverse pieces of information around a structuring theme" (Mateos and Sole 2009, p448). 

Synthesis is a complex activity, which requires a high degree of comprehension and active engagement with the subject. As you progress in higher education, so increase the expectations on your abilities to synthesise. 

How to synthesise in a literature review: 

Identify themes/issues you'd like to discuss in the literature review. Think of an outline.  

Read the literature and identify these themes/issues.  

Critically analyse the texts asking: how does the text I'm reading relate to the other texts I've read on the same topic? Is it in agreement? Does it differ in its perspective? Is it stronger or weaker? How does it differ (could be scope, methods, year of publication etc.). Draw your conclusions on the state of the literature on the topic.  

Start writing your literature review, structuring it according to the outline you planned.  

Put together sources stating the same point; contrast sources presenting counter-arguments or different points.  

Present your critical analysis.  

Always provide the references. 

The best synthesis requires a "recursive process" whereby you read the source texts, identify relevant parts, take notes, produce drafts, re-read the source texts, revise your text, re-write... (Mateos and Sole, 2009). 

What is good synthesis?  

The quality of your synthesis can be assessed considering the following (Mateos and Sole, 2009, p439):  

Integration and connection of the information from the source texts around a structuring theme. 

Selection of ideas necessary for producing the synthesis. 

Appropriateness of the interpretation.  

Elaboration of the content.  

Example of Synthesis

Original texts (fictitious): 

Synthesis: 

Animal experimentation is a subject of heated debate. Some argue that painful experiments should be banned. Indeed it has been demonstrated that such experiments make animals suffer physically and psychologically (Chowdhury 2012; Panatta and Hudson 2016). On the other hand, it has been argued that animal experimentation can save human lives and reduce harm on humans (Smith 2008). This argument is only valid for toxicological testing, not for tests that, for example, merely improve the efficacy of a cosmetic (Turner 2015). It can be suggested that animal experimentation should be regulated to only allow toxicological risk assessment, and the suffering to the animals should be minimised.   

Bibliography

Mateos, M. and Sole, I. (2009). Synthesising Information from various texts: A Study of Procedures and Products at Different Educational Levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education,  24 (4), 435-451. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760 [Accessed 29 June 2021].

• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Criticality >>
• Last Updated: Nov 18, 2023 10:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/literature-reviews

CONNECT WITH US

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Synthesize your Information

Synthesize: combine separate elements to form a whole.

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

After summarizing and evaluating your sources, arrange them in a matrix or use a citation manager to help you see how they relate to each other and apply to each of your themes or variables.  

By arranging your sources by theme or variable, you can see how your sources relate to each other, and can start thinking about how you weave them together to create a narrative.

• Step-by-Step Approach
• Example Matrix from NSCU
• Matrix Template
• << Previous: Summarize
• Next: Integrate >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Literature Review Basics

• What is a Literature Review?
• Synthesizing Research
• Using Research & Synthesis Tables
• Additional Resources

Synthesis: What is it?

First, let's be perfectly clear about what synthesizing your research isn't :

• - It isn't  just summarizing the material you read
• - It isn't  generating a collection of annotations or comments (like an annotated bibliography)
• - It isn't  compiling a report on every single thing ever written in relation to your topic

When you  synthesize  your research, your job is to help your reader understand the current state of the conversation on your topic, relative to your research question.  That may include doing the following:

• - Selecting and using representative work on the topic
• - Identifying and discussing trends in published data or results
• - Identifying and explaining the impact of common features (study populations, interventions, etc.) that appear frequently in the literature
• - Explaining controversies, disputes, or central issues in the literature that are relevant to your research question
• - Identifying gaps in the literature, where more research is needed
• - Establishing the discussion to which your own research contributes and demonstrating the value of your contribution

Essentially, you're telling your reader where they are (and where you are) in the scholarly conversation about your project.

Synthesis: How do I do it?

Synthesis, step by step.

This is what you need to do  before  you write your review.

• Identify and clearly describe your research question (you may find the Formulating PICOT Questions table at  the Additional Resources tab helpful).
• Collect sources relevant to your research question.
• Organize and describe the sources you've found -- your job is to identify what  types  of sources you've collected (reviews, clinical trials, etc.), identify their  purpose  (what are they measuring, testing, or trying to discover?), determine the  level of evidence  they represent (see the Levels of Evidence table at the Additional Resources tab ), and briefly explain their  major findings . Use a Research Table to document this step.
• Study the information you've put in your Research Table and examine your collected sources, looking for  similarities  and  differences . Pay particular attention to  populations ,   methods  (especially relative to levels of evidence), and  findings .
• Analyze what you learn in (4) using a tool like a Synthesis Table. Your goal is to identify relevant themes, trends, gaps, and issues in the research.  Your literature review will collect the results of this analysis and explain them in relation to your research question.

Analysis tips

• - Sometimes, what you  don't  find in the literature is as important as what you do find -- look for questions that the existing research hasn't answered yet.
• - If any of the sources you've collected refer to or respond to each other, keep an eye on how they're related -- it may provide a clue as to whether or not study results have been successfully replicated.
• - Sorting your collected sources by level of evidence can provide valuable insight into how a particular topic has been covered, and it may help you to identify gaps worth addressing in your own work.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Using Research & Synthesis Tables >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:06 PM
• URL: https://usi.libguides.com/literature-review-basics

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Literature Reviews

• Introduction
• Tutorials and resources
• Step 1: Literature search
• Step 2: Analysis, synthesis, critique
• Step 3: Writing the review

If you need any assistance, please contact the library staff at the Georgia Tech Library Help website . 

Analysis, synthesis, critique

Literature reviews build a story. You are telling the story about what you are researching. Therefore, a literature review is a handy way to show that you know what you are talking about. To do this, here are a few important skills you will need.

Skill #1: Analysis

Analysis means that you have carefully read a wide range of the literature on your topic and have understood the main themes, and identified how the literature relates to your own topic. Carefully read and analyze the articles you find in your search, and take notes. Notice the main point of the article, the methodologies used, what conclusions are reached, and what the main themes are. Most bibliographic management tools have capability to keep notes on each article you find, tag them with keywords, and organize into groups.

Skill #2: Synthesis

After you’ve read the literature, you will start to see some themes and categories emerge, some research trends to emerge, to see where scholars agree or disagree, and how works in your chosen field or discipline are related. One way to keep track of this is by using a Synthesis Matrix .

Skill #3: Critique

As you are writing your literature review, you will want to apply a critical eye to the literature you have evaluated and synthesized. Consider the strong arguments you will make contrasted with the potential gaps in previous research. The words that you choose to report your critiques of the literature will be non-neutral. For instance, using a word like “attempted” suggests that a researcher tried something but was not successful. For example: 

There were some attempts by Smith (2012) and Jones (2013) to integrate a new methodology in this process.

On the other hand, using a word like “proved” or a phrase like “produced results” evokes a more positive argument. For example:

The new methodologies employed by Blake (2014) produced results that provided further evidence of X.

In your critique, you can point out where you believe there is room for more coverage in a topic, or further exploration in in a sub-topic.

Need more help?

If you are looking for more detailed guidance about writing your dissertation, please contact the folks in the Georgia Tech Communication Center .

• << Previous: Step 1: Literature search
• Next: Step 3: Writing the review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:21 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.gatech.edu/litreview

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
• AIMS Public Health
• v.3(1); 2016

What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis

Kara schick-makaroff.

1 Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Marjorie MacDonald

2 School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

Marilyn Plummer

3 College of Nursing, Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada

Judy Burgess

4 Student Services, University Health Services, Victoria, BC, Canada

Wendy Neander

Associated data, additional file 1.

When we began this process, we were doctoral students and a faculty member in a research methods course. As students, we were facing a review of the literature for our dissertations. We encountered several different ways of conducting a review but were unable to locate any resources that synthesized all of the various synthesis methodologies. Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use ‘research synthesis’ as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.

We conducted an integrative review of the literature to explore the historical, contextual, and evolving nature of research synthesis. We searched five databases, reviewed websites of key organizations, hand-searched several journals, and examined relevant texts from the reference lists of the documents we had already obtained.

We identified four broad categories of research synthesis methodology including conventional, quantitative, qualitative, and emerging syntheses. Each of the broad categories was compared to the others on the following: key characteristics, purpose, method, product, context, underlying assumptions, unit of analysis, strengths and limitations, and when to use each approach.

Conclusions

The current state of research synthesis reflects significant advancements in emerging synthesis studies that integrate diverse data types and sources. New approaches to research synthesis provide a much broader range of review alternatives available to health and social science students and researchers.

1. Introduction

Since the turn of the century, public health emergencies have been identified worldwide, particularly related to infectious diseases. For example, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic in Canada in 2002-2003, the recent Ebola epidemic in Africa, and the ongoing HIV/AIDs pandemic are global health concerns. There have also been dramatic increases in the prevalence of chronic diseases around the world [1] – [3] . These epidemiological challenges have raised concerns about the ability of health systems worldwide to address these crises. As a result, public health systems reform has been initiated in a number of countries. In Canada, as in other countries, the role of evidence to support public health reform and improve population health has been given high priority. Yet, there continues to be a significant gap between the production of evidence through research and its application in practice [4] – [5] . One strategy to address this gap has been the development of new research synthesis methodologies to deal with the time-sensitive and wide ranging evidence needs of policy makers and practitioners in all areas of health care, including public health.

As doctoral nursing students facing a review of the literature for our dissertations, and as a faculty member teaching a research methods course, we encountered several ways of conducting a research synthesis but found no comprehensive resources that discussed, compared, and contrasted various synthesis methodologies on their purposes, processes, strengths and limitations. To complicate matters, writers use terms interchangeably or use different terms to mean the same thing, and the literature is often contradictory about various approaches. Some texts [6] , [7] – [9] did provide a preliminary understanding about how research synthesis had been taken up in nursing, but these did not meet our requirements. Thus, in this article we address the need for a comprehensive overview of research synthesis methodologies to guide public health, health care, and social science researchers and practitioners.

Research synthesis is relatively new in public health but has a long history in other fields dating back to the late 1800s. Research synthesis, a research process in its own right [10] , has become more prominent in the wake of the evidence-based movement of the 1990s. Research syntheses have found their advocates and detractors in all disciplines, with challenges to the processes of systematic review and meta-analysis, in particular, being raised by critics of evidence-based healthcare [11] – [13] .

Our purpose was to conduct an integrative review of the literature to explore the historical, contextual, and evolving nature of research synthesis [14] – [15] . We synthesize and critique the main approaches to research synthesis that are relevant for public health, health care, and social scientists. Research synthesis is the overarching term we use to describe approaches to combining, aggregating, integrating, and synthesizing primary research findings. Each synthesis methodology draws on different types of findings depending on the purpose and product of the chosen synthesis (see Additional File 1 ).

3. Method of Review

Based on our current knowledge of the literature, we identified these approaches to include in our review: systematic review, meta-analysis, qualitative meta-synthesis, meta-narrative synthesis, scoping review, rapid review, realist synthesis, concept analysis, literature review, and integrative review. Our first step was to divide the synthesis types among the research team. Each member did a preliminary search to identify key texts. The team then met to develop search terms and a framework to guide the review.

Over the period of 2008 to 2012 we extensively searched the literature, updating our search at several time points, not restricting our search by date. The dates of texts reviewed range from 1967 to 2015. We used the terms above combined with the term “method* (e.g., “realist synthesis” and “method*) in the database Health Source: Academic Edition (includes Medline and CINAHL). This search yielded very few texts on some methodologies and many on others. We realized that many documents on research synthesis had not been picked up in the search. Therefore, we also searched Google Scholar, PubMed, ERIC, and Social Science Index, as well as the websites of key organizations such as the Joanna Briggs Institute, the University of York Centre for Evidence-Based Nursing, and the Cochrane Collaboration database. We hand searched several nursing, social science, public health and health policy journals. Finally, we traced relevant documents from the references in obtained texts.

We included works that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) published in English; (2) discussed the history of research synthesis; (3) explicitly described the approach and specific methods; or (4) identified issues, challenges, strengths and limitations of the particular methodology. We excluded research reports that resulted from the use of particular synthesis methodologies unless they also included criteria 2, 3, or 4 above.

Based on our search, we identified additional types of research synthesis (e.g., meta-interpretation, best evidence synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis, meta-summary, grounded formal theory). Still, we missed some important developments in meta-analysis, for example, identified by the journal's reviewers that have now been discussed briefly in the paper. The final set of 197 texts included in our review comprised theoretical, empirical, and conceptual papers, books, editorials and commentaries, and policy documents.

In our preliminary review of key texts, the team inductively developed a framework of the important elements of each method for comparison. In the next phase, each text was read carefully, and data for these elements were extracted into a table for comparison on the points of: key characteristics, purpose, methods, and product; see Additional File 1 ). Once the data were grouped and extracted, we synthesized across categories based on the following additional points of comparison: complexity of the process, degree of systematization, consideration of context, underlying assumptions, unit of analysis, and when to use each approach. In our results, we discuss our comparison of the various synthesis approaches on the elements above. Drawing only on documents for the review, ethics approval was not required.

We identified four broad categories of research synthesis methodology: Conventional, quantitative, qualitative, and emerging syntheses. From our dataset of 197 texts, we had 14 texts on conventional synthesis, 64 on quantitative synthesis, 78 on qualitative synthesis, and 41 on emerging syntheses. Table 1 provides an overview of the four types of research synthesis, definitions, types of data used, products, and examples of the methodology.

Although we group these types of synthesis into four broad categories on the basis of similarities, each type within a category has unique characteristics, which may differ from the overall group similarities. Each could be explored in greater depth to tease out their unique characteristics, but detailed comparison is beyond the scope of this article.

Additional File 1 presents one or more selected types of synthesis that represent the broad category but is not an exhaustive presentation of all types within each category. It provides more depth for specific examples from each category of synthesis on the characteristics, purpose, methods, and products than is found in Table 1 .

4.1. Key Characteristics

4.1.1. what is it.

Here we draw on two types of categorization. First, we utilize Dixon Woods et al.'s [49] classification of research syntheses as being either integrative or interpretive . (Please note that integrative syntheses are not the same as an integrative review as defined in Additional File 1 .) Second, we use Popay's [80] enhancement and epistemological models .

The defining characteristics of integrative syntheses are that they involve summarizing the data achieved by pooling data [49] . Integrative syntheses include systematic reviews, meta-analyses, as well as scoping and rapid reviews because each of these focus on summarizing data. They also define concepts from the outset (although this may not always be true in scoping or rapid reviews) and deal with a well-specified phenomenon of interest.

Interpretive syntheses are primarily concerned with the development of concepts and theories that integrate concepts [49] . The analysis in interpretive synthesis is conceptual both in process and outcome, and “the product is not aggregations of data, but theory” [49] , [p.12]. Interpretive syntheses involve induction and interpretation, and are primarily conceptual in process and outcome. Examples include integrative reviews, some systematic reviews, all of the qualitative syntheses, meta-narrative, realist and critical interpretive syntheses. Of note, both quantitative and qualitative studies can be either integrative or interpretive

The second categorization, enhancement versus epistemological , applies to those approaches that use multiple data types and sources [80] . Popay's [80] classification reflects the ways that qualitative data are valued in relation to quantitative data.

In the enhancement model , qualitative data adds something to quantitative analysis. The enhancement model is reflected in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that use some qualitative data to enhance interpretation and explanation. It may also be reflected in some rapid reviews that draw on quantitative data but use some qualitative data.

The epistemological model assumes that quantitative and qualitative data are equal and each has something unique to contribute. All of the other review approaches, except pure quantitative or qualitative syntheses, reflect the epistemological model because they value all data types equally but see them as contributing different understandings.

4.1.2. Data type

By and large, the quantitative approaches (quantitative systematic review and meta-analysis) have typically used purely quantitative data (i.e., expressed in numeric form). More recently, both Cochrane [81] and Campbell [82] collaborations are grappling with the need to, and the process of, integrating qualitative research into a systematic review. The qualitative approaches use qualitative data (i.e., expressed in words). All of the emerging synthesis types, as well as the conventional integrative review, incorporate qualitative and quantitative study designs and data.

4.1.3. Research question

Four types of research questions direct inquiry across the different types of syntheses. The first is a well-developed research question that gives direction to the synthesis (e.g., meta-analysis, systematic review, meta-study, concept analysis, rapid review, realist synthesis). The second begins as a broad general question that evolves and becomes more refined over the course of the synthesis (e.g., meta-ethnography, scoping review, meta-narrative, critical interpretive synthesis). In the third type, the synthesis begins with a phenomenon of interest and the question emerges in the analytic process (e.g., grounded formal theory). Lastly, there is no clear question, but rather a general review purpose (e.g., integrative review). Thus, the requirement for a well-defined question cuts across at least three of the synthesis types (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, and emerging).

4.1.4. Quality appraisal

This is a contested issue within and between the four synthesis categories. There are strong proponents of quality appraisal in the quantitative traditions of systematic review and meta-analysis based on the need for strong studies that will not jeopardize validity of the overall findings. Nonetheless, there is no consensus on pre-defined criteria; many scales exist that vary dramatically in composition. This has methodological implications for the credibility of findings [83] .

