literature review paper publish

Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper

What to consider if you want to publish a literature review paper

Tatiana Andreeva - Fri 23 Apr 2021 07:50 (updated Fri 27 Oct 2023 17:26)

[Guest post by CYGNA member Tatiana Andreeva ]

When you’ve been reading a lot on a particular topic – for example, reviewing the literature for your research project or for your PhD – at some point it looks like you have enough material and reflections to publish this piece of work as a separate paper. Recognize this? If you ever tried it, you might know that publishing a literature review paper in an academic journal is a tricky task. The literature review publications come in so many forms, and there is no single cheat-sheet or established format like for empirical papers that you could follow to ensure success in publication.

Through my own journey of trial-and-error on this path, as well as through reviewing for journals and for PhD students in my course, I came up with an idea that will help you to increase the chances of publishing a literature review: think of a literature review as simply another empirical research project. Think of it as an empirical study, in which your data comes not from your usual fieldwork but from the articles that you review.

Many literature reviews can be thought of as a qualitative empirical study, in which the papers included in the review substitute interviews or field observations that you would usually collect and code. Some literature reviews, e.g., meta-analyses, are more like a quantitative empirical paper, in which various numbers you extract from the papers in your dataset substitute your survey data.

Seeing literature review in this way has three important implications for how we think about our literature review, and how we can design it to increase its chances of being interesting to others - that is, of being published.

Start with a relevant research problem and an interesting research question

We learn early in our academic career that any empirical paper should have a clear research problem and a clear research question. We frequently hear from journal editors and reviewers that just having a gap in the literature, or the fact that something has not been researched before, are not good enough to justify doing yet another empirical study. They say: you need to have a problem that your study can address, and you need to have a question that we currently don’t have an answer to. Only then your empirical study can add value to existing research. 

When we think of a literature review as of an empirical study, just with the different type of data at hand, we realize that the very same rationale applies. From this perspective the arguments that I often see in literature reviews – that there is no literature review in this particular area or that the existing literature reviews are quite dated – are not sufficient in the journal’s eyes to justify the publication of a literature review on a topic. If you aim to publish your literature review, start by thinking – what is the problem I would like to address? What would be my research question about this problem, that other readers would find interesting?

Design a methodologically-sound data collection and analysis protocol

When we think of any empirical study, we know that if we want to have reliable findings that will be accepted by our peers as trustworthy, we need to follow a transparent and well-thought data collection protocol. We also need to carefully choose and correctly apply relevant data analysis method. This goes without saying, right?

The same applies to the literature review! If we want our readers to trust our conclusions from the literature review, we need to make sure that the data we collect speaks to our research question, is of good quality, representative of the field, etc. The growing attention in business and management field to the systematic approach to literature reviews (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Rojon et al., 2021) reflects the rising expectations of the quality of the data used in literature review papers. Indeed, this approach offers exactly that: a clear data collection protocol, transparently communicated, so that someone else could replicate your study. For example, do the very same thing in 10 years and see how thinking on the topic has changed.

In the literature on doing literature reviews you will read that systematic literature review is only one of the types of literature reviews. Yet all recommendations on doing different types of the literature reviews share the idea that the data that you base your conclusions on has to be collected in a rigorous and transparent way (e.g., Callahan, 2014).  In this post you can find more references on how to ensure that your literature review “data collection” protocol meets the quality expectations.

So now you have all the papers you have carefully selected, how do you go about analysing them, so that peer academics would recognize your conclusions as reliable and robust? This is the trickiest part, and we have limited methodological advice published on this. In this post I’ve mentioned some papers that discuss specific methods of literature analysis. For example, I found that a sophisticated coding rubric leveraged our literature analysis to a different level (Sergeeva & Andreeva, 2016), but must acknowledge that developing this rubric was one of the most challenging tasks of this review paper. In O’Higgins et al. (forthcoming) we used a combination of qualitative content analysis with Pearson’s chi-squared (χ²) goodness of fit test in order to validate some of our conclusions. The trick is - as with any empirical study - your choice of the analytical method needs to fit with your research question. In sum, the message is: choose your method for analysis of the selected literature carefully, apply it rigorously, and explain it transparently.