Specific methodologies from the conventional, qualitative, and emerging categories support quality appraisal but do so with caveats. In conventional integrative reviews appraisal is recommended, but depends on the sampling frame used in the study [18] . In meta-study, appraisal criteria are explicit but quality criteria are used in different ways depending on the specific requirements of the inquiry [54] . Among the emerging syntheses, meta-narrative review developers support appraisal of a study based on criteria from the research tradition of the primary study [67] , [84] – [85] . Realist synthesis similarly supports the use of high quality evidence, but appraisal checklists are viewed with scepticism and evidence is judged based on relevance to the research question and whether a credible inference may be drawn [69] . Like realist, critical interpretive syntheses do not judge quality using standardized appraisal instruments. They will exclude fatally flawed studies, but there is no consensus on what ‘fatally flawed’ means [49] , [71] . Appraisal is based on relevance to the inquiry, not rigor of the study.

There is no agreement on quality appraisal among qualitative meta-ethnographers with some supporting and others refuting the need for appraisal. [60] , [62] . Opponents of quality appraisal are found among authors of qualitative (grounded formal theory and concept analysis) and emerging syntheses (scoping and rapid reviews) because quality is not deemed relevant to the intention of the synthesis; the studies being reviewed are not effectiveness studies where quality is extremely important. These qualitative synthesis are often reviews of theoretical developments where the concept itself is what is important, or reviews that provide quotations from the raw data so readers can make their own judgements about the relevance and utility of the data. For example, in formal grounded theory, the purpose of theory generation and authenticity of data used to generate the theory is not as important as the conceptual category. Inaccuracies may be corrected in other ways, such as using the constant comparative method, which facilitates development of theoretical concepts that are repeatedly found in the data [86] – [87] . For pragmatic reasons, evidence is not assessed in rapid and scoping reviews, in part to produce a timely product. The issue of quality appraisal is unresolved across the terrain of research synthesis and we consider this further in our discussion.

4.2. Purpose

All research syntheses share a common purpose -- to summarize, synthesize, or integrate research findings from diverse studies. This helps readers stay abreast of the burgeoning literature in a field. Our discussion here is at the level of the four categories of synthesis. Beginning with conventional literature syntheses, the overall purpose is to attend to mature topics for the purpose of re-conceptualization or to new topics requiring preliminary conceptualization [14] . Such syntheses may be helpful to consider contradictory evidence, map shifting trends in the study of a phenomenon, and describe the emergence of research in diverse fields [14] . The purpose here is to set the stage for a study by identifying what has been done, gaps in the literature, important research questions, or to develop a conceptual framework to guide data collection and analysis.

The purpose of quantitative systematic reviews is to combine, aggregate, or integrate empirical research to be able to generalize from a group of studies and determine the limits of generalization [27] . The focus of quantitative systematic reviews has been primarily on aggregating the results of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions using experimental, quasi-experimental, and more recently, observational designs. Systematic reviews can be done with or without quantitative meta-analysis but a meta-analysis always takes place within the context of a systematic review. Researchers must consider the review's purpose and the nature of their data in undertaking a quantitative synthesis; this will assist in determining the approach.

The purpose of qualitative syntheses is broadly to synthesize complex health experiences, practices, or concepts arising in healthcare environments. There may be various purposes depending on the qualitative methodology. For example, in hermeneutic studies the aim may be holistic explanation or understanding of a phenomenon [42] , which is deepened by integrating the findings from multiple studies. In grounded formal theory, the aim is to produce a conceptual framework or theory expected to be applicable beyond the original study. Although not able to generalize from qualitative research in the statistical sense [88] , qualitative researchers usually do want to say something about the applicability of their synthesis to other settings or phenomena. This notion of ‘theoretical generalization’ has been referred to as ‘transferability’ [89] – [90] and is an important criterion of rigour in qualitative research. It applies equally to the products of a qualitative synthesis in which the synthesis of multiple studies on the same phenomenon strengthens the ability to draw transferable conclusions.

The overarching purpose of emerging syntheses is challenging the more traditional types of syntheses, in part by using data from both quantitative and qualitative studies with diverse designs for analysis. Beyond this, however, each emerging synthesis methodology has a unique purpose. In meta-narrative review, the purpose is to identify different research traditions in the area, synthesize a complex and diverse body of research. Critical interpretive synthesis shares this characteristic. Although a distinctive approach, critical interpretive synthesis utilizes a modification of the analytic strategies of meta-ethnography [61] (e.g., reciprocal translational analysis, refutational synthesis, and lines of argument synthesis) but goes beyond the use of these to bring a critical perspective to bear in challenging the normative or epistemological assumptions in the primary literature [72] – [73] . The unique purpose of a realist synthesis is to amalgamate complex empirical evidence and theoretical understandings within a diverse body of literature to uncover the operative mechanisms and contexts that affect the outcomes of social interventions. In a scoping review, the intention is to find key concepts, examine the range of research in an area, and identify gaps in the literature. The purpose of a rapid review is comparable to that of a scoping review, but done quickly to meet the time-sensitive information needs of policy makers.

4.3. Method

4.3.1. degree of systematization.

There are varying degrees of systematization across the categories of research synthesis. The most systematized are quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There are clear processes in each with judgments to be made at each step, although there are no agreed upon guidelines for this. The process is inherently subjective despite attempts to develop objective and systematic processes [91] – [92] . Mullen and Ramirez [27] suggest that there is often a false sense of rigour implied by the terms ‘systematic review’ and ‘meta-analysis’ because of their clearly defined procedures.

In comparison with some types of qualitative synthesis, concept analysis is quite procedural. Qualitative meta-synthesis also has defined procedures and is systematic, yet perhaps less so than concept analysis. Qualitative meta-synthesis starts in an unsystematic way but becomes more systematic as it unfolds. Procedures and frameworks exist for some of the emerging types of synthesis [e.g., [50] , [63] , [71] , [93] ] but are not linear, have considerable flexibility, and are often messy with emergent processes [85] . Conventional literature reviews tend not to be as systematic as the other three types. In fact, the lack of systematization in conventional literature synthesis was the reason for the development of more systematic quantitative [17] , [20] and qualitative [45] – [46] , [61] approaches. Some authors in the field [18] have clarified processes for integrative reviews making them more systematic and rigorous, but most conventional syntheses remain relatively unsystematic in comparison with other types.

4.3.2. Complexity of the process

Some synthesis processes are considerably more complex than others. Methodologies with clearly defined steps are arguably less complex than the more flexible and emergent ones. We know that any study encounters challenges and it is rare that a pre-determined research protocol can be followed exactly as intended. Not even the rigorous methods associated with Cochrane [81] systematic reviews and meta-analyses are always implemented exactly as intended. Even when dealing with numbers rather than words, interpretation is always part of the process. Our collective experience suggests that new methodologies (e.g., meta-narrative synthesis and realist synthesis) that integrate different data types and methods are more complex than conventional reviews or the rapid and scoping reviews.

4.4. Product

The products of research syntheses usually take three distinct formats (see Table 1 and Additional File 1 for further details). The first representation is in tables, charts, graphical displays, diagrams and maps as seen in integrative, scoping and rapid reviews, meta-analyses, and critical interpretive syntheses. The second type of synthesis product is the use of mathematical scores. Summary statements of effectiveness are mathematically displayed in meta-analyses (as an effect size), systematic reviews, and rapid reviews (statistical significance).

The third synthesis product may be a theory or theoretical framework. A mid-range theory can be produced from formal grounded theory, meta-study, meta-ethnography, and realist synthesis. Theoretical/conceptual frameworks or conceptual maps may be created in meta-narrative and critical interpretive syntheses, and integrative reviews. Concepts for use within theories are produced in concept analysis. While these three product types span the categories of research synthesis, narrative description and summary is used to present the products resulting from all methodologies.

4.5. Consideration of context

There are diverse ways that context is considered in the four broad categories of synthesis. Context may be considered to the extent that it features within primary studies for the purpose of the review. Context may also be understood as an integral aspect of both the phenomenon under study and the synthesis methodology (e.g., realist synthesis). Quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses have typically been conducted on studies using experimental and quasi-experimental designs and more recently observational studies, which control for contextual features to allow for understanding of the ‘true’ effect of the intervention [94] .

More recently, systematic reviews have included covariates or mediating variables (i.e., contextual factors) to help explain variability in the results across studies [27] . Context, however, is usually handled in the narrative discussion of findings rather than in the synthesis itself. This lack of attention to context has been one criticism leveled against systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which restrict the types of research designs that are considered [e.g., [95] ].

When conventional literature reviews incorporate studies that deal with context, there is a place for considering contextual influences on the intervention or phenomenon. Reviews of quantitative experimental studies tend to be devoid of contextual considerations since the original studies are similarly devoid, but context might figure prominently in a literature review that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Qualitative syntheses have been conducted on the contextual features of a particular phenomenon [33] . Paterson et al. [54] advise researchers to attend to how context may have influenced the findings of particular primary studies. In qualitative analysis, contextual features may form categories by which the data can be compared and contrasted to facilitate interpretation. Because qualitative research is often conducted to understand a phenomenon as a whole, context may be a focus, although this varies with the qualitative methodology. At the same time, the findings in a qualitative synthesis are abstracted from the original reports and taken to a higher level of conceptualization, thus removing them from the original context.

Meta-narrative synthesis [67] , [84] , because it draws on diverse research traditions and methodologies, may incorporate context into the analysis and findings. There is not, however, an explicit step in the process that directs the analyst to consider context. Generally, the research question guiding the synthesis is an important factor in whether context will be a focus.

More recent iterations of concept analysis [47] , [96] – [97] explicitly consider context reflecting the assumption that a concept's meaning is determined by its context. Morse [47] points out, however, that Wilson's [98] approach to concept analysis, and those based on Wilson [e.g., [45] ], identify attributes that are devoid of context, while Rodgers' [96] , [99] evolutionary method considers context (e.g., antecedents, consequences, and relationships to other concepts) in concept development.

Realist synthesis [69] considers context as integral to the study. It draws on a critical realist logic of inquiry grounded in the work of Bhaskar [100] , who argues that empirical co-occurrence of events is insufficient for inferring causation. One must identify generative mechanisms whose properties are causal and, depending on the situation, may nor may not be activated [94] . Context interacts with program/intervention elements and thus cannot be differentiated from the phenomenon [69] . This approach synthesizes evidence on generative mechanisms and analyzes contextual features that activate them; the result feeds back into the context. The focus is on what works, for whom, under what conditions, why and how [68] .

4.6. Underlying Philosophical and Theoretical Assumptions

When we began our review, we ‘assumed’ that the assumptions underlying synthesis methodologies would be a distinguishing characteristic of synthesis types, and that we could compare the various types on their assumptions, explicit or implicit. We found, however, that many authors did not explicate the underlying assumptions of their methodologies, and it was difficult to infer them. Kirkevold [101] has argued that integrative reviews need to be carried out from an explicit philosophical or theoretical perspective. We argue this should be true for all types of synthesis.

Authors of some emerging synthesis approaches have been very explicit about their assumptions and philosophical underpinnings. An implicit assumption of most emerging synthesis methodologies is that quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses have limited utility in some fields [e.g., in public health – [13] , [102] ] and for some kinds of review questions like those about feasibility and appropriateness versus effectiveness [103] – [104] . They also assume that ontologically and epistemologically, both kinds of data can be combined. This is a significant debate in the literature because it is about the commensurability of overarching paradigms [105] but this is beyond the scope of this review.

Realist synthesis is philosophically grounded in critical realism or, as noted above, a realist logic of inquiry [93] , [99] , [106] – [107] . Key assumptions regarding the nature of interventions that inform critical realism have been described above in the section on context. See Pawson et al. [106] for more information on critical realism, the philosophical basis of realist synthesis.

Meta-narrative synthesis is explicitly rooted in a constructivist philosophy of science [108] in which knowledge is socially constructed rather than discovered, and what we take to be ‘truth’ is a matter of perspective. Reality has a pluralistic and plastic character, and there is no pre-existing ‘real world’ independent of human construction and language [109] . See Greenhalgh et al. [67] , [85] and Greenhalgh & Wong [97] for more discussion of the constructivist basis of meta-narrative synthesis.

In the case of purely quantitative or qualitative syntheses, it may be an easier matter to uncover unstated assumptions because they are likely to be shared with those of the primary studies in the genre. For example, grounded formal theory shares the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of grounded theory, rooted in the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism [110] – [111] and the philosophy of pragmatism [87] , [112] – [114] .

As with meta-narrative synthesis, meta-study developers identify constructivism as their interpretive philosophical foundation [54] , [88] . Epistemologically, constructivism focuses on how people construct and re-construct knowledge about a specific phenomenon, and has three main assumptions: (1) reality is seen as multiple, at times even incompatible with the phenomenon under consideration; (2) just as primary researchers construct interpretations from participants' data, meta-study researchers also construct understandings about the primary researchers' original findings. Thus, meta-synthesis is a construction of a construction, or a meta-construction; and (3) all constructions are shaped by the historical, social and ideological context in which they originated [54] . The key message here is that reports of any synthesis would benefit from an explicit identification of the underlying philosophical perspectives to facilitate a better understanding of the results, how they were derived, and how they are being interpreted.

4.7. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis for each category of review is generally distinct. For the emerging synthesis approaches, the unit of analysis is specific to the intention. In meta-narrative synthesis it is the storyline in diverse research traditions; in rapid review or scoping review, it depends on the focus but could be a concept; and in realist synthesis, it is the theories rather than programs that are the units of analysis. The elements of theory that are important in the analysis are mechanisms of action, the context, and the outcome [107] .

For qualitative synthesis, the units of analysis are generally themes, concepts or theories, although in meta-study, the units of analysis can be research findings (“meta-data-analysis”), research methods (“meta-method”) or philosophical/theoretical perspectives (“meta-theory”) [54] . In quantitative synthesis, the units of analysis range from specific statistics for systematic reviews to effect size of the intervention for meta-analysis. More recently, some systematic reviews focus on theories [115] – [116] , therefore it depends on the research question. Similarly, within conventional literature synthesis the units of analysis also depend on the research purpose, focus and question as well as on the type of research methods incorporated into the review. What is important in all research syntheses, however, is that the unit of analysis needs to be made explicit. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

4.8. Strengths and Limitations

In this section, we discuss the overarching strengths and limitations of synthesis methodologies as a whole and then highlight strengths and weaknesses across each of our four categories of synthesis.

4.8.1. Strengths of Research Syntheses in General

With the vast proliferation of research reports and the increased ease of retrieval, research synthesis has become more accessible providing a way of looking broadly at the current state of research. The availability of syntheses helps researchers, practitioners, and policy makers keep up with the burgeoning literature in their fields without which evidence-informed policy or practice would be difficult. Syntheses explain variation and difference in the data helping us identify the relevance for our own situations; they identify gaps in the literature leading to new research questions and study designs. They help us to know when to replicate a study and when to avoid excessively duplicating research. Syntheses can inform policy and practice in a way that well-designed single studies cannot; they provide building blocks for theory that helps us to understand and explain our phenomena of interest.

4.8.2. Limitations of Research Syntheses in General

The process of selecting, combining, integrating, and synthesizing across diverse study designs and data types can be complex and potentially rife with bias, even with those methodologies that have clearly defined steps. Just because a rigorous and standardized approach has been used does not mean that implicit judgements will not influence the interpretations and choices made at different stages.

In all types of synthesis, the quantity of data can be considerable, requiring difficult decisions about scope, which may affect relevance. The quantity of available data also has implications for the size of the research team. Few reviews these days can be done independently, in particular because decisions about inclusion and exclusion may require the involvement of more than one person to ensure reliability.

For all types of synthesis, it is likely that in areas with large, amorphous, and diverse bodies of literature, even the most sophisticated search strategies will not turn up all the relevant and important texts. This may be more important in some synthesis methodologies than in others, but the omission of key documents can influence the results of all syntheses. This issue can be addressed, at least in part, by including a library scientist on the research team as required by some funding agencies. Even then, it is possible to miss key texts. In this review, for example, because none of us are trained in or conduct meta-analyses, we were not even aware that we had missed some new developments in this field such as meta-regression [117] – [118] , network meta-analysis [119] – [121] , and the use of individual patient data in meta-analyses [122] – [123] .

One limitation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is that they rapidly go out of date. We thought this might be true for all types of synthesis, although we wondered if those that produce theory might not be somewhat more enduring. We have not answered this question but it is open for debate. For all types of synthesis, the analytic skills and the time required are considerable so it is clear that training is important before embarking on a review, and some types of review may not be appropriate for students or busy practitioners.

Finally, the quality of reporting in primary studies of all genres is variable so it is sometimes difficult to identify aspects of the study essential for the synthesis, or to determine whether the study meets quality criteria. There may be flaws in the original study, or journal page limitations may necessitate omitting important details. Reporting standards have been developed for some types of reviews (e.g., systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-narrative synthesis, realist synthesis); but there are no agreed upon standards for qualitative reviews. This is an important area for development in advancing the science of research synthesis.

4.8.3. Strengths and Limitations of the Four Synthesis Types

The conventional literature review and now the increasingly common integrative review remain important and accessible approaches for students, practitioners, and experienced researchers who want to summarize literature in an area but do not have the expertise to use one of the more complex methodologies. Carefully executed, such reviews are very useful for synthesizing literature in preparation for research grants and practice projects. They can determine the state of knowledge in an area and identify important gaps in the literature to provide a clear rationale or theoretical framework for a study [14] , [18] . There is a demand, however, for more rigour, with more attention to developing comprehensive search strategies and more systematic approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing the findings.

Generally, conventional reviews include diverse study designs and data types that facilitate comprehensiveness, which may be a strength on the one hand, but can also present challenges on the other. The complexity inherent in combining results from studies with diverse methodologies can result in bias and inaccuracies. The absence of clear guidelines about how to synthesize across diverse study types and data [18] has been a challenge for novice reviewers.

Quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been important in launching the field of evidence-based healthcare. They provide a systematic, orderly and auditable process for conducting a review and drawing conclusions [25] . They are arguably the most powerful approaches to understanding the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, especially when intervention studies on the same topic show very different results. When areas of research are dogged by controversy [25] or when study results go against strongly held beliefs, such approaches can reduce the uncertainty and bring strong evidence to bear on the controversy.

Despite their strengths, they also have limitations. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not provide a way of including complex literature comprising various types of evidence including qualitative studies, theoretical work, and epidemiological studies. Only certain types of design are considered and qualitative data are used in a limited way. This exclusion limits what can be learned in a topic area.

Meta-analyses are often not possible because of wide variability in study design, population, and interventions so they may have a narrow range of utility. New developments in meta-analysis, however, can be used to address some of these limitations. Network meta-analysis is used to explore relative efficacy of multiple interventions, even those that have never been compared in more conventional pairwise meta-analyses [121] , allowing for improved clinical decision making [120] . The limitation is that network meta-analysis has only been used in medical/clinical applications [119] and not in public health. It has not yet been widely accepted and many methodological challenges remain [120] – [121] . Meta-regression is another development that combines meta-analytic and linear regression principles to address the fact that heterogeneity of results may compromise a meta-analysis [117] – [118] . The disadvantage is that many clinicians are unfamiliar with it and may incorrectly interpret results [117] .

Some have accused meta-analysis of combining apples and oranges [124] raising questions in the field about their meaningfulness [25] , [28] . More recently, the use of individual rather than aggregate data has been useful in facilitating greater comparability among studies [122] . In fact, Tomas et al. [123] argue that meta-analysis using individual data is now the gold standard although access to the raw data from other studies may be a challenge to obtain.

The usefulness of systematic reviews in synthesizing complex health and social interventions has also been challenged [102] . It is often difficult to synthesize their findings because such studies are “epistemologically diverse and methodologically complex” [ [69] , p.21]. Rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria may allow only experimental or quasi-experimental designs into consideration resulting in lost information that may well be useful to policy makers for tailoring an intervention to the context or understanding its acceptance by recipients.

Qualitative syntheses may be the type of review most fraught with controversy and challenge, while also bringing distinct strengths to the enterprise. Although these methodologies provide a comprehensive and systematic review approach, they do not generally provide definitive statements about intervention effectiveness. They do, however, address important questions about the development of theoretical concepts, patient experiences, acceptability of interventions, and an understanding about why interventions might work.

Most qualitative syntheses aim to produce a theoretically generalizable mid-range theory that explains variation across studies. This makes them more useful than single primary studies, which may not be applicable beyond the immediate setting or population. All provide a contextual richness that enhances relevance and understanding. Another benefit of some types of qualitative synthesis (e.g., grounded formal theory) is that the concept of saturation provides a sound rationale for limiting the number of texts to be included thus making reviews potentially more manageable. This contrasts with the requirements of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that require an exhaustive search.

Qualitative researchers debate about whether the findings of ontologically and epistemological diverse qualitative studies can actually be combined or synthesized [125] because methodological diversity raises many challenges for synthesizing findings. The products of different types of qualitative syntheses range from theory and conceptual frameworks, to themes and rich descriptive narratives. Can one combine the findings from a phenomenological study with the theory produced in a grounded theory study? Many argue yes, but many also argue no.

Emerging synthesis methodologies were developed to address some limitations inherent in other types of synthesis but also have their own issues. Because each type is so unique, it is difficult to identify overarching strengths of the entire category. An important strength, however, is that these newer forms of synthesis provide a systematic and rigorous approach to synthesizing a diverse literature base in a topic area that includes a range of data types such as: both quantitative and qualitative studies, theoretical work, case studies, evaluations, epidemiological studies, trials, and policy documents. More than conventional literature reviews and systematic reviews, these approaches provide explicit guidance on analytic methods for integrating different types of data. The assumption is that all forms of data have something to contribute to knowledge and theory in a topic area. All have a defined but flexible process in recognition that the methods may need to shift as knowledge develops through the process.

Many emerging synthesis types are helpful to policy makers and practitioners because they are usually involved as team members in the process to define the research questions, and interpret and disseminate the findings. In fact, engagement of stakeholders is built into the procedures of the methods. This is true for rapid reviews, meta-narrative syntheses, and realist syntheses. It is less likely to be the case for critical interpretive syntheses.

Another strength of some approaches (realist and meta-narrative syntheses) is that quality and publication standards have been developed to guide researchers, reviewers, and funders in judging the quality of the products [108] , [126] – [127] . Training materials and online communities of practice have also been developed to guide users of realist and meta-narrative review methods [107] , [128] . A unique strength of critical interpretive synthesis is that it takes a critical perspective on the process that may help reconceptualize the data in a way not considered by the primary researchers [72] .

There are also challenges of these new approaches. The methods are new and there may be few published applications by researchers other than the developers of the methods, so new users often struggle with the application. The newness of the approaches means that there may not be mentors available to guide those unfamiliar with the methods. This is changing, however, and the number of applications in the literature is growing with publications by new users helping to develop the science of synthesis [e.g., [129] ]. However, the evolving nature of the approaches and their developmental stage present challenges for novice researchers.

4.9. When to Use Each Approach

Choosing an appropriate approach to synthesis will depend on the question you are asking, the purpose of the review, and the outcome or product you want to achieve. In Additional File 1 , we discuss each of these to provide guidance to readers on making a choice about review type. If researchers want to know whether a particular type of intervention is effective in achieving its intended outcomes, then they might choose a quantitative systemic review with or without meta-analysis, possibly buttressed with qualitative studies to provide depth and explanation of the results. Alternately, if the concern is about whether an intervention is effective with different populations under diverse conditions in varying contexts, then a realist synthesis might be the most appropriate.

If researchers' concern is to develop theory, they might consider qualitative syntheses or some of the emerging syntheses that produce theory (e.g., critical interpretive synthesis, realist review, grounded formal theory, qualitative meta-synthesis). If the aim is to track the development and evolution of concepts, theories or ideas, or to determine how an issue or question is addressed across diverse research traditions, then meta-narrative synthesis would be most appropriate.

When the purpose is to review the literature in advance of undertaking a new project, particularly by graduate students, then perhaps an integrative review would be appropriate. Such efforts contribute towards the expansion of theory, identify gaps in the research, establish the rationale for studying particular phenomena, and provide a framework for interpreting results in ways that might be useful for influencing policy and practice.

For researchers keen to bring new insights, interpretations, and critical re-conceptualizations to a body of research, then qualitative or critical interpretive syntheses will provide an inductive product that may offer new understandings or challenges to the status quo. These can inform future theory development, or provide guidance for policy and practice.

5. Discussion

What is the current state of science regarding research synthesis? Public health, health care, and social science researchers or clinicians have previously used all four categories of research synthesis, and all offer a suitable array of approaches for inquiries. New developments in systematic reviews and meta-analysis are providing ways of addressing methodological challenges [117] – [123] . There has also been significant advancement in emerging synthesis methodologies and they are quickly gaining popularity. Qualitative meta-synthesis is still evolving, particularly given how new it is within the terrain of research synthesis. In the midst of this evolution, outstanding issues persist such as grappling with: the quantity of data, quality appraisal, and integration with knowledge translation. These topics have not been thoroughly addressed and need further debate.

5.1. Quantity of Data

We raise the question of whether it is possible or desirable to find all available studies for a synthesis that has this requirement (e.g., meta-analysis, systematic review, scoping, meta-narrative synthesis [25] , [27] , [63] , [67] , [84] – [85] ). Is the synthesis of all available studies a realistic goal in light of the burgeoning literature? And how can this be sustained in the future, particularly as the emerging methodologies continue to develop and as the internet facilitates endless access? There has been surprisingly little discussion on this topic and the answers will have far-reaching implications for searching, sampling, and team formation.

Researchers and graduate students can no longer rely on their own independent literature search. They will likely need to ask librarians for assistance as they navigate multiple sources of literature and learn new search strategies. Although teams now collaborate with library scientists, syntheses are limited in that researchers must make decisions on the boundaries of the review, in turn influencing the study's significance. The size of a team may also be pragmatically determined to manage the search, extraction, and synthesis of the burgeoning data. There is no single answer to our question about the possibility or necessity of finding all available articles for a review. Multiple strategies that are situation specific are likely to be needed.

5.2. Quality Appraisal

While the issue of quality appraisal has received much attention in the synthesis literature, scholars are far from resolution. There may be no agreement about appraisal criteria in a given tradition. For example, the debate rages over the appropriateness of quality appraisal in qualitative synthesis where there are over 100 different sets of criteria and many do not overlap [49] . These differences may reflect disciplinary and methodological orientations, but diverse quality appraisal criteria may privilege particular types of research [49] . The decision to appraise is often grounded in ontological and epistemological assumptions. Nonetheless, diversity within and between categories of synthesis is likely to continue unless debate on the topic of quality appraisal continues and evolves toward consensus.

5.3. Integration with Knowledge Translation

If research syntheses are to make a difference to practice and ultimately to improve health outcomes, then we need to do a better job of knowledge translation. In the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) definition of knowledge translation (KT), research or knowledge synthesis is an integral component [130] . Yet, with few exceptions [131] – [132] , very little of the research synthesis literature even mentions the relationship of synthesis to KT nor does it discuss strategies to facilitate the integration of synthesis findings into policy and practice. The exception is in the emerging synthesis methodologies, some of which (e.g., realist and meta-narrative syntheses, scoping reviews) explicitly involve stakeholders or knowledge users. The argument is that engaging them in this way increases the likelihood that the knowledge generated will be translated into policy and practice. We suggest that a more explicit engagement with knowledge users in all types of synthesis would benefit the uptake of the research findings.

Research synthesis neither makes research more applicable to practice nor ensures implementation. Focus must now turn seriously towards translation of synthesis findings into knowledge products that are useful for health care practitioners in multiple areas of practice and develop appropriate strategies to facilitate their use. The burgeoning field of knowledge translation has, to some extent, taken up this challenge; however, the research-practice gap continues to plague us [133] – [134] . It is a particular problem for qualitative syntheses [131] . Although such syntheses have an important place in evidence-informed practice, little effort has gone into the challenge of translating the findings into useful products to guide practice [131] .

5.4. Limitations

Our study took longer than would normally be expected for an integrative review. Each of us were primarily involved in our own dissertations or teaching/research positions, and so this study was conducted ‘off the sides of our desks.’ A limitation was that we searched the literature over the course of 4 years (from 2008–2012), necessitating multiple search updates. Further, we did not do a comprehensive search of the literature after 2012, thus the more recent synthesis literature was not systematically explored. We did, however, perform limited database searches from 2012–2015 to keep abreast of the latest methodological developments. Although we missed some new approaches to meta-analysis in our search, we did not find any new features of the synthesis methodologies covered in our review that would change the analysis or findings of this article. Lastly, we struggled with the labels used for the broad categories of research synthesis methodology because of our hesitancy to reinforce the divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches. However, it was very difficult to find alternative language that represented the types of data used in these methodologies. Despite our hesitancy in creating such an obvious divide, we were left with the challenge of trying to find a way of characterizing these broad types of syntheses.

6. Conclusion

Our findings offer methodological clarity for those wishing to learn about the broad terrain of research synthesis. We believe that our review makes transparent the issues and considerations in choosing from among the four broad categories of research synthesis. In summary, research synthesis has taken its place as a form of research in its own right. The methodological terrain has deep historical roots reaching back over the past 200 years, yet research synthesis remains relatively new to public health, health care, and social sciences in general. This is rapidly changing. New developments in systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and the emergence of new synthesis methodologies provide a vast array of options to review the literature for diverse purposes. New approaches to research synthesis and new analytic methods within existing approaches provide a much broader range of review alternatives for public health, health care, and social science students and researchers.

Acknowledgments

KSM is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta. Her work on this article was largely conducted as a Postdoctoral Fellow, funded by KRESCENT (Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training Program, reference #KRES110011R1) and the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta.

MM's work on this study over the period of 2008-2014 was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Applied Public Health Research Chair Award (grant #92365).

We thank Rachel Spanier who provided support with reference formatting.

List of Abbreviations (in Additional File 1 )

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this article.

Authors' contributions: KSM co-designed the study, collected data, analyzed the data, drafted/revised the manuscript, and managed the project.

MP contributed to searching the literature, developing the analytic framework, and extracting data for the Additional File.

JB contributed to searching the literature, developing the analytic framework, and extracting data for the Additional File.

WN contributed to searching the literature, developing the analytic framework, and extracting data for the Additional File.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional Files: Additional File 1 – Selected Types of Research Synthesis

This Additional File is our dataset created to organize, analyze and critique the literature that we synthesized in our integrative review. Our results were created based on analysis of this Additional File.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Published on July 4, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Synthesizing sources involves combining the work of other scholars to provide new insights. It’s a way of integrating sources that helps situate your work in relation to existing research.

Synthesizing sources involves more than just summarizing . You must emphasize how each source contributes to current debates, highlighting points of (dis)agreement and putting the sources in conversation with each other.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field or throughout your research paper when you want to position your work in relation to existing research.

Table of contents

Example of synthesizing sources, how to synthesize sources, synthesis matrix, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about synthesizing sources.

Let’s take a look at an example where sources are not properly synthesized, and then see what can be done to improve it.

This paragraph provides no context for the information and does not explain the relationships between the sources described. It also doesn’t analyze the sources or consider gaps in existing research.

Research on the barriers to second language acquisition has primarily focused on age-related difficulties. Building on Lenneberg’s (1967) theory of a critical period of language acquisition, Johnson and Newport (1988) tested Lenneberg’s idea in the context of second language acquisition. Their research seemed to confirm that young learners acquire a second language more easily than older learners. Recent research has considered other potential barriers to language acquisition. Schepens, van Hout, and van der Slik (2022) have revealed that the difficulties of learning a second language at an older age are compounded by dissimilarity between a learner’s first language and the language they aim to acquire. Further research needs to be carried out to determine whether the difficulty faced by adult monoglot speakers is also faced by adults who acquired a second language during the “critical period.”

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

To synthesize sources, group them around a specific theme or point of contention.

As you read sources, ask:

• What questions or ideas recur? Do the sources focus on the same points, or do they look at the issue from different angles?
• How does each source relate to others? Does it confirm or challenge the findings of past research?
• Where do the sources agree or disagree?

Once you have a clear idea of how each source positions itself, put them in conversation with each other. Analyze and interpret their points of agreement and disagreement. This displays the relationships among sources and creates a sense of coherence.

Consider both implicit and explicit (dis)agreements. Whether one source specifically refutes another or just happens to come to different conclusions without specifically engaging with it, you can mention it in your synthesis either way.

Synthesize your sources using:

• Topic sentences to introduce the relationship between the sources
• Signal phrases to attribute ideas to their authors
• Transition words and phrases to link together different ideas

To more easily determine the similarities and dissimilarities among your sources, you can create a visual representation of their main ideas with a synthesis matrix . This is a tool that you can use when researching and writing your paper, not a part of the final text.

In a synthesis matrix, each column represents one source, and each row represents a common theme or idea among the sources. In the relevant rows, fill in a short summary of how the source treats each theme or topic.

This helps you to clearly see the commonalities or points of divergence among your sources. You can then synthesize these sources in your work by explaining their relationship.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Synthesizing sources means comparing and contrasting the work of other scholars to provide new insights.

It involves analyzing and interpreting the points of agreement and disagreement among sources.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field of research or throughout your paper when you want to contribute something new to existing research.

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.

Topic sentences help keep your writing focused and guide the reader through your argument.