Think of the theoretical contribution beyond description of the findings

When we think of our usual empirical work, be it qualitative or quantitative, we are well-aware that just the description of our data wouldn’t do. We know that we need to leverage what our data shows to explain how it informs the broader theory, how it compares to previous studies, what is new that we see from this data?

Again, the same logic applies to the literature reviews. In practice though, we often find it difficult to apply this advice to our literature review papers, because the description of the field in itself seems to be novel, especially if nobody did such a review before. In my experience, this argument does not persuade editors and reviewers of the journals, and often rightfully so.

For example, think of a typical quantitative empirical paper: a descriptive statistics table must be provided, but no one would claim a contribution based on it, right? Cropanzano (2009:1306-1307) offers a good exercise that explains why reviewers often don’t buy the description of the field as a novel contribution. He suggests: imagine somebody who read all the primary articles in your dataset, would they still learn anything from your literature review? And if the answer is “no”, then it’s likely that your review paper doesn’t have yet the level of contribution that is needed to turn it into a publication.

I think this exercise can also help to stimulate your thinking of what a theoretical contribution of your literature review could be. For example, think – what it is that I see in this literature that others are not likely to see?  In this blogpost you can find some papers that offer insights on how to leverage your literature review to have a theoretical contribution.  

Callahan, J.L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource Development Review , 13(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314536705

Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management , 35(6), 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344118

Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). London, UK: Sage.

O’Higgins, C., Andreeva, T., Aramburu, N. (forthcoming). International management challenges of professional service firms: a synthesis of the literature. Review of International Business and Strategy.

Rojon, C., Okupe, A., McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews, 1– 33. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245

Sergeeva, A., Andreeva, T. (2016). Knowledge sharing: bringing the context back in, Journal of Management Inquiry , 25, 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615618271

Related blogposts

• Resources on doing a literature review
• Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or  supporting the Publish or Perish software .

A story about perseverance and publication failures

Copyright © 2023 Tatiana Andreeva . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Fri 27 Oct 2023 17:26

Tatiana Andreeva's profile and contact details >>

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

NIH pay raise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

News 25 APR 24

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Career Feature 23 APR 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Editorial 24 APR 24

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

Postdoctoral Research Fellow Positions, Division of Rheumatology

We seek two postdoctoral fellows to join the Mustelin/Najjar lab in the Rheumatology division, University of Washington, Seattle, USA, to lead and ...

Seattle, Washington State

University of Washington, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology

Postdoctoral Associate- Computational Spatial Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Staff Scientist - Genetics and Genomics

Technician - senior technician in cell and molecular biology.

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

• Research Guides
• Vanderbilt University Libraries

Peabody Library

Literature reviews.

• Publishing in Academic Journals
• Steps to Success: The Literature Review Process
• Literature Reviews Webinar Recording
• Literature Review Table
• Writing Like an Academic
• Managing Citations This link opens in a new window

Calls for Papers

• H-Net CFPs in the social sciences and humanities.
• CFPS from AERA Compiled by the American Educational Research Association.

Why Publish?

As a grad/professional student, you will write (or already have written!) a LOT of papers. Rather than tossing that paper aside after you've received your grade, consider turning it into a manuscript submission. There are many benefits for publishing as a grad student:

• You've already done a lot of the work! You may just need to update your research a bit, and re-format your paper for the journal you're submitting to (more on that below).
• It's a great CV booster. Whether you're looking for a job, applying to another graduate program, or just looking for an internship, having a published or accepted publication on your resume looks great.
• Publishing is also a great way to grow your professional network. While the peer review process means you most likely won't know the identify of your reviewers, journal editors are often available to discuss why your article might be a good fit for their journal. Not only are they providing valuable feedback on your writing, you now have a new professional contact!