In an essay or paper , each paragraph should focus on a single idea. By stating the main idea in the topic sentence, you clarify what the paragraph is about for both yourself and your reader.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/synthesizing-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, signal phrases | definition, explanation & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to find sources | scholarly articles, books, etc., unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

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

Writing Resources

• Student Paper Template
• Grammar Guidelines
• Punctuation Guidelines
• Writing Guidelines
• Creating a Title
• Outlining and Annotating
• Using Generative AI (Chat GPT and others)
• Thesis Statement
• Strategies for Citations
• Determining the Resource This link opens in a new window
• Citation Examples
• Paragraph Development
• Paraphrasing
• Inclusive Language
• International Center for Academic Integrity
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Decoding the Assignment Prompt
• Annotated Bibliography
• Comparative Analysis
• Conducting an Interview
• Infographics
• Office Memo
• Policy Brief
• Poster Presentations
• PowerPoint Presentation
• White Paper
• Writing a Blog
• Research Writing: The 5 Step Approach
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• MLA Resources
• Time Management

ASC Chat Hours

ASC Chat is usually available at the following times ( Pacific Time):

If there is not a coach on duty, submit your question via one of the below methods:

  928-440-1325

  Ask a Coach

  [email protected]

Search our FAQs on the Academic Success Center's  Ask a Coach   page.

Learning about Synthesis Analysis

What D oes Synthesis and Analysis Mean?

Synthesis: the combination of ideas to

• show commonalities or patterns

Analysis: a detailed examination

• of elements, ideas, or the structure of something
• can be a basis for discussion or interpretation

Synthesis and Analysis: combine and examine ideas to

• show how commonalities, patterns, and elements fit together
• form a unified point for a theory, discussion, or interpretation
• develop an informed evaluation of the idea by presenting several different viewpoints and/or ideas

Key Resource: Synthesis Matrix

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is an excellent tool to use to organize sources by theme and to be able to see the similarities and differences as well as any important patterns in the methodology and recommendations for future research. Using a synthesis matrix can assist you not only in synthesizing and analyzing,  but it can also aid you in finding a researchable problem and gaps in methodology and/or research.

Use the Synthesis Matrix Template attached below to organize your research by theme and look for patterns in your sources .Use the companion handout, "Types of Articles" to aid you in identifying the different article types for the sources you are using in your matrix. If you have any questions about how to use the synthesis matrix, sign up for the synthesis analysis group session to practice using them with Dr. Sara Northern!

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: International Center for Academic Integrity
• Next: How to Synthesize and Analyze >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 9:16 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/writingresources

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

Thinking strategies and writing patterns, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing

One of the basic academic writing activities is researching your topic and what others have said about it. Your goal should be to draw thoughts, observations, and claims about your topic from your research. We call this process of drawing from multiple sources “ synthesis .” Click on the accordion items below for more information.

Definition, Use, and Sample Synthesis

Synthesis defined.

Synthesis Emerges from Analysis

Synthesis emerges from analytical activities we discussed on the previous page: comparative analysis and analysis for cause and effect . For example, to communicate where scholars agree and where they disagree, one must analyze their work for similarities and differences. Also crucial for understanding scholarly discourse is understanding how a particular work of scholarship shapes the scholarship of others, causing them to head in new directions.

When Should Synthesis Be Used?

When to Use Synthesis

Many college assignments require synthesis. A literature review, for example, requires that you make explanatory claims regarding a body of research. These should go beyond summary (mere description) to provide helpful characterizations that aid in understanding. Literature reviews can stand on their own, but often they are a part of a research paper, and research papers are where you will probably use synthesis most often.

The purpose of a research paper is to derive meaning from a body of information collected through research. It is your job, as the writer, to communicate that meaning to your readers. Doing this requires that you develop an informed and educated opinion of what your research suggests about your subject. Communicating this opinion requires synthesis.

Sample Synthesis

In 1655, an embassy of Dutch Jews led by Rabbi Menassah ben Israel traveled to London to meet with the Commonwealth’s new Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. The informal “Readmission” of Jews—who had been expelled from England by royal edict in 1290—resulting from the Whitehall conference was once hailed as a high point in the history of toleration. Yet in recent years, scholars have increasingly challenged the progressive nature of this event, both in its substance and its motivation (Kaplan 2007; Katznelson 2010; Walsham 2006) . “Toleration” in this case, as in many others, did not entail religious freedom or civic equality; Jews in England were granted legal residency and permitted to worship privately, but citizenship, public worship, and the printing of anything that “opposeth the Christian religion” remained off the cards. As for its motivation, Edward Whalley’s twofold argument was representative: the Jews “will bring in much wealth into this Commonwealth: and where wee both pray for theyre conversion and beleeve it shal be, I knowe not why wee shold deny the means” (Marshall 2006, 381–82) 

(Bejan, 2015, p. 1103).

The author of the above passage, Teresa Bejan, has synthesized the work of a number of other scholars (Kaplan, Katznelson, Walsham, and Marshall) to situate her argument.  Note how not all of these scholars are directly quoted, but they are cited because their work forms the basis of Bejan's work.

Key Takeaways

• Synthesizing allows you to carry an argument or stance you adopt within a paper in your own words, based on conclusions you have come to about the topic.
• Synthesizing contributes to confidence about your stance and topic.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Writing in the Health and Social Sciences: Literature Reviews and Synthesis Tools

• Journal Publishing
• Style and Writing Guides
• Readings about Writing
• Citing in APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Resources for Dissertation Authors
• Citation Management and Formatting Tools
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews

Systematic Literature Reviews: Steps & Resources

These steps for conducting a systematic literature review are listed below . 

Also see subpages for more information about:

• The different types of literature reviews, including systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis methods
• Tools & Tutorials

Literature Review & Systematic Review Steps

• Develop a Focused Question
• Scope the Literature  (Initial Search)
• Refine & Expand the Search
• Limit the Results
• Download Citations
• Abstract & Analyze
• Create Flow Diagram
• Synthesize & Report Results

1. Develop a Focused   Question 

Consider the PICO Format: Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome

Focus on defining the Population or Problem and Intervention (don't narrow by Comparison or Outcome just yet!)

"What are the effects of the Pilates method for patients with low back pain?"

Tools & Additional Resources:

• PICO Question Help
• Stillwell, Susan B., DNP, RN, CNE; Fineout-Overholt, Ellen, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek, PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN; Williamson, Kathleen M., PhD, RN Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question, AJN The American Journal of Nursing : March 2010 - Volume 110 - Issue 3 - p 58-61 doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79

2. Scope the Literature

A "scoping search" investigates the breadth and/or depth of the initial question or may identify a gap in the literature. 

Eligible studies may be located by searching in:

• Background sources (books, point-of-care tools)
• Article databases
• Trial registries
• Grey literature
• Cited references
• Reference lists

When searching, if possible, translate terms to controlled vocabulary of the database. Use text word searching when necessary.

Use Boolean operators to connect search terms:

• Combine separate concepts with AND  (resulting in a narrower search)
• Connecting synonyms with OR  (resulting in an expanded search)

Search:  pilates AND ("low back pain"  OR  backache )

Video Tutorials - Translating PICO Questions into Search Queries

• Translate Your PICO Into a Search in PubMed (YouTube, Carrie Price, 5:11) 
• Translate Your PICO Into a Search in CINAHL (YouTube, Carrie Price, 4:56)

3. Refine & Expand Your Search

Expand your search strategy with synonymous search terms harvested from:

• database thesauri
• reference lists
• relevant studies

Example: 

(pilates OR exercise movement techniques) AND ("low back pain" OR backache* OR sciatica OR lumbago OR spondylosis)

As you develop a final, reproducible strategy for each database, save your strategies in a:

• a personal database account (e.g., MyNCBI for PubMed)
• Log in with your NYU credentials
• Open and "Make a Copy" to create your own tracker for your literature search strategies

4. Limit Your Results

Use database filters to limit your results based on your defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.  In addition to relying on the databases' categorical filters, you may also need to manually screen results.  

• Limit to Article type, e.g.,:  "randomized controlled trial" OR multicenter study
• Limit by publication years, age groups, language, etc.

NOTE: Many databases allow you to filter to "Full Text Only".  This filter is  not recommended . It excludes articles if their full text is not available in that particular database (CINAHL, PubMed, etc), but if the article is relevant, it is important that you are able to read its title and abstract, regardless of 'full text' status. The full text is likely to be accessible through another source (a different database, or Interlibrary Loan).  

• Filters in PubMed
• CINAHL Advanced Searching Tutorial

5. Download Citations

Selected citations and/or entire sets of search results can be downloaded from the database into a citation management tool. If you are conducting a systematic review that will require reporting according to PRISMA standards, a citation manager can help you keep track of the number of articles that came from each database, as well as the number of duplicate records.

In Zotero, you can create a Collection for the combined results set, and sub-collections for the results from each database you search.  You can then use Zotero's 'Duplicate Items" function to find and merge duplicate records.

• Citation Managers - General Guide

6. Abstract and Analyze

• Migrate citations to data collection/extraction tool
• Screen Title/Abstracts for inclusion/exclusion
• Screen and appraise full text for relevance, methods, 
• Resolve disagreements by consensus

Covidence is a web-based tool that enables you to work with a team to screen titles/abstracts and full text for inclusion in your review, as well as extract data from the included studies.

• Covidence Support
• Critical Appraisal Tools
• Data Extraction Tools

7. Create Flow Diagram

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram is a visual representation of the flow of records through different phases of a systematic review.  It depicts the number of records identified, included and excluded.  It is best used in conjunction with the PRISMA checklist .

Example from: Stotz, S. A., McNealy, K., Begay, R. L., DeSanto, K., Manson, S. M., & Moore, K. R. (2021). Multi-level diabetes prevention and treatment interventions for Native people in the USA and Canada: A scoping review. Current Diabetes Reports, 2 (11), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01414-3

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator (ShinyApp.io, Haddaway et al. )
• PRISMA Diagram Templates  (Word and PDF)
• Make a copy of the file to fill out the template
• Image can be downloaded as PDF, PNG, JPG, or SVG
• Covidence generates a PRISMA diagram that is automatically updated as records move through the review phases

8. Synthesize & Report Results

There are a number of reporting guideline available to guide the synthesis and reporting of results in systematic literature reviews.

It is common to organize findings in a matrix, also known as a Table of Evidence (ToE).

• Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews
• Download a sample template of a health sciences review matrix  (GoogleSheets)

Steps modified from: 

Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012). Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach.   Medical Education , 46 (10), 943–952.

• << Previous: Citation Management and Formatting Tools
• Next: What are Literature Reviews? >>
• Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 2:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/healthwriting

• Open access
• Published: 10 January 2024

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

• Saliha Ziam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8892-9572 1 ,
• Sèverine Lanoue 2 ,
• Esther McSween-Cadieux 2 ,
• Mathieu-Joël Gervais 3 ,
• Julie Lane 2 , 4 ,
• Dina Gaid 5 ,
• Laura Justine Chouinard 1 ,
• Christian Dagenais 6 ,
• Valéry Ridde 7 , 8 ,
• Emmanuelle Jean 9 ,
• France Charles Fleury 10 ,
• Quan Nha Hong 5 &
• Ollivier Prigent 2  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  8 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2351 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%) and were health related ( n  = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom ( n  = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models ( n  = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks ( n  = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” ( n  = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” ( n  = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

Conclusions

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

The evaluation of KMb strategies is a critical dimension of the KMb process that is still poorly documented and warrants researchers’ attention.

Our review identified the most common theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) proposed or used to assess KMb strategies and the main components to consider when evaluating a KMb strategy.

By developing an integrative reference framework, this work contributes to improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives.

It is widely recognized that research evidence has the potential to inform, guide, and improve practices, decisions, and policies [ 1 ]. Unfortunately, for diverse reasons, the best available evidence is still too seldom taken into account and used [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. The field of research on knowledge mobilization (KMb) has been growing rapidly since the early 2000s [ 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Its purpose is to better understand how to effectively promote and support evidence use.

Knowledge mobilization is one of many terms and concepts developed over recent decades to describe processes, strategies, and actions to bridge the gap between research and practice. Other common terms often paired interchangeably with the term “knowledge” are “translation”, “transfer”, “exchange”, “sharing” and “dissemination”, among others. [ 12 , 13 ]. Some are more closely linked than others to specific fields or jurisdictions. For this study, we adopted the term knowledge mobilization (KMb) because it conveys the notions of complexity and multidirectional exchanges that characterize research-to-action processes. We used it as an umbrella concept that encompasses the efforts made to translate knowledge into concrete actions and beneficial impacts on populations [ 1 ]. Moreover, the term KMb is also used by research funding agencies in Canada to emphasize the medium- and long-term effects that research knowledge or research results can have on potential users [ 1 , 14 ].

KMb represents all processes from knowledge creation to action and includes all strategies implemented to facilitate these processes [ 14 ]. A KMb strategy is understood as a coordinated set of activities to support evidence use, such as dissemination activities to reach target audiences (for example, educational materials, practical guides, decision support tools) or activities to facilitate knowledge application in a specific context and support professional behaviour change (for example, community of practice, educational meetings, audits and feedback, reminders, deliberative dialogues) [ 15 ]. A KMb process may vary in intensity, complexity or actor engagement depending on the nature of the research knowledge and the needs and preferences of evidence users [ 7 ].

KMb is considered a complex process, in that numerous factors can facilitate or hinder its implementation and subsequent evidence use. The past two decades have seen the emergence of a deeper understanding of these factors [ 2 , 3 , 16 ]. These may be related to the knowledge mobilized (for example, relevance, reliability, clarity, costs), the individuals involved in the KMb process (for example, openness to change, values, time available, resources), the KMB strategies (for example, fit with stakeholder needs and preferences, regular interactions, trust relationships, timing), and organizational and political contexts (for example, culture of evidence use, leadership, resources) [ 2 , 6 , 17 , 18 ]. However, more studies are needed to understand which factors are more important in which contexts, and to evaluate the effects of KMb strategies.

On this last point, while essential, it is often very complex to study KMb impacts empirically to demonstrate the effectiveness of KMb strategies [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Partly for this reason, high-quality studies that evaluate process, mechanisms and effects of KMb strategies are still relatively rare [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. As a result, knowledge about the effectiveness of different KMb strategies remains limited [ 10 , 17 , 19 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] and their development cannot be totally evidence informed [ 3 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 29 , 30 ], which may seem incompatible with the core values and principles of KMb.

The growing interest in KMb has led to an impressive proliferation of conceptual propositions, such as theories, models and frameworks (TMF) [ 2 , 3 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 31 , 32 ]. Many deplore the fact that these are poorly used [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and insist on the need to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 ]. Indeed, the conceptual and theoretical development of the field has outpaced its empirical development. This proliferation appears to have created confusion among certain users, such as organizations that need to evaluate their KMb strategies. Besides implementing and funding KMb strategies, knowledge organizations such as granting agencies, governments and public organizations, universities and health authorities are often required to demonstrate the impact of their strategies [ 21 , 35 , 36 ]. Yet this can be a significant challenge [ 20 , 23 , 29 ]. They may have difficulty knowing which TMFs to choose, in what context and how to use them effectively in their evaluation process [ 12 , 37 ].

Indeed, the evaluation of KMb strategies is still relatively poorly documented, with respect to the phases of their development and implementation. Our aim in this scoping review is to clarify, conceptually and methodologically, this crucial dimension of the KMb process. This would help organizations gain access to evidence-based, operational and easy-to-use evaluation toolkits for assessing the impacts of their KMb strategies.

To survey the available knowledge on evaluation practices for KMb strategies, we conducted a scoping review. According to Munn et al. [ 38 ], a scoping review is indicated to identify the types of available evidence and knowledge gaps, to clarify concepts in the literature and to identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept. This review methodology also allows for the inclusion of a diversity of publications, regardless of their nature or research design, to produce the most comprehensive evidence mapping possible [ 39 ]. The objective of the scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) used or proposed to evaluate KMb strategies. The specific research questions were:

What TMFs to evaluate KMb strategies exist in the literature?

What KMb strategies do they evaluate (that is types of KMb objectives, activities, target audiences)?

What dimensions and components are included in these TMFs?

This scoping review was conducted based on the five steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [ 39 ]: (1) formulating the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting relevant studies; (4) extracting and charting data; and (5) analysing, collating, summarizing and presenting the data. Throughout the process, researchers and knowledge users (KMb practitioners) were involved in decisions regarding the research question, search strategy, selection criteria for studies and categories for data charting. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [ 40 ]. No protocol was registered for this review.

Search strategy and information sources

The search strategy was developed, piloted and refined in consultation with our team’s librarian. Search terms included controlled vocabulary and keywords related to three main concepts: (1) knowledge mobilization (for example [knowledge or evidence or research] and transfer, translation, diffusion, dissemination, mobilization, implementation science, exchange, sharing, use, uptake, evidence-based practice, research-based evidence), (2) evaluation (for example, evaluat*, measur*, impact, outcome, assess, apprais*, indicator) and (3) TMF (for example, framework*, model*, method*, guide*, theor*). See Additional file 1 for the search terms and strategies used in the electronic searches.

The following databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2023: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), ERIC (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Dissertations & Theses (Proquest), Érudit and Cairn. These databases were chosen to identify relevant references in the health, education and social fields. Several search strategies were tested by the librarian to optimize the retrieval of citations known to the investigators and to increase the likelihood that all relevant studies would be retrieved. We also searched reference lists of included articles and previous systematic reviews [ 11 , 12 , 15 , 41 ].