Things To Think About

• Where Should You Publish?
• What is Impact Factor?
• Crafting Your Submission
• Copyright for Authors

Things to consider:

• Reputation - The reputation of the publisher, journal, editor and editorial board can give an indication of the quality of the journal.
• Scope and focus of the journal - It is important that your article reaches the readers who can most benefit from it and who can most benefit you. The scope and aim of the journal will give an indication of who the journal’s readers are, e.g. national or international, limited to a select area of research or with a multidisciplinary focus.
• Turnaround time - What is the length of the review process? Average length of time from submission to acceptance or rejection; from acceptance to publication? Frequency of publication?
• Included in prominent indexes - Are articles from the journal indexed in journal databases relevant to your field, or in citation databases such as Scopus or Web of Science?
• Editorial standards / Journal information - The competence of a journal’s editorial office can hugely influence the success or failure of an article. Make sure that the “Instructions to Authors” are easily accessible and that they set out clearly what is expected from authors. Does the journal come out on time or is it often two or three years behind? Is the journal carefully produced with a professional appearance, or does it have many typing errors, poor paper quality and other signs of neglect? Does the journal accept electronic submissions? This simplifies the submission process, allows swift management of manuscripts and makes it possible for authors to track the position of their manuscripts in the review process.
• Acceptance rate - The acceptance rate gives an indication of how competitive a journal is. Journals with a low acceptance rate are considered to be amongst the most prestigious in their field, the assumption being that only the very best articles are selected.
• Cost - Be aware that some journals charge either a submission fee, an acceptance fee, page fees or fees for use of colour images or other special media formats.
• Rights for authors - Check the journal website or their copyright form for information on author rights. Are you allowed to re-use the article after publication or to submit the post-print to the University’s research repository?
• Type of publication - Some journals only accept certain types of articles for publication.

More resources:

• Ulrichsweb This link opens in a new window ISSN, publisher, language, subject, abstracting & indexing coverage, full-text database coverage, tables of contents, and reviews written by librarians on periodicals of all types: academic and scholarly journals, e-journals, peer-reviewed titles, popular magazines, newspapers, newsletters, etc. more... less... User Limit: 5.

• Cabell's directory of publishing opportunities in educational psychology and administration Call Number: Peabody Reference Z286 .E3 C323
• Vanderbilt University Institutional Repository Vanderbilt's Institutional Repository. This is a great way to gain a wider audience for your work.

A  journal's  Impact Factor  ind icates the average number of times articles from the publication have been cited over a two-year period.  The higher the journal's impact factor, the more prominent the journal is in the canon of literature.

• Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports The official entity providing a journal's impact factor.
• CiteFactor A repository of open access journals, including publication information about journals, such as impact factor.
• Altmetrics Altmetrics considers how scholarship-based activities such as blog posts, tweets, downloads, shares, and views may provide important information about the significance of a research article or other research "product." Find more information on this research guide.

Author guidelines of most journals can be found on the journal website, which can be found via Google or by using Ulrich's.

Make sure to follow the guidelines closely and prepare your submission in accordance with these guidelines. Things like word count, format of the manuscript (text, illustrations, etc), and citation style are all very important.

Make sure to also check if the journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis, or if you need to inquire with the editor first.

• Journal of scholarly publishing Provides practical advice for authors, editors and publishers for a wide range of topics.
• Tips from Editors on Getting Published

• More information on Copyright Videos include: What are Copyright and Using Others' Work
• Authors' Rights Find out more about your rights as an artist, author, or creator of any sort
• Open Access Publishing Guide from Vanderbilt Library
• << Previous: Writing Like an Academic
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 4:20 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/litreviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

The Workforce Scheduling Problem (WSP): A Review of the Literature

• Conference paper
• First Online: 26 April 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Efraín Pérez-Cubero 6 ,
• Raul Poler 7 &
• Eduardo Vicens 7  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies ((LNDECT,volume 206))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management (ICIEIM) – Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización

The aim of this article is to identify and analyse the methods that are being used to solve the Workforce Scheduling Problem (WSP) through a systematic review of the publications on this problem. This study aims to provide researchers with a starting point to advance in the approaches to solving the problem and in enriching the WSP with additional variables that complement it in a natural way. Finally, the most promising lines of research for the future are identified.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ayough, A., Zandieh, M., Farsijani, H.: GA and ICA approaches to job rotation scheduling problem: considering employee’s boredom. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 60 (5–8), 651–666 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3641-7