Eligibility criteria

A publication was considered eligible if it (1) presented or used a theory, model, or framework (TMF), (2) described dimensions or specific components to consider in the evaluation of KMb strategies, (3) presented or discussed KMb strategies or activities (any initiatives to improve evidence use), and (4) proposed outcomes that might result directly or indirectly from the KMb strategies. Studies were excluded from analysis if they (1) presented a TMF to assess the impact of research without mentioning KMb strategies or an intervention not related to KMb and (2) presented evaluation dimensions or components that could not be generalized. We considered publications in English or French. All types of articles and study designs were eligible, including study protocols.

Study selection

The results of the literature search were imported into Covidence, which the review team used for screening. After duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts were screened independently by two of the three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Publications identified as potentially relevant were retrieved in full text and screened independently by three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Discrepancies regarding the inclusion of any publication were resolved through discussion and consensus among reviewers. The principal investigator (SZ) validated the final selection of articles.

Data synthesis

A data charting form was developed in Microsoft Excel and piloted by the research team. Data extracted included study characteristics (authors, authors’ country of affiliation, year, journal, discipline, article type, study setting, study aim), KMb strategies of interest, KMb objectives, KMb target audiences and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation (existing or new TMF, specific dimensions or components of TMF and so on). Data were extracted by a single reviewer (SL, JC or OP) and validated by a second reviewer (SZ). Disagreements were discussed between reviewers and resolved by consensus. No quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, as this is optional in scoping reviews and the purpose was only to describe the content of identified TMFs [ 42 ].

Data analysis and presentation of results

Data were summarized according to study characteristics, KMb strategy characteristics (activities, objectives, target audiences), types of TMFs, and dimensions or components to consider for KMb evaluation. Disagreements during the process were discussed and resolved through consensus (SL, DG, SZ). A KMb strategy might have one or more objectives and include one or more activities. Thus, the objectives and activities of the KMb strategies extracted from the selected studies were summarized based on existing categorizations. The categorization of KMb objectives was inspired by Gervais et al. [ 15 ] and Farkas et al. [ 43 ] (Table  1 ).

The KMb activities were categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy [ 44 ]. The activities were first classified according to the full taxonomy and then grouped into the nine categories proposed by Waltz et al. [ 45 ] (Table  2 ).

The TMFs were categorized according to the categories of theoretical approaches described by Nilsen [ 32 ]: process models, evaluation frameworks, determinant frameworks and classic theories (Table  3 ). The category “implementation theories” originally described by Nilsen [ 32 ] was not used because we did not identify any article that fit this category. We also added a category named “logic models” due to the nature of the identified TMFs. Logic models are often used in theory-driven evaluation approaches and are usually developed to show the links among inputs (resources), activities and outputs (outcomes and short-, medium- and long-term effects) [ 46 ].

Finally, the content extracted from the TMFs was analysed using mainly an inductive method. This method allows, among other things, to develop a reference framework or a model from the emerging categories that are evident in the text data [ 50 ].

The classification of concepts is the result of multiple readings and interpretations. The concepts associated with each dimension of the framework were classified according to their meaning. Similar concepts were grouped together to form components. These grouped components were then associated with the subdimensions and main dimensions of the framework.

Search results

The searches yielded 4763 articles. Of those, 4258 were excluded during the title and abstract screening. Of the 505 full-text articles, we retained 88 in our final sample. The results of the search and selection processes (PRISMA flowchart) are summarized in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flowchart summarizing search strategy and selection results [ 40 ]

Publication characteristics

Most articles were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%), with an average of 5 articles per year between 2010 and 2023 compared with an average of 2.1 articles per year between 2001 and 2009; there were no eligible articles from 2000. The search was conducted in August 2023, and only five articles were published in these 7 months of the year. Table 4 presents the main characteristics of the selected articles. A full list of the included articles with their main characteristics is presented in Additional file 2 .

The number of theoretical and empirical articles was relatively similar. Among the theoretical articles, 19 descriptive articles (21.6%) were aimed at describing a KMb strategy, a KMb infrastructure or a TMF related to a specific programme or context; 18 articles (20.5%) synthesized knowledge to propose a TMF (new or revised); and three articles conducted systematic reviews (3.4%).

The empirical articles category included studies with different methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods). We will not report the details of the methodologies used, as this would result in a long list with few occurrences. The empirical articles can be divided into three categories: (1) studies that evaluated a TMF related to KMb ( n  = 16, 18.2%), (2) studies that evaluated a KMb strategy ( n  = 21, 23.9%) and (3) studies that evaluated both a KMb strategy and a TMF ( n  = 7, 8.0%).

Most articles were related to healthcare ( n  = 71, 80.7%). This field of study was divided into three subdomains. The healthcare and social services articles usually described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting health professionals’ practices in a variety of fields (for example, occupational therapy, dentistry, mental health, pharmacology, gerontology, nursing and so on). The health policy and systems articles usually described or assessed KMb strategies targeting decision-making processes, decision-makers or public health interventions and policies. The continuing education articles assessed training programmes for health professionals aimed at increasing knowledge and skills in a specific field. The articles in the general field described or discussed TMFs and KMb strategies that could be applied to multiple disciplines or contexts. Finally, the articles in the education field described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting education professionals.

Almost half of the articles ( n  = 42, 47.7%) studied KMB strategies implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Countries in South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, China and Europe were underrepresented ( n  = 8, 9.1%). The remaining 34 articles (38.6%) did not specify an implementation context and were mostly theoretical articles. Regarding the authors’ countries of affiliation, Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom were again the most represented countries, featuring in 85% of the articles ( n  = 75).

What theories, models or frameworks exist in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies?

Several articles proposed a new TMF ( n  = 37, 42.0%), and some articles proposed a logic model specifically developed to evaluate their KMb strategy ( n  = 17, 19.3%). One-third of the articles used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). A few articles only referred to existing TMFs but did not use them to guide a KMb strategy evaluation ( n  = 6, 8.5%).

The identified TMFs were then categorized according to their theoretical approaches (adapted from Nilsen, [ 32 ]) (Table  5 ). Five articles used or proposed more than one TMF, and three TMFs could be classified in two categories. Several articles proposed or used a process model ( n  = 34, 38.6%) or an evaluation framework ( n  = 28, 31.8%); these were the two most frequently identified types of TMFs. Fewer articles proposed or used a logic model ( n  = 17, 19.3%), a determinant framework ( n  = 12, 13.6%) or a classic theory ( n  = 7, 8.0%). The TMFs most often identified in the articles were the RE-AIM framework ( n  = 5, 5.7%), the Knowledge-to-Action framework [ 9 ] ( n  = 4, 4.5%), the Theory of Planned Behavior [ 51 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%) and the Expanded Outcomes framework for planning and assessing continuing medical education [ 52 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%). In total, we identified 87 different TMFs in the 88 articles. Only nine TMFS were retrieved in more than one article.

What KMb strategies do the TMFs evaluate (activities, objectives, target audience)?

Thirty-eight articles reported using more than one activity in their KMb strategy. According to the ERIC compilation, “Train and educate stakeholders” activities were the most common, followed by “Develop stakeholder interrelationships” and “Use evaluative and iterative strategies”. Table 6 presents the various types of activities and the number of articles that referred to each.

Of the 88 articles analysed, 18 (20.4%) did not specify a KMb objective. The remaining articles proposed one or more KMb strategy objectives. Specifically, 39 (36.4%) articles had one objective, 15 (17.0%) had two, three (3.4%) had three, and 13 (14.8%) had four or five. Table 7 presents the different types of objectives and the number of times they were identified.

The target audiences for KMb strategies were clearly specified in half of the articles ( n  = 44, 50.0%). Generally, these were empirical articles that targeted specific professionals ( n  = 36, 40.9%) or decision-makers ( n  = 8, 9.1%). Just under one-third of the articles identified a broad target audience (for example, professionals and managers in the health system, a health organization) ( n  = 26, 29.5%). Finally, 18 articles (20.4%) did not specify a target audience for KMb; these were most often theoretical articles.

What are the dimensions and components included in TMFs for evaluating KMb strategies?

The analysis of the identified TMFs revealed many factors of interest relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies. These specific components were inductively classified into four main dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts (Fig.  2 ). The context dimension refers to the assessment of the conditions in place when the KMb strategy is implemented. These include both the external (that is, sociopolitical, economic, environmental and cultural characteristics) and internal environments (that is, characteristics of organizations, individuals and stakeholder partnerships). These factors are understood to influence the selection and tailoring of a KMb strategy. The process dimension refers to the assessment of the planning, levels and mechanisms of implementation, as well as to the characteristics of the KMb strategy implemented. The effects dimension refers to the assessment of outcomes following the KMb strategy implementation. The potential effects vary depending on the strategy’s objectives and can be either the immediate results of the KMb strategy or short-, medium- and long-term outcomes. The conceptual gradation of effects was generally represented in a similar way in the TMFs analysed, but the temporality of effects could vary. A medium-term outcome in one study could be understood as a long-term outcome in another. However, the majority of authors group these effects into three categories (Gervais et al. 2016: p. 6): (1) short-term effects, measured by success of KMb strategy measured by success of KMb strategy (number of people reached, satisfaction, participation and so on); (2) medium-term effects linked to changes in individual attitude and the use of knowledge; and (3) the long-term effects that result from achieving the KMb objective (for example, improved practices and services, changed collective behaviour, sustainable use of knowledge).

The main evaluation dimensions that emerged from the TMFs analysed

Finally, the impacts dimension refers to the ultimate effects of KMb products or interventions on end users, as measured by the organization (Phipps et al. [ 36 ], p. 34). The evaluation of these ultimate effects can be measured by the integration of a promising practice into organizational routines, by the effects on service users or by the effects on the health and well-being of communities and society in general.

This gradation shows the importance of measuring effects at different points in time, to take account of the time they take to appear and their evolving nature (Gervais et al., 2016: p. 6).

Most of the articles presented the dimensions that should be evaluated, whereas the empirical articles presented the dimensions but also used them in practice to evaluate a KMb strategy. Only five articles (5.7%) did not mention specific dimensions that could be classified.

Table 8 presents both the number of articles that presented dimensions to be evaluated and the number of articles that evaluated them in practice. These results showed that the effects dimension was both the most often named and the most evaluated in practice. The other three dimensions (context, process, impacts), while quite often mentioned as relevant to assess, were less often evaluated in practice. For example, only five articles (5.7%) reported having assessed the impacts dimension.

As previously mentioned, the components relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies were extracted from the identified TMFs. Table 9 presents these components, which represent the more specific factors of interest for assessing context, process, effects and impacts.

Although often overlooked, the evaluation of KMb strategies is an essential step in guiding organizations seeking to determine whether the expected outcomes of their initiatives are being realized. Evaluation not only allows organizations to make adjustments if the initiatives are not producing the expected results, but also helps them to justify their funding of such initiatives. Evaluation is also essential if the KMb science is to truly inform KMb practice, such that the strategies developed are based on empirical data [ 30 ]. To make KMb evaluation more feasible, evaluation must be promoted and practices improved.

This scoping review meets the first objective of our project, which was to provide an overview of reference frameworks used or proposed for evaluating KM strategies, and to propose a preliminary version of a reference framework for evaluating KM strategies. Several key findings emerged from this scoping review:

Proliferation of theories, models and frameworks, but few frequently used

We are seeing a proliferation of TMFs in KMb and closely related fields [ 132 , 133 ]. Thus, the results of this scoping review support the argument that the conceptual and theoretical development of the field is outpacing its empirical development. Most of the reviewed articles (42.0%) proposed a new TMF rather than using existing ones. Furthermore, we identified relatively few empirical studies (50.0%) that focused on the evaluation of KMb strategies. Consequently, the TMFs used were poorly consolidated, which does not provide a solid empirical foundation to guide the evaluation of KMb strategies. Also, not all the TMFs proposed in the articles were specifically developed for evaluation; some were focused on KMb implementation processes. These may still provide elements to consider for evaluation, although they were not designed to propose specific indicators.

A scoping review published in 2018 identified 596 studies using 159 different KMb TMFs, 95 of which had been used only once [ 11 ]. Many authors reported that these are rarely reused and validated [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and that it is important to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 , 133 ]. A clear, collective and consistent use of existing TMFs is recommended and necessary to advance KMb science and closely related fields [ 12 , 31 ]. The systematic review by Strifler et al. [ 11 ] highlights the diversity of available TMFs and the difficulty users may experience when choosing TMFs to guide their KMb initiatives or evaluation process. Future work should focus on the development of tools to better support users of TMFs, especially those working in organizations. By consolidating a large number of TMFs, the results of this scoping review contribute to these efforts.

The importance of improving evaluation practices for complex multifaceted KMb strategies

Another noteworthy finding was the emphasis on the evaluation of strategies focused on education and professional training for practice improvement (52.3%). Relatively few of the reviewed articles looked at, for example, the evaluation of KMb strategies aimed at informing or influencing decision-making (13.6%), or KMb strategies targeting decision-makers (9.1%). These results reaffirm the importance of conducting more large-scale evaluations of complex and multifaceted KMb strategies. These involve a greater degree of interaction and engagement, are composed of networks of multiple actors, mobilize diverse sources of knowledge and have simultaneous multilevel objectives [ 19 , 134 ].

The fact that some KMb strategies are complex interventions implemented in complex contexts [ 134 ] presents a significant and recurring challenge to their evaluation. Methodological designs, approaches and tools are often ill-suited to capture the short-, medium- and long-term outcomes of KMb strategies, as well as to identify the mechanisms by which these outcomes were produced in a specific context. It is also difficult to link concrete changes in practice and decision-making to tangible longer-term impacts at the population level. Moreover, these impacts can take years to be achieved [ 36 ] and can be influenced by several other factors in addition to KMb efforts [ 2 , 19 , 24 ]. Comprehensive, dynamic and flexible evaluation approaches [ 135 , 136 , 137 ] using mixed methods [ 20 ] appear necessary to understand why, for whom, how, when and in what context KMb strategies achieve their objectives [ 2 , 21 , 25 ]. For instance, realist evaluation, which belongs to theory-based evaluation, may be an approach that addresses issues of causality without sacrificing complexity [ 134 , 138 , 139 ]. This evaluation approach aims to identify the underlying generative mechanisms that can explain how the outcomes were generated and what characteristics of the context affected, or not, those mechanisms. This approach is used to test and refine theory about how interventions with a similar logic of action actually work [ 139 ].

Large heterogeneity of methodologies used in empirical studies

Despite the growth of the KMb field, a recurring issue is the relatively limited number of high-quality studies that evaluate KMb outcomes and impacts. This observation is shared by many of the authors of our scoping articles [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Only a limited number of empirical articles met the selection criteria ( n  = 44/88) in this scoping review. Synthesizing these studies is challenging due to the diversity of research designs used and the large number of potential evaluation components identified. In addition, most of the identified studies used TMFs and measurement tools that were not validated [ 20 , 29 ] and that were specifically developed for their study [ 16 , 25 , 140 ]. Moreover, these studies did not describe the methods used to justify their choice of evaluation dimensions and components [ 25 ], which greatly hinders the ability to draw inferences and develop generalizable theories through replication in similar studies [ 110 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 ]. The lack of a widely used evaluation approach across the field is therefore an important issue [ 16 , 20 ] also highlighted by this scoping review.

Our aim in this review was not to identify specific indicators or measurement tools (for example, questionnaires) for assessing KMb strategies, but rather to describe dimensions and component of TMFs used for KMb evaluation. However, a recent scoping review [ 144 ] looked at measurement tools and revealed that only two general potential tools have been identified to assess KMb activities in any sector or organization: the Level of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS) [ 145 ] and the Knowledge Uptake and Utilization Tool (KUUT) [ 95 ]. The authors also assert the importance of developing standardized tools and evaluation processes to facilitate comparison of KMb activities’ outcomes across organizations [ 144 ].

Lack of description and reporting of KMb strategies and evaluation

Another important finding from this review was the sparsity of descriptions of KMb strategies in the published articles. In general, the authors provided little information on the operationalization of their KMb strategies (for example, objectives, target audiences, details of activities implemented, implementation context, expected effects). The KMb strategy objectives and the implemented activities should be carefully selected and empirically, theoretically or pragmatically justified before the evaluation components and specific indicators can be determined [ 146 ].

To improve consistency in the field and to contribute to the development of KMb science, many authors reported the need to better describe and report KMb strategies and their context [ 8 , 54 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 ]. KMb strategies are often inconsistently labelled across studies, poorly described and rarely justified theoretically [ 146 , 150 , 151 ]. It was not possible in this scoping review to associate the evaluation components to be used with the objectives and types of KMb strategies, as too much information was missing in the articles. Over the past 10 years, several guidelines have been proposed to improve the reporting of interventions such as KMb strategies: the “Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations checklist” [ 147 ], the “Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI)” [ 150 ] and the “Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)” [ 152 ]. These guidelines should be used more often to enhance the reporting of KMb strategies and help advance the field [ 153 ].

Implications for future research

This scoping review provides an overview of potential factors of interest for assessing the context, process, effects and impacts of a KMb strategy. It also proposes a preliminary inventory of potential dimensions and components to consider when planning the evaluation of a KMb strategy. Given the broad spectrum of factors of interest identified across studies, not all of them can be assessed in every context. Rather, they should be targeted according to the objectives of the evaluation, the nature of the KMb strategy and the resources available to conduct the evaluation. Thus, this inventory should not be understood as a prescriptive, normative and exhaustive framework, but rather as a toolbox to identify the most relevant factors to include in the evaluation of a given KMB strategy, and to address a need often expressed by organizations wishing to evaluate their KMb efforts.

Additional work is needed to validate and operationalize these dimensions, to identify relevant measurement tools related to the different components and to see how this inventory could support KMb evaluation practices in organizations.

This scoping review is the first stage of a larger research project aimed at improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives by developing an integrative, interdisciplinary and easy-to-use reference framework. In the second phase of the project, the relevance and clarity of the evaluation dimensions identified in the scoping review will be validated through a Delphi study with KMb specialists and researchers. The enriched framework will then be pilot tested in two organizations carrying out and evaluating KMb strategies, to adapt the framework to their needs and to further clarify how the dimensions can be measured in practice. In this third phase, guidance will be provided to help organizations adopt the framework and its support kit. The aim of the project is to go beyond proposing a theoretical framework, and to help build organizations’ capacity to evaluate KT strategies by proposing tools adapted to their realities.

Review limitations

Some limitations of this scoping review should be acknowledged. First, given the numerous different terms used to describe and conceptualize the science of using evidence, it is possible that our search strategy did not capture all relevant publications. However, to limit this risk, we manually searched the reference lists of the selected articles. Second, the literature search was limited to articles published in English or French, and the articles were mostly from high-income countries (for example, North America); therefore, the application of the identified concepts in this scoping review to other contexts should be further explored.

In addition, the search strategy focused on scientific publications to assess progress made in the field of knowledge mobilization strategy evaluation. The grey literature was not examined. It should be considered in future research to complete the overview of evaluation needs in the field of knowledge mobilization.

Finally, the paucity of information in the articles sometimes made it difficult to classify the TMFs according to the taxonomies [ 32 , 44 ], which may have led to possible misinterpretation. However, to limit the risk of errors, the categorization was performed by two reviewers and validated by a third in cases of uncertainty.

Given the increasing demand from organizations for the evaluation of KMb strategies, along with the poorly consolidated KMb research field, a scoping review was needed to identify the range, nature and extent of the literature. This scoping review enabled us to synthesize the breadth of the literature, provide an overview of the many theories, models and frameworks used, and identify and categorize the potential dimensions and components to consider when evaluating KMb initiatives. This scoping review is part of a larger research project, in which the next steps will be to validate the integrative framework and develop a support kit to facilitate its use by organizations involved in KMb.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

• Knowledge mobilization
• Theories, models, and frameworks

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Guidelines for Effective Knowledge Mobilization. 2019. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/knowledge_mobilisation-mobilisation_des_connaissances-eng.aspx Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S. What works now? evidence-informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy press; 2019.

Book   Google Scholar  

Curran JA, Grimshaw JM, Hayden JA, Campbell B. Knowledge translation research: the science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):174–80.

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Commission on Evidence. The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. McMaster University; 2022 p. 144. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/evidence-commission/report/english

Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7): e21704.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/BMJ Books; 2013, 406

Barwick M, Dubrowski R, Petricca K. Knowledge translation: The rise of implementation. 2020; https://ktdrr.org/products/kt-implementation/KT-Implementation-508.pdf

Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Continuing Educ Health Professions. 2006;26(1):13–24.

Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):50.

Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92–102.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Esmail R, Hanson HM, Holroyd-Leduc J, Brown S, Strifler L, Straus SE, et al. A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):11.

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):16.

Fonds de recherche du Québec. Stratégie de mobilisation des connaissances 2014–2017. 2014. https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/mobilization-of-knowledge/ . Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Gervais MJ, Souffez K, Ziam S. Quel impact avons-nous ? Vers l’élaboration d’un cadre pour rendre visibles les retombées du transfert des connaissances. TUC Revue francophone de recherche sur le transfert et l’utilisation des connaissances. 2016;1(2):21.

Google Scholar  

Williams NJ, Beidas RS. Annual research review: the state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: a review and suggestions to advance the field. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 2019;60(4):430–50.

Mitton C, Adair CE, Mckenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729–68.

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.

Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, et al. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;25:204–20.

Gervais MJ, Marion C, Dagenais C, Chiocchio F, Houlfort N. Dealing with the complexity of evaluating knowledge transfer strategies: guiding principles for developing valid instruments. Res Eval. 2016;25(1):62–9.

Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen R. Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evid policy. 2018;14(3):431–58.

Kim C, Wilcher R, Petruney T, Krueger K, Wynne L, Zan T. A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):9.

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D University of London, Social Science Research Unit, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. 2016.

Rajić A, Young I, McEwen SA. Improving the utilization of research knowledge in agri-food public health: a mixed-method review of knowledge translation and transfer. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10(5):397–412.

Scarlett J, Forsberg BC, Biermann O, Kuchenmüller T, El-Khatib Z. Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):93.

Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):162.

Sarkies MN, Bowles KA, Skinner EH, Haas R, Lane H, Haines TP. The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):132.

Scott SD, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GD, Hartling L, Hofmeyer A, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):70.

Dagenais C, Malo M, Robert É, Ouimet M, Berthelette D, Ridde V. Knowledge transfer on complex social interventions in public health: a scoping study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12): e80233.

Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015;3(27):1–190.

Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283: 112461.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.

Ellen ME, Panisset U, Araujo de Carvalho I, Goodwin J, Beard J. A knowledge translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy. 2017;121(3):282–91.

Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Developing and selecting interventions for translating knowledge to action. CMAJ. 2010;182(2):E85–8.

Bennet A, Bennet D, Fafard K, Fonda M, Lomond T, Messier L, et al. Knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities: moving from research to action. Frost: MQI Press; 2007.

Phipps D, Cummins J, Pepler D, Craig W, Cardinal S. The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes. JCES. 2016;9(1). https://jces.ua.edu/articles/258 . Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):143.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(101170481):16.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V. Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003;43:47–56.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):109.

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):84.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.

Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:149–58.

Sketris IS, Carter N, Traynor RL, Watts D, Kelly K, following contributing members of the CNODES Knowledge Translation Team: Pierre Ernst JG Brenda Hemmelgarn, Colleen Metge, Michael Paterson, Robert Platt W and Gary Teare. Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29 Suppl 1(d0r, 9208369):8–25.

Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.

Moore DE, Green JS, Gallis HA. Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29(1):1–15.

Tschida JE, Drahota A. Fidelity to the ACT SMART Toolkit: an instrumental case study of implementation strategy fidelity. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):52.

Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, Lokker C, Bragge P, Hempel S, et al. Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):781.

Bertone MP, Meessen B, Clarysse G, Hercot D, Kelley A, Kafando Y, et al. Assessing communities of practice in health policy: a conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research. Health Res Policy Sys. 2013;11(1):39.

Gagliardi AR, Legare F, Brouwers MC, Webster F, Wiljer D, Badley E, et al. Protocol: developing a conceptual framework of patient mediated knowledge translation, systematic review using a realist approach. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):25.

Sargeant J, Borduas F, Sales A, Klein D, Lynn B, Stenerson H. CPD and KT: models used and opportunities for synergy. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):167–73.

Stetler CB, Ritchie J, Rycroft-Malone J, Schultz A, Charns M. Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: an organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change. Implement Sci. 2007;2(101258411):3.

Kok MO, Schuit AJ. Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(101170481):21.

Dadich A. From bench to bedside: methods that help clinicians use evidence-based practice. Aust Psychol. 2010;45(3):197–211.

Brown P, Bahri P. Engagement’ of patients and healthcare professionals in regulatory pharmacovigilance: establishing a conceptual and methodological framework. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75(9):1181–92.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs Presents Arch Online J Knowl Synthesis Nurs. 2002;9(1):149–60.

Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Bhattacharyya OK. The guideline implementability research and application network (GIRAnet): an international collaborative to support knowledge exchange: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):26.

Brooks SP, Zimmermann GL, Lang M, Scott SD, Thomson D, Wilkes G, et al. A framework to guide storytelling as a knowledge translation intervention for health-promoting behaviour change. Implement sci commun. 2022;3(1):35.

Cullen L, Hanrahan K, Edmonds SW, Reisinger HS, Wagner M. Iowa implementation for sustainability framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):1.

Labbé D, Mahmood A, Miller WC, Mortenson WB. Examining the impact of knowledge mobilization strategies to inform urban stakeholders on accessibility: a mixed-methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1561.

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Shepperd S. Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(2):E94–8.

Bennett S, Whitehead M, Eames S, Fleming J, Low S, Caldwell E. Building capacity for knowledge translation in occupational therapy: learning through participatory action research. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):257.

Brown C, Rogers S. Measuring the effectiveness of knowledge creation as a means of facilitating evidence-informed practice in early years settings in one London Borough. Lond Rev Educ. 2014;12(3):245–60.

Talbott E, De Los RA, Kearns DM, Mancilla-Martinez J, Wang M. Evidence-based assessment in special education research: advancing the use of evidence in assessment tools and empirical processes. Except Child. 2023;89(4):467–87.

Rosella LC, Bornbaum C, Kornas K, Lebenbaum M, Peirson L, Fransoo R, et al. Evaluating the process and outcomes of a knowledge translation approach to supporting use of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) in public health practice. Canadian J Program Eval. 2018;33(1):21–48.

Couineau AL, Forbes D. Using predictive models of behavior change to promote evidence-based treatment for PTSD. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2011;3(3):266–75.

Dufault M. Testing a collaborative research utilization model to translate best practices in pain management. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:S26-32.

Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):118.

Kramer DM, Wells RP, Carlan N, Aversa T, Bigelow PP, Dixon SM, et al. Did you have an impact? A theory-based method for planning and evaluating knowledge-transfer and exchange activities in occupational health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2013;19(1):41–62.

Duhamel F, Dupuis F, Turcotte A, Martinez AM, Goudreau J. Integrating the illness beliefs model in clinical practice: a family systems nursing knowledge utilization model. J FAM NURS. 2015;21(2):322–48.

Wimpenny P, Johnson N, Walter I, Wilkinson JE. Tracing and identifying the impact of evidence-use of a modified pipeline model. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):3–12.

Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.

Grooten L, Vrijhoef HJM, Alhambra-Borras T, Whitehouse D, Devroey D. The transfer of knowledge on integrated care among five European regions: a qualitative multi-method study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):11.

Stetler CB. Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nurs Outlook. 2001;49(6):272–9.

Ward V. Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2017;13(3):477–97.

Levin RF, Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Barnes M, Vetter MJ. Fostering evidence-based practice to improve nurse and cost outcomes in a community health setting: a pilot test of the advancing research and clinical practice through close collaboration model. Nurs Adm Q. 2011;35(1):21–33.

Currie M, King G, Rosenbaum P, Law M, Kertoy M, Specht J. A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Eval Program Plann. 2005;28(4):400–12.

Richard L, Chiocchio F, Essiembre H, Tremblay MC, Lamy G, Champagne F, et al. Communities of practice as a professional and organizational development strategy in local public health organizations in Quebec, Canada: an evaluation model. Healthc Policy. 2014;9(3):26–39.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, Burton CR, Harvey G, McCormack B, Graham I, et al. Collaborative action around implementation in collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):13–26.

Gagliardi AR, Fraser N, Wright FC, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D. Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach. Health Policy. 2008;86(1):53–63.

Paquette-Warren J, Harris SB, Naqshbandi Hayward M, Tompkins JW. Case study of evaluations that go beyond clinical outcomes to assess quality improvement diabetes programmes using the Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE). J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(5):644–52.

Paquette-Warren J, Tyler M, Fournie M, Harris SB. The diabetes evaluation framework for innovative national evaluations (DEFINE): construct and content validation using a modified Delphi method. Can J diabetes. 2017;41(3):281–96.

Abbot ML, Lee KK, Rossiter MJ. Evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of professional learning communities in adult ESL Programs. TESL Canada J. 2018;35(2):1–25.

Ho K, Bloch R, Gondocz T, Laprise R, Perrier L, Ryan D, et al. Technology-enabled knowledge translation: frameworks to promote research and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(2):90–9.

Yu X, Hu D, Li N, Xiao Y. Comprehensive evaluation on teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior based on the improved TOPSIS method. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022(101279357):2563210.

Arora S, Kalishman SG, Thornton KA, Komaromy MS, Katzman JG, Struminger BB, et al. Project ECHO: a telementoring network model for continuing professional development. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017;37(4):239–44.

Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: a useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009;34(3):266–74.

Jeffs L, Sidani S, Rose D, Espin S, Smith O, Martin K, et al. Using theory and evidence to drive measurement of patient, nurse and organizational outcomes of professional nursing practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):141–8.

Skinner K. Developing a tool to measure knowledge exchange outcomes. Can J Program Eval. 2007;22(1):49–75.

Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1938–45.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Gainforth HL, Latimer-Cheung AE, Athanasopoulos P, Martin Ginis KA. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based organization implementing an event-based knowledge mobilization initiative to promote physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury among support personnel. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(1):55–62.

Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 .

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8(101616579):134.

Bender BG, Simmons B, Konkoly N, Liu AH. The asthma toolkit bootcamp to improve rural primary care for pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(8):3091-3097.e1.

de la Garza Iga FJ, Mejia Alvarez M, Cockroft JD, Rabin J, Cordon A, Elias Rodas DM, et al. Using the project ECHO TM model to teach mental health topics in rural Guatemala: an implementation science-guided evaluation. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):2031–41.

Alkin M, Taut S. Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval. 2003;29(1):1–12.

Varallyay NI, Langlois EV, Tran N, Elias V, Reveiz L. Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):64.

McCabe KE, Wallace A, Crosland A. A model for collaborative working to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in public health. Evid Policy. 2015;11(4):559–76.

Gonzales R, Handley MA, Ackerman S, O’sullivan PS. A framework for training health professionals in implementation and dissemination science. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):271–8.

Edgar L, Herbert R, Lambert S, MacDonald JA, Dubois S, Latimer M. The joint venture model of knowledge utilization: a guide for change in nursing. Nurs Leadersh. 2006;9(2):41–55.

Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):99.

Brennan SE, Cumpston M, Misso ML, McDonald S, Murphy MJ, Green SE. Design and formative evaluation of the policy liaison initiative: a long-term knowledge translation strategy to encourage and support the use of cochrane systematic reviews for informing. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):25–52.

Hinchcliff R, Senserrick T, Travaglia J, Greenfield D, Ivers R. The enhanced knowledge translation and exchange framework for road safety: a brief report on its development and potential impacts. Inj Prev. 2017;23(2):114–7.

Ye J, Woods D, Bannon J, Bilaver L, Kricke G, McHugh M, et al. Identifying contextual factors and strategies for practice facilitation in primary care quality improvement using an informatics-driven model: framework development and mixed methods case study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(2): e32174.

Brangan J, Quinn S, Spirtos M. Impact of an evidence-based practice course on occupational therapist’s confidence levels and goals. Occup Ther Health Care. 2015;29(1):27–38.

Bonetti D, Johnston M, Pitts NB, Deery C, Ricketts I, Tilley C, et al. Knowledge may not be the best target for strategies to influence evidence-based practice: using psychological models to understand RCT effects. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(3):287–93.

Buckley LL, Goering P, Parikh SV, Butterill D, Foo EKH. Applying a “stages of change” model to enhance a traditional evaluation of a research transfer course. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(4):385–90.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Dobbins M, Souza NM. Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;24(9):29.

Imani-Nasab MH, Yazdizadeh B, Salehi M, Seyedin H, Majdzadeh R. Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT). Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):66.

Dwan KM, McInnes P, Mazumdar S. Measuring the success of facilitated engagement between knowledge producers and users: a validated scale. Evid Policy. 2015;11(2):239–52.

Haynes A, Rowbotham S, Grunseit A, Bohn-Goldbaum E, Slaytor E, Wilson A, et al. Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18(1):13.

Haines M, Brown B, Craig J, D’Este C, Elliott E, Klineberg E, et al. Determinants of successful clinical networks: the conceptual framework and study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):16.

Ko LK, Jang SH, Friedman DB, Glanz K, Leeman J, Hannon PA, et al. An application of the science impact framework to the cancer prevention and control research network from 2014–2018. Prev Med. 2019;12: 105821.

Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, et al. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9(101205018):E120.

Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Waters E, Allender S, Love P, Gill T, et al. Evaluation of a knowledge translation and exchange platform to advance non-communicable disease prevention. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):109–26.

Yearwood AC. Applying a logical theory of change for strengthening research uptake in policy: a case study of the Evidence Informed Decision Making Network of the Caribbean. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2018;42: e91.