Article   Google Scholar  

Berman, O., Larson, R.C., Pinker, E.: Scheduling workforce and workflow in a high volume factory. Manag. Sci. 43 (2), 158–172 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.2.158

Chu, X., et al.: Worker assignment with learning-forgetting effect in cellular manufacturing system using adaptive memetic differential search algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 136 (July), 381–396 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.028

Eurofund. Working conditions in sectors. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2020). https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/working-conditions-in-sectors

Hillier, F.S., Lieberman, G.J.: Introduction to Operations Research, 10 edn. McGraw-Hill, Stanford (2015)

Google Scholar  

Pérez-Cubero, E., Poler, R.: Aplicación de algoritmos de aprendizaje automático a la programación de órdenes de producción en talleres de trabajo: Una revisión de la literatura reciente. Direccion y Organizacion 72 (72), 82–94 (2021). https://doi.org/10.37610/DYO.V0I72.588

Rinaldi, M., et al.: Workforce scheduling incorporating worker skills and ergonomic constraints. Comput. Ind. Eng. 168 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108107

Sabar, M., Montreuil, B., Frayret, J.M.: A multi-agent-based approach for personnel scheduling in assembly centers. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 22 (7), 1080–1088 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2009.02.009

Savino, M.M., Riccio, C., Menanno, M.: Empirical study to explore the impact of ergonomics on workforce scheduling. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (2), 415–433 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1591645

Wu, L., et al.: Cross-trained worker assignment problem in cellular manufacturing system using swarm intelligence metaheuristics. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4302062

Xin, B., et al.: An adaptive BPSO algorithm for multi-skilled workers assignment problem in aircraft assembly lines. Assem. Autom. 35 (4), 317–328 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2015-051

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Costa Rica, Alajuela Campus, Alajuela, Costa Rica

Efraín Pérez-Cubero

Universitat Politècnica de València, Production Engineering and Management Research Center. Camino de Vera S/N, Valencia, Spain

Raul Poler & Eduardo Vicens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Efraín Pérez-Cubero .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

ETSEIB, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

Joaquín Bautista-Valhondo

Manuel Mateo-Doll

Rafael Pastor-Moreno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Pérez-Cubero, E., Poler, R., Vicens, E. (2024). The Workforce Scheduling Problem (WSP): A Review of the Literature. In: Bautista-Valhondo, J., Mateo-Doll, M., Lusa, A., Pastor-Moreno, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management (ICIEIM) – XXVII Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización (CIO2023). CIO 2023. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol 206. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57996-7_55

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57996-7_55

Published : 26 April 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-57995-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-57996-7

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 20 January 2024

Dementia care pathways in prisons – a comprehensive scoping review

• Samantha Treacy 1 ,
• Steven Martin 2 ,
• Nelum Samarutilake 3 ,
• Veronica Phillips 4 ,
• Ben R. Underwood 3 , 5 &
• Tine Van Bortel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-6393 2 , 3  

Health & Justice volume  12 , Article number:  2 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1048 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The number of older people in prison is growing. As a result, there will also be more prisoners suffering from dementia. The support and management of this population is likely to present multiple challenges to the prison system.

To examine the published literature on the care and supervision of people living in prison with dementia and on transitioning into the community; to identify good practice and recommendations that might inform the development of prison dementia care pathways.

A scoping review methodology was adopted with reporting guided by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist and explanation.

Sixty-seven papers were included. Most of these were from high income countries, with the majority from the United Kingdom ( n  = 34), followed by the United States ( n  = 15), and Australia ( n  = 12). One further paper was from India.

The literature indicated that there were difficulties across the prison system for people with dementia along the pathway from reception to release and resettlement. These touched upon all aspects of prison life and its environment, including health and social care. A lack of resources and national and regional policies were identified as important barriers, although a number of solutions were also identified in the literature, including the development of locally tailored policies and increased collaboration with the voluntary sector.

To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive and inclusive review of the literature on dementia care pathways in prison to date. It has identified a number of important areas of concern and opportunities for future research across the prison system, and its operations. This will hopefully lead to the identification or adaptation of interventions to be implemented and evaluated, and facilitate the development of dementia care pathways in prisons.