Thomson D, Brooks S, Nuspl M, Hartling L. Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):40.

Garad R, Kozica-Olenski S, Teede HJ. Evaluation of a center of research excellence in polycystic ovary syndrome as a large-scale collaborative research translation initiative, including evaluating translation of guideline impact. Semin Reprod Med. 2018;36(1):42–9.

Reddy S, Wakerman J, Westhorp G, Herring S. Evaluating impact of clinical guidelines using a realist evaluation framework. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1114–20.

Van Eerd D, Moser C, Saunders R. A research impact model for work and health. Am J Ind Med. 2021;64(1):3–12.

Yip O, Huber E, Stenz S, Zullig LL, Zeller A, De Geest SM, et al. A contextual analysis and logic model for integrated care for frail older adults living at home: The INSPIRE Project. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):9.

Guo R, Bain BA, Willer J. Application of a logic model to an evidence-based practice training program for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. J Allied Health. 2011;40(1):e23–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McDonald S, Turner T, Chamberlain C, Lumbiganon P, Thinkhamrop J, Festin MR, et al. Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(100968545):61.

Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50.

Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):88.

Kreindler SA. Advancing the evaluation of integrated knowledge translation. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):104.

Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy. 2010;6(2):145–59.

van Mil HGJ, Foegeding EA, Windhab EJ, Perrot N, van der Linden E. A complex system approach to address world challenges in food and agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2014;40(1):20–32.

Wehrens R. Beyond two communities – from research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health. 2014;128(6):545–51.

Ridde V, Pérez D, Robert E. Using implementation science theories and frameworks in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4): e002269.

Salter KL, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):115.

Van Eerd D, Cole D, Keown K, Irvin E, Kramer D, Gibson B, et al. Report on knowledge transfer and exchange practices: A systematic review of the quality and types of instruments used to assess KTE implementation and impact. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health; 2011 p. 130. https://www.iwh.on.ca/sites/iwh/files/iwh/reports/iwh_sys_review_kte_evaluation_tools_2011_rev.pdf

Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):23.

Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.

Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108.

Bhawra J, Skinner K. Examination of tools associated with the evaluation of knowledge uptake and utilization: a scoping review. Eval Program Plann. 2020;83: 101875.

Lane JP, Stone VI, Nobrega A, Tomita M. Level Of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS): a validated instrument for tracking knowledge uptake and use. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:106–10.

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139.

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):52.

Bragge P, Grimshaw JM, Lokker C, Colquhoun H, Albrecht L, Baron J, et al. AIMD - a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):38.

Kastner M, Makarski J, Hayden L, Lai Y, Chan J, Treister V, et al. Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT). Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):47.

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;6(356): i6795.

Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Colquhoun H, Hempel S. A scoping review of classification schemes of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):27.

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;7(348): g1687.

Wilson PM, Sales A, Wensing M, Aarons GA, Flottorp S, Glidewell L, et al. Enhancing the reporting of implementation research. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Julie Desnoyers for designing and implementing the search strategy, Gabrielle Legendre for her contribution in the screening phase and Karine Souffez and Caroline Tessier for their input during the project.

This project was supported by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and by the Équipe RENARD (FRQ-SC). The funding bodies had no role in the conduct of this scoping review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business Administration, Université TÉLUQ, Montreal, Canada

Saliha Ziam & Laura Justine Chouinard

Department of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

Sèverine Lanoue, Esther McSween-Cadieux, Julie Lane & Ollivier Prigent

Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Mathieu-Joël Gervais

Centre RBC d’expertise Universitaire en Santé Mentale, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Dina Gaid & Quan Nha Hong

Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Christian Dagenais

Université Paris Cité, IRD (Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, CEPED, Paris, France

Valéry Ridde

Institute of Health and Development (ISED), Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal

Public Health Intelligence and Knowledge Translation Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Emmanuelle Jean

Coordinator of the Interregional Consortium of Knowledge in Health and Social Services (InterS4), Rimouski, Canada

France Charles Fleury

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SZ, MJG, EMC, JL, CD, EJ, KS, VR and CT were involved in developing and designing the scoping review. EMC, MJG and GL (collaborator) screened articles in duplicate. SL, DG, LJC and OP extracted data from the included articles. SL and DG synthesized the data. SL, SZ and EMC drafted the manuscript. SZ led the project, supervised and assisted the research team at every stage, and secured the funding. All authors provided substantive feedback and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saliha Ziam .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Keywords and search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Summary of included articles.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ziam, S., Lanoue, S., McSween-Cadieux, E. et al. A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2023

Accepted : 07 December 2023

Published : 10 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

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

• Knowledge translation
• Scoping review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Retirement planning – a systematic review of literature and future research directions

• Published: 28 October 2023

Cite this article

• Kavita Karan Ingale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3570-4211 1 &
• Ratna Achuta Paluri 2  

508 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Rising life expectancy and an aging population across nations are leading to an increased need for long-term financial savings and a focus on the financial well-being of retired individuals amidst changing policy framework. This study is a systematic review based on a scientific way of producing high-quality evidence based on 191 articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. It adopts the Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Method (TCCM) framework to analyze literature. This study provides collective insights into financial decision-making for retirement savings and identifies constructs for operationalizing and measuring financial behavior for retirement planning. Further, it indicates the need for an interdisciplinary approach. Though cognitive areas were studied extensively, the non-cognitive areas received little attention. Qualitative research design is gaining prominence in research over other methods, with the sparse application of mixed methods design. The study’s TCCM framework explicates several areas for further research. Furthermore, it guides the practice and policy by integrating empirical evidence and concomitant findings. Coherent synthesis of the extant literature reconciles the highly fragmented field of retirement planning. No research reports prospective areas for further analysis based on the TCCM framework on retirement planning, which highlights the uniqueness of the study.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Research Proposal to Examine Psychological Factors Influence on Financial Planning for Retirement in China

Domains and determinants of retirement timing: A systematic review of longitudinal studies

Micky Scharn, Ranu Sewdas, … Allard J. van der Beek

Reinventing Retirement

Deanna L. Sharpe

Data Availability

The research data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgment.

Elderly population is defined as a population aged 65 years and over.

Defined benefit plan guarantees benefits to the employee, while defined contribution plan requires employees to decide on their own investment and bear the financial risks identified with it.

“The old-age dependency ratio is defined as the number of individuals aged 65 and over per 100 people of working age defined as those at ages 20 to 64”(OECD 2023 ).

Adams GA, Rau BL (2011) Putting off tomorrow to do what you want today: planning for Retirement. Am Psychol 66(3):180–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022131

Article   Google Scholar  

Aegon Cfor, Longevity, Retirement ICR (2016) The Aegon Retirement Readiness Survey 2016. In The Aegon Retirement Readiness Survey 2016 . https://www.aegon.com/contentassets/c6a4b1cdded34f1b85a4f21d4c66e5d3/2016-aegon-retirement-readiness-report-india.pdf

Agarwalla SK, Barua SK, Jacob J, Varma JR (2015) Financial Literacy among Working Young in Urban India. World Development , 67 (2013), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.004

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of Planned Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. https://doi.org/10.47985/dcidj.475

Anderson A, Baker F, Robinson DT (2017) Precautionary savings, retirement planning, and misperceptions of financial literacy. J Financ Econ 126(2):383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.07.008

Atkinson A, Messy FA (2011) Assessing financial literacy in 12 countries: an OECD/INFE international pilot exercise. J Pension Econ Finance 10(4):657–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747211000539`

Aydin AE, Akben Selcuk E (2019) An investigation of financial literacy, money ethics, and time preferences among college students: a structural equation model. Int J Bank Mark 37(3):880–900. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-05-2018-0120

Bapat D (2020) Antecedents to responsible financial management behavior among young adults: the moderating role of financial risk tolerance. Int J Bank Mark 38(5):1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2019-0356

Beckett A, Hewer P, Howcroft B (2000) An exposition of consumer behaviour in the financial services industry. Int J Bank Mark 18(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320010315325

Białowolski P (2019) Economic sentiment as a driver for household financial behavior. J Behav Experimental Econ 80(August 2017):59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.006

Binswanger J, Carman KG (2012) How real people make long-term decisions: the case of retirement preparation. J Economic Behav Organ 81(1):39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.010

Brounen D, Koedijk KG, Pownall RAJ (2016) Household financial planning and savings behavior. J Int Money Finance 69:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2016.06.011

Brown R, Jones M (2015) Mapping and exploring the topography of contemporary financial accounting research. Br Acc Rev 47(3):237–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.08.006

Brown S, Gray D (2016) Household finances and well-being in Australia: an empirical analysis of comparison effects. J Econ Psychol 53:17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.006

Brown S, Taylor K (2014) Household finances and the big five personality traits. J Econ Psychol 45:197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.10.006

Brown S, Taylor K (2016) Early influences on saving behaviour: analysis of British panel data. J Bank Finance 62:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.09.011

Brüggen EC, Post T, Schmitz K (2019) Interactivity in online pension planners enhances engagement with retirement planning – but not for everyone. J Serv Mark 33(4):488–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2018-0082

Bruggen E, Post T, Katharina S (2019) Interactivity in online pension planners enhances engagement with retirement planning but not for everyone. J Serv Mark 33(4):488–501

Calcagno R, Monticone C (2015) Financial literacy and the demand for financial advice. J Bank Finance 50:363–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.013

Campbell JY (2006) Household finance. J Finance 61(4):1553–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00883.x

Choudhury K (2015) Service quality and customers’ behavioural intentions: class and mass banking and implications for the consumer and society. Asia Pac J Mark Logistics 27(5):735–757

Chowdhry N, Jung J, Dholakia U (2018) Association for consumer research. Adv Consum Res 42:42–46

Google Scholar  

Clark GL, Knox-Hayes J, Strauss K (2009) Financial sophistication, salience, and the scale of deliberation in UK retirement planning. Environ Plann A 41(10):2496–2515. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41265

Clark R, Lusardi A, Mitchell OS (2017) Employee Financial Literacy and Retirement Plan Behavior: a case study. Econ Inq 55(1):248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12389

Collins JM, Urban C (2016) The role of information on Retirement Planning: evidence from a field study. Econ Inq 54(4):1860–1872. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12349

Creswell J (2009) Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. In Sage Publishing: Vol. Third edit . https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20234

Csorba L (2020) The determining factors of financial culture, financial literacy, and financial behavior. Public Finance Q 65:67–83. https://doi.org/10.35551/PFQ_2020_1_6

Davidoff T, Gerhard P, Post T (2017) Reverse mortgages: what homeowners (don’t) know and how it matters. J Economic Behav Organ 133:151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.11.007

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 13(3):319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Devlin J (2001) Consumer evaluation and competitive advantage in retail financial services - a research agenda. Eur J Mark 35(5/6):639–660

Dholakia U, Tam L, Yoon S, Wong N (2016) The ant and the grasshopper: understanding personal saving orientation of consumers. J Consum Res 43(1):134–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw004

Dolls M, Doerrenberg P, Peichl A, Stichnoth H (2018) Do retirement savings increase in response to information about retirement and expected pensions? J Public Econ 158(July 2017):168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.12.014

Dragos SL, Dragos CM, Muresan GM (2020) From intention to the decision in purchasing life insurance and private pensions: different effects of knowledge and behavioural factors. J Behav Experimental Econ 87(March):101555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101555

Drever AI, Odders-white E, Kalish CW, Hoagland EM, Nelms EN, Drever AI, Odders-white E, Charles W, Else-quest NM, Hoagland EM, Nelms EN (2015) Foundations of Financial Weil-Being: Insights into the Role of Executive Function, Financial Socialization, and Experience-Based Learning in Childhood and Youth Source : The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1, Special Issue on Starting Ea. The Journal of Consumer Affairs , 49 (1)

Duflo E, Saez E (2002) Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of colleagues’ choices. J Public Econ 85(1):121–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00098-6

Duxbury D, Summers B, Hudson R, Keasey K (2013) How people evaluate defined contribution, annuity-based pension arrangements: a behavioral exploration. J Econ Psychol 34:256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.10.008

Earl J, Bednall T, Muratore A (2015) A matter of time: why some people plan for retirement and others do not. Work Aging and Retirement 1(2):181–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wau005

Employees Benefits Research Institute (2020) EBRI Retirement Confidence Survey Report (Issue 202)

Engel JF, Kollat DT, Blackwell RD (1968) A model of consumer motivation and behavior. In: Research in consumer behavior. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, pp 3–20

Erasmus A, Boshoff E, Rousseau G (2001) Consumer decision-making models within the discipline of consumer science: a critical approach. J Family Ecol Consumer Sci /Tydskrif Vir Gesinsekologie En Verbruikerswetenskappe 29(1):82–90. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfecs.v29i1.52799

Farrell L, Fry TRL, Risse L (2016) The significance of financial self-efficacy in explaining women’s personal finance behaviour. J Econ Psychol 54:85–99

Fernandes D, Lynch JG, Netemeyer RG (2014) Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors. Manage Sci 60(8):1861–1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849

Filbec G, Ricciardi V, Evensky H, Fan S, Holzhauer H, Spieler A (2017) Behavioral finance: a panel discussion. J Behav Experimental Finance 15:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.07.003

Fishbein M (1979) A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 27:65–116

Fisher PJ, Montalto CP (2010) Effect of saving motives and horizon on saving behaviors. J Econ Psychol 31(1):92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.002

Flores SAM, Vieira KM (2014) Propensity toward indebtedness: an analysis using behavioral factors. J Behav Exp Finance 3:1–10

Foxall GR, Pallister JG (1998) Measuring purchase decision involvement for financial services: comparison of the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales. Int J Bank Mark 16(5):180–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652329810228181

Friedman M (1957) Introduction to “A theory of the consumption function”. In: A theory of the consumption function. Princeton University Press, pp 1–6

Frydman C, Camerer CF (2016) The psychology and neuroscience of financial decision making. Trends Cogn Sci 20(9):661–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.003

Gardarsdóttir RB, Dittmar H (2012) The relationship of materialism to debt and financial well-being: the case of Iceland’s perceived prosperity. J Econ Psychol 33(3):471–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.008

Gathergood J (2012) Self-control, financial literacy and consumer over-indebtedness. J Econ Psychol 33(3):590–602

Gerhard P, Gladstone JJ, Hoffmann AOI (2018) Psychological characteristics and household savings behavior: the importance of accounting for latent heterogeneity. J Economic Behav Organ 148:66–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.013

Gibbs PT (2009) Time, temporality, and

Goedde-Menke M, Lehmensiek-Starke M, Nolte S (2014) An empirical test of competing hypotheses for the annuity puzzle. J Econ Psychol 43:75–91

Gough O, Nurullah M (2009) Understanding what drives the purchase decision in pension and investment products. J Financial Serv Mark 14(2):152–172. https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2009.14

Griffin B, Loe D, Hesketh B (2012) Using Proactivity, Time Discounting, and the theory of Planned Behavior to identify predictors of Retirement Planning. Educ Gerontol 38(12):877–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2012.660857

Gritten A (2011) New insights into consumer confidence in financial services. Int J Bank Mark 29(2):90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321111107602

Grohmann A (2018) Financial literacy and financial behavior: Evidence from the emerging Asian middle class. Pacific Basin Finance Journal , 48 (November 2017), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.01.007

Grohmann A, Kouwenberg R, Menkhoff L (2015) Childhood roots of financial literacy. J Econ Psychol 51:114–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.002

Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research . 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6

Hanna SD, Kim KT, Chen SCC (2016) Retirement savings. In: Handbook of consumer finance research, pp 33–43

Harrison T, Waite K, White P (2006) Analysis by paralysis: the pension purchase decision process. Int J Bank Mark 24(1):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320610642317

Hastings J, Mitchell O (2011) How financial literact and impatience shape retirement wealth and investment behaviors. Pengaruh Harga Diskon Dan Persepsi Produk Terhadap Nilai Belanja Serta Perilaku Pembelian Konsumen, NBER Working paper, 1–28

Hauff J, Carlander A, Amelie G, Tommy G, Holmen M (2016) Breaking the ice of low financial involvement: does narrative information format from a trusted sender increase savings in mutual funds? Int J Bank Mark 34(2):151–170

Hentzen JK, Hoffmann A, Dolan R, Pala E (2021) Artificial intelligence in customer-facing financial services: a systematic literature review and agenda for future research. Int J Bank Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2021-0417

Hershey DA, Mowen JC (2000) Psychological determinants of financial preparedness for retirement. Gerontologist 40(6):687–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.6.687

Hershey DA, Henkens K, Van Dalen HP (2007) Mapping the minds of retirement planners: a cross-cultural perspective. J Cross-Cult Psychol 38(3):361–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107300280

Hershey DA, Jacobs-Lawson JM, McArdle JJ, Hamagami F (2007b) Psychological foundations of financial planning for retirement. J Adult Dev 14(1–2):26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9028-1

Hershey DA, Jacobs-Lawson JM, McArdle JJ, Hamagami F (2008) Psychological foundations of financial planning for retirement. J Adult Dev 14(1–2):26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9028-1