The number of older people (defined here as those over 50 Footnote 1 ) being held in prison in England and Wales has almost tripled over the last 20 years, and they now represent 17.1% of that population (Ministry of Justice, 2022a ). The growing number of older people has brought with it an increasing number of health and social care problems, reportedly affecting around 85% of older people in prison, with associated costs (Di Lorito, et al., 2018 ; Hayes et al., 2012 , 2013 ; Senior, et al., 2013 ). It has been estimated that 8.1% of those over the age of 50 in prison have mild cognitive impairment or dementia, which is much higher than estimates for this age group in the general population (Dunne et al., 2021 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ). This pattern of poor health also increased the vulnerability of older people in prison during the pandemic (Kay, 2020 ).

Prison policy and legislation mandates that health and social care be ‘equivalent’ to that provided in the community (Care Act, 2014 ; Department of Health, 1999 ). Despite this, provisions are reportedly inconsistent, and the government has been described as ‘failing’ in its duty of care (Health and Social Care Committee, 2018 ; HM Inspectorate of Prisons & Care Quality Commission, 2018 ). This is likely exacerbated by the suspension and limiting of healthcare services during the pandemic, noted to have had a ‘profound’ impact on people’s health and wellbeing (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2021 ). This may be particularly so for people living in prison with dementia (PLiPWD), whereby the difficulties of delivering health and social care are compounded by inappropriate buildings, environments, and prison regimes (rules and regulations). In addition, PLiPWDs may experience an increase in social isolation, including separation from friends and family, all of which may make their time in prison more challenging (Moll, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ).

There is no current national strategy for older people in prison in England and Wales, including PLiPWD, although the British government recently agreed that there is a need for one (Justice Committee, 2020 ). A ‘Model for Operational Delivery’ for older people has been published by Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service ( 2018 ) in England and Wales, though this is guidance only and the “properly resourced and coordinated strategy” previously called for has not been produced (Prisons & Probation Ombudsman, 2017 , p7; Brooke and Rybacka, 2020 ; HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2019 ; Justice Committee, 2020 ). One way of attempting to standardise and improve the quality of treatment and care in the community has been through the use of care pathways (Centre for Policy on Ageing, 2014 ; Schrijvers et al., 2012 ). Care pathways have been defined as “a complex intervention for the mutual decision-making and organisation of care processes for a well-defined group of patients during a well-defined period”, involving an articulation of goals and key aspects of evidence-based care, coordination and sequencing of activities and outcomes evaluation (Vanhaecht, et al., 2007 , p137).

The development of care pathways within the prison system lags behind that of the community, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has produced a pathway for prisoner health for England and Wales (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019 ), and there is a care pathway for older prisoners in Wales (Welsh Government & Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). There has also recently been an overall care pathway developed for people in prison with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, although this has not been implemented as yet, and it does not include any details regarding release and resettlement (Forsyth et al, 2020 ). It has been recommended that care pathways should be developed locally, as they are context-sensitive, should be viewed as processual and flexible, and the needs of the person, their experiences and characteristics need to be taken into account – such as age, gender and race (Centre for Policy on Ageing, 2014 ; Pinder, et al., 2005 ).

Here we review the current literature on people living in prison with dementia. There have been two recent systematic literature reviews conducted on PLiPWD, both of which only included primary research studies that were small in number (Brooke and Rybacka, 2020 ( n  = 10); Peacock et al., 2019 ( n  = 8)), and focused on prevalence, identification (screening and diagnosis), and the need for tailored programming and staff training. Peacock et al., ( 2019 ) identified dementia as a concern and suggested recommendations for improved screening and care practices. Brooke et al. ( 2020 ) noted that, whilst the prevalence of dementia in prison populations was largely unknown, there was a need for national policies and local strategies that support a multi-disciplinary approach to early detection, screening and diagnosis. Neither paper, however, reported on the much more extensive and rich grey literature in this area (Brooke and Rybacka, 2020 ), to help comprehensively identify the systemic and operational problems, barriers and potential solutions that would be useful to consider in developing local dementia care pathways. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive systematic scoping review of the available published literature on the support and management of PLiPWD in prison and upon transitioning into the community, and to identify practice and recommendations that would be useful to consider in the development of a local prison dementia care pathway.