Hershfield H, Goldstein D, Sharpe W, Fox J, Yeykelis L, Carstensen L, Bailenson J (2011) Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. J Mark Res 48:23–37

Hoffmann AOI, Broekhuizen TLJ (2009) Susceptibility to and impact of interpersonal influence in an investment context. J Acad Mark Sci 37:488–503

Hoffmann AOI, Broekhuizen TLJ (2010) Understanding investors’ decisions to purchase innovative products: drivers of adoption timing and range. Int J Res Mark 27(4):342–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.002

Hoffmann AOI, Plotkina D (2020a) Positive framing when assessing the personal resources to manage one’s finances increases consumers’ retirement self-efficacy and improves retirement goal clarity. Psychol Mark 38(12):2286–2304. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21563

Hoffmann AOI, Plotkina D (2020b) Why and when does financial information affect retirement planning intentions and which consumers are more likely to act on them? Journal of Business Research , 117 (September 2019), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.023

Hoffmann AOI, Plotkina D (2021) Let your past define your future. How recalling successful financial experiences can increase beliefs of self-efficacy in financial planning. J Consum Aff 55(3):847–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12378

Hoffmann AOI, Risse L (2020) Do good things come in pairs? How personality traits help explain individuals’ simultaneous pursuit of a healthy lifestyle and financially responsible behavior. J Consum Aff 54(3):1082–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12317

Hsiao YJ, Tsai WC (2018) Financial literacy and participation in the derivatives markets. J Bank Finance 88:15–29

Huhmann BA, McQuitty S (2009) A model of consumer financial numeracy. Int J Bank Mark 27(4):270–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320910968359

Huston SJ (2010) Measuring financial literacy. J Consum Aff 44(2):296–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01170.x

Ijevleva K, Arefjevs I (2014) Analysis of the Aggregate Financial Behaviour of customers using the Transtheoretical Model of Change. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156(April):435–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.217

Ingale KK, Paluri RA (2020) Financial literacy and financial behavior: a bibliometric analysis. Rev Behav Finance. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-06-2020-0141

Jacobs-Lawson J, Hershey D (2005) Influence of future time perspective, financial knowledge, and financial risk tolerance on retirement savings behavior. Financial Serv Rev 14:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201

Jappelli T, Padula M (2013) Investment in financial literacy and saving decisions. J Bank Finance 37(8):2779–2792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.03.019

Kadoya Y, Rahim Khan MS (2020) Financial literacy in Japan: new evidence using financial knowledge, behavior, and attitude. Sustain (Switzerland) 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093683

Kamil NSSN, Musa R, Sahak SZ (2014) Examining the Role of Financial Intelligence Quotient (FiQ) in explaining credit card usage behavior: a conceptual Framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130:568–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.066

Kerry MJ (2018) Psychological antecedents of retirement planning: a systematic review. Front Psychol 9(OCT). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01870

Kerry MJ, Embretson SE (2018) An experimental evaluation of competing age predictions of future time perspective between workplace and retirement domains. Front Psychol 8(JAN):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02316

Kiliyanni AL, Sivaraman S (2016) The perception-reality gap in financial literacy: evidence from the most literate state in India. Int Rev Econ Educ 23:47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2016.07.001

Kimiyaghalam F, Mansori S, Safari M, Yap S (2017) Parents’ influence on retirement planning in Malaysia. Family Consumer Sci Res J 45(3):315–325

Klapper L, Lusardi A, Panos GA (2013) Financial literacy and its consequences: evidence from Russia during the financial crisis. J Bank Finance 37(10):3904–3923

Koehler DJ, Langstaff J, Liu WQ (2015) A simulated financial savings task for studying consumption and retirement decision-making. J Econ Psychol 46:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.004

Kramer MM (2016) Financial literacy, confidence, and financial advice seeking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 131 (June 2015), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.08.016

Kumar S, Tomar S, Verma D (2019) Women’s financial planning for retirement: systematic literature review and future research agenda. Int J Bank Mark 37(1):120–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-08-2017-0165

Kwon KN, Lee J (2009) The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products. J Bus Res 62(7):719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.07.002

Landerretche OM, Martínez C (2013) Voluntary savings, financial behavior, and pension finance literacy: evidence from Chile. J Pension Econ Finance 12(3):251–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747212000340

Lee T (2017) (David). Clear, conspicuous, and improving: US corporate websites for critical financial literacy in retirement. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 35 (5), 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2016-0010

Liang C-J, Wang Wen‐Hung, Farquhar JD (2009) (2009). The influence of customer perceptions on financial performance in financial services. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 27 (2), 129–149

Liberman N, Trope Y (2003) Construal level theory of intertemporal judgment and decision. In: Loewenstein G, Read D, Baumeister R (eds) Time and decision: economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice, pp 245–276

Lim KL, Soutar GN, Lee JA (2013) Factors affecting investment intentions: a consumer behaviour perspective. J Financ Serv Mark 18:301–315

Lin C, Hsiao YJ, Yeh CY (2017) Financial literacy, financial advisors, and information sources on demand for life insurance. Pac Basin Finance J 43(March):218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2017.04.002

Lown JM (2011) Development and validation of a Financial Self-Efficacy Scale. J Financial Couns Plann 22(2):54–63

Lusardi A, Mitchell OS (2007) Baby Boomer retirement security: the roles of planning, financial literacy, and housing wealth. J Monet Econ 54(1):205–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2006.12.001

Maloney M, McCarthy A (2017) Understanding pension communications at the organizational level: insights from bounded rationality theory & implications for HRM. Hum Resource Manage Rev 27(2):338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.001

Marjanovic Z, Fiksenbaum L, Greenglass E (2018) Financial threat correlates with acute economic hardship and behavioral intentions that can improve one’s personal finances and health. J Behav Experimental Econ 77(April):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.09.012

Marques S, Mariano J, Lima ML, Abrams D (2018) Are you talking to the future me? The moderator role of future self-relevance on the effects of aging salience in retirement savings. J Appl Soc Psychol 48(7):360–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12516

McKechnie S (1992) Consumer buying behaviour in financial services: an overview. Int J Bank Mark 10(5):5–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652329210016803

Milner T, Rosenstreich D (2013a) A review of consumer decision-making models and development of a new model for financial services. J Financial Serv Mark 18(2):106–120. https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.7

Milner T, Rosenstreich D (2013b) Insights into mature consumers of financial services. J Consumer Mark 30(3):248–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761311328919

Mitchell OS, Mukherjee A (2017) Assessing the demand for micro pensions among India’s poor. J Econ Ageing 9:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2016.05.004

Mitchell O, Utkus S (2003) Lessons from Behavioral Finance for Retirement Plan Design (PRC WP 2003-6). http://prc.wharton.upenn.edu/prc/prc.html

Modigliani F, Brumberg RH (1954) Utility analysis and the consumption function: an interpretation of cross-section data. In: Kurihara KK (ed) Post-Keynesian economics. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp 388–436

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, Atkins D, Barbour V, Barrowman N, Berlin JA, Clark J, Clarke M, Cook D, D’Amico R, Deeks JJ, Devereaux PJ, Dickersin K, Egger M, Ernst E, …, Tugwell P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Monti M, Pelligra V, Martignon L, Berg N (2014) Retail investors and financial advisors: new evidence on trust and advice taking heuristics. J Bus Res 67(8):1749–1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.022

Mouna A, Anis J (2017) Financial literacy in Tunisia: its determinants and its implications on investment behavior. Res Int Bus Finance 39:568–577

Mullainathan S, Thaler R (2000) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Economics Working Paper Series . September

Nga KH, Yeoh KK (2018) An exploratory model on retirement savings behaviour: a Malaysian study. Int J Bus Soc 19(3):637–659

OECD (2023) Old-age dependency ratio (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/e0255c98-en . Accessed 13 Oct 2023

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KM (2007) A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Rep 12(2):474–498

Pallister JG, Wang HC, Foxall GR (2007) An application of the style/involvement model to financial services. Technovation 27(1–2):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.10.001

Pan L, Pezzuti T, Lu W, Pechmann C (2019) Hyperopia and frugality: different motivational drivers and yet similar effects on consumer spending. J Bus Res 95(August 2018):347–356

Parise G, Peijnenburg K (2017) Understanding the Determinants of Financial Outcomes and Choices: The Role of Noncognitive Abilities. BIS Working Papers

Paul J, Rosado-Serrano A (2019) Gradual internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: a review and research agenda. Int Mark Rev 36(6):830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280

Paul J, Criado AR (2020) The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? Int Bus Rev 29(4):101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Paul J, Khatri P, Kaur Duggal H (2023) Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: what, why and how? J Decis Syst 00(00):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700

Petkoska J, Earl JK (2009) Understanding the influence of demographic and psychological variables on Retirement Planning. Psychol Aging 24(1):245–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014096

Piotrowska M (2019) The importance of personality characteristics and behavioral constraints for retirement saving. Econ Anal Policy 64:194–220

Plath DA, Stevenson TH (2005) Financial services consumption behavior across Hispanic American consumers. J Bus Res 58(8):1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.03.003

Poterba JM (2015) Saver heterogeneity and the challenge of assessing retirement saving adequacy. Natl Tax J 68(2):377–388. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2015.2.06

Potrich ACG, Vieira KM, Kirch G (2018) How well do women do when it comes to financial literacy? Proposition of an indicator and analysis of gender differences. J Behav Experimental Finance 17:28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.005

Rai D, Lin CW (2019) (Wilson). The influence of implicit self-theories on consumer financial decision making. Journal of Business Research , 95 (August 2018), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.016

Ramalho TB, Forte D (2019) Financial literacy in Brazil – do knowledge and self-confidence relate with behavior? RAUSP Manage J 54(1):77–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2018-0008

Rana J, Paul J (2017) Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: a review and research agenda. J Retailing Consumer Serv 38(June):157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004

Ranyard R, McNair S, Nicolini G, Duxbury D (2020) An item response theory approach to constructing and evaluating brief and in-depth financial literacy scales. J Consum Aff 54(3):1121–1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12322

RBI Household Finance Committee (2017) Indian household finance. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Ruefenacht M, Schlager T, Maas P, Puustinen P (2015) Drivers of long-term savings behavior from consumer’s perspective. Electron Libr 34(1):1–5

Scholz JK, Seshadri A, Khitatrakun S (2006) Are Americans saving “optimally” for retirement? J Polit Econ 114(4):607–643

Schuabb T, França LH, Amorim SM (2019) Retirement savings model tested with Brazilian private health care workers. Front Psychol 10(JULY):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01701

Schuhen M, Schurkmann S (2014) International Review of Economics Education. Int Rev Econ Educ 16:1–11

Segel-Karpas D, Werner P (2014) Perceived financial retirement preparedness and its correlates: a national study in Israel. Int J Aging Hum Dev 79(4):279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415015574177

Seth H, Talwar S, Bhatia A, Saxena A, Dhir A (2020) Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 55 (August 2019), 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102071

Sewell M (2008) Behavioural finance. Economist 389(8604):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280786_5

Shefrin HM, Thaler RH (1988) The behavioral life‐cycle hypothesis. Econ Inq 26(4):609–643

Shim S, Serido J, Tang C (2012) The ant and the grasshopper revisited: the present psychological benefits of saving and future oriented financial behavior. J Econ Psychol 33(1):155–165

Simon HA (1978) Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In: Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, vol 5, pp 271–295

Sivaramakrishnan S, Srivastava M, Rastogi A (2017) Attitudinal factors, financial literacy, and stock market participation. Int J Bank Mark 34(1):1–5

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104(August):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Stawski RS, Hershey DA, Jacobs-Lawson JM (2007) Goal clarity and financial planning activities as determinants of retirement savings contributions. Int J Aging Hum Dev 64(1):13–32. https://doi.org/10.2190/13GK-5H72-H324-16P2

Steinert JI, Zenker J, Filipiak U, Movsisyan A, Cluver LD, Shenderovich Y (2018) Do saving promotion interventions increase household savings, consumption, and investments in Sub-saharan Africa? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Dev 104:238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.018

Steinhart Y, Mazursky D (2010) Purchase availability and involvement antecedents among financial products. Int J Bank Mark 28(2):113–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321011018314

Strömbäck C, Lind T, Skagerlund K, Västfjäll D, Tinghög G (2017) Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial well-being? J Behav Experimental Finance 14:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.04.002

Strömbäck C, Skagerlund K, Västfjäll D, Tinghög G (2020) Subjective self-control but not objective measures of executive functions predict financial behavior and well-being. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance , 27 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100339

Tam L, Dholakia U (2014) Saving in cycles: how to get people to save more money. Psychol Sci 25(2):531–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613512129

Tang N, Baker A (2016) Self-esteem, financial knowledge and financial behavior. J Econ Psychol 54:164–176

Tate M, Evermann J, Gable G (2015) An integrated framework for theories of individual attitudes toward technology. Inform Manage 52(6):710–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.06.005

Taylor MP, Jenkins SP, Sacker A (2011) Financial capability and psychological health. J Econ Psychol 32(5):710–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.006

Tennyson S, Yang HK (2014) The role of life experience in long-term care insurance decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology , 42 (2014), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.04.002

Thaler BRH (1994) Psychology and savings policies. Am Econ Rev 84(2):175–179. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3132220

Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1:39–60

Thaler RH (2005) Advances in behavioral finance. Adv Behav Finance 2:1–694. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329257

Thaler R, Shefrin H (1981) An economic theory of self-control. J Polit Econ 89(2):392–406

Tomar S, Kent Baker H, Kumar S, Hoffmann AOI (2021) Psychological determinants of retirement financial planning behavior. Journal of Business Research , 133 (November 2020), 432–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.007

Topa G, Moriano JA, Depolo M, Alcover CM, Morales JF (2009) Antecedents and consequences of retirement planning and decision-making: a meta-analysis and model. J Vocat Behav 75(1):38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.03.002

Topa G, Moriano JA, Depolo M, Alcover CM, Moreno A (2011) Retirement and wealth relationships: Meta-analysis and SEM. Res Aging 33(5):501–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027511410549

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Ülkümen G, Cheema A (2011) Framing goals to influence personal savings: the role of specificity and construal level. J Mark Res 48(6):958–969. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.09.0516

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social, Affairs PD (2020) (2019). World Population Ageing 2019. In United Nations . http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/ 978-94-007-5204-7_6

Utkarsh, Pandey A, Ashta A, Spiegelman E, Sutan A (2020) Catch them young: impact of financial Socialization, financial literacy and attitude towards money on the financial well-being of young adults. Int J Consumer Stud 44(6):531–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12583

Valente TW, Paredes P, Poppe P (1998) Matching the message to the process: the relative ordering of knowledge, attitudes, and practices in behavior change research. Hum Commun Res 24(3):366–385

Van Rooij M, Teppa F (2014) Personal traits and individual choices: taking action in economic and non-economic decisions. J Econ Behav Organ 100:33–43

van Rooij M, Lusardi A, Alessie R (2011) Financial literacy and stock market participation. J Financ Econ 101(2):449–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.006

Van Rooij MCJ, Lusardi A, Alessie RJM (2011a) Financial literacy and retirement planning in the Netherlands. J Econ Psychol 32(4):593–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.004

van Schie RJG, Dellaert BGC, Donkers B (2015) Promoting later planned retirement: construal level intervention impact reverses with age. J Econ Psychol 50:124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.06.010

Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F (2003) Factors influencing the Use of M-Banking by academics: Case Study sms-based M-Banking. MIS Q 27(3):425–478

Vitt LA (2004) Consumers’ financial decisions and the psychology of values. J Financial Service Professionals 58(November):68–77. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=bth&AN=14888952&site=ehost-live

Wang L, Lu W, Malhotra NK (2011) Demographics, attitude, personality, and credit card features correlate with credit card debt: a view from China. J Econ Psychol 32(1):179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.006

World Economic Forum (2019) Investing in (and for) our future. Issue June. www.weforum.org

Xia T, Wang Z, Li K (2014) Financial literacy overconfidence and stock market participation. Soc Indic Res 119(3):1233–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0555-9

Xiao JJ, Chen C, Chen F (2014) Consumer financial capability and financial satisfaction. Soc Indic Res 118(1):415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0414-8

Yeung DY, Zhou X (2017) Planning for retirement: longitudinal effect on retirement resources and post-retirement well-being. Front Psychol 8:1300

Zhou R, Pham MT (2004) Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: when financial products dictate consumers’ investment goals. J Consum Res 31(1):125–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/383429

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the academicians and researchers who guided the search of the article and would like to thank the experts for the valuable inputs to refine the work.

There is no funding received for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India

Kavita Karan Ingale

Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Pune, India

Ratna Achuta Paluri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the conceptualization, research design, methodology, analysis of the data,writing of the manuscript and its revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kavita Karan Ingale .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ingale, K.K., Paluri, R.A. Retirement planning – a systematic review of literature and future research directions. Manag Rev Q (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00377-x

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2022

Accepted : 04 October 2023

Published : 28 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00377-x

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

• Retirement planning
• Systematic literature review
• Financial behavior
• Household finance
• Long-term savings
• Pension plan
• Financial literacy
• TCCM framework
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research