A scoping review methodology using Arksey and O’Malley’s ( 2005 ) five-stage framework was adopted for this review. Reporting was guided by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist and explanation (Tricco et al., 2018 ). The completed checklist for this review is available in Additional file 1 : Appendix 1.

Identification of relevant reports

The search strategy was formulated by the research team, and included an electronic database search and subsequent hand search. The electronic search involved searching twelve electronic databases: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstract, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Embase, Medline (OVID), National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Open Grey, Psycinfo, Pubmed, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science. The search combined condition-related terms (dementia OR Alzheimer*) AND context-related ones (prison OR jail OR gaol OR penitentia* OR penal OR correctional* OR incarcerat*), with no date or language restrictions, and covered the full range of publications up until April 2022. Additional file 2 : Appendix 2 has an example of the search strategy used.

Electronic searches were supplemented by comprehensive hand searching and reference mining. Searches were also undertaken using: search engines; websites related to prisons and/or dementia (for example, Prison Reform Trust); a database from a previous related literature review (Lee et al, 2019 ); recommendations from academic networking sites; contacting prominent authors in the field directly; government-related websites (for example Public Health England, now called Health Security Agency); recent inspection reports for all prisons in England and Wales from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Independent Monitoring Board.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Papers were considered suitable for inclusion in this review if they met the following criteria:

Setting: Papers should primarily be set in, or pertain to, prisons. Documents solely referring to community services, hospitals or medical facilities that are not part of the prison system were excluded.

People: Papers involving PLiPWD. Research focused only on older people in prison more generally was excluded, as was research which described the disorienting effects of imprisonment more generally, but which was not related to dementia.

Intervention: Some consideration of the treatment, care, support or management of PLiPWD; this can be health or social-care associated, as well as related to the prison overall, and to any individuals, groups or agencies who visit or work with individuals during their time in prison (including family, friends, charities, probation services). Papers which mostly describe prevalence studies, sentencing practices or profiles were excluded.

Study design: All designs were considered for inclusion. Editorials, book reviews, online blogs, press releases, announcements, summaries, newspaper and magazine articles, abstracts and letters were excluded.

The titles, abstracts and full-text of the papers identified by the searches were screened for inclusion in the review. The screening was undertaken by two independent researchers (ST and NS) for inter-rater reliability purposes (Rutter et al., 2010 ). Any differences of opinion on inclusion were resolved between the researchers (ST, NS and SM), and with the Principle Investigator (TVB).

Charting the data

An extraction template was developed for the review, guided by the PICO formula (Richardson et al., 1995 ) and informed by pathway stages and key areas highlighted in the older prisoner pathways toolkit for England and Wales (Department of Health, 2007 ), and the older prisoner pathway formulated for Wales (Welsh Government & Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Using this extraction template, all of the data was extracted from the included papers by one member of the research team (ST), with a second researcher extracting data from a third of the papers as a check for consistency (SM). Any unresolved issues were related to the Principle Investigator (TVB) for resolution.

Collating, summarising and reporting results

The review was deliberately inclusive of a wide variety of types of papers, which meant that taking a meta-analytic approach to the data was not feasible. Therefore, a narrative approach to summarising and synthesising the findings and recommendations of the included papers was adopted (Popay et al, 2006 ).

Sixty-seven papers were included in this scoping review. The screening process phases conducted by the research team are shown in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

A brief overview of the key features of each of the papers is presented in Table 1 . All but one of the included papers were from high income countries, with the majority from the United Kingdom ( n  = 34), and then the United States ( n  = 15), Australia ( n  = 12), Canada ( n  = 4), Italy ( n  = 1) and India ( n  = 1). The papers were split into types, with twenty-two guidance and inspection documents, and twenty-seven discussion and intervention description papers. Of the eighteen research and review articles with a defined methodology included there were four literature reviews (one was systematic), nine qualitative studies, four mixed-methods studies (one which followed participants up), and one survey-based study.

Areas to consider in the support and management of PLiPWD during their time in prison and upon their release

The pathway through the prison is shown in Fig.  2 , and typically involves: (i) reception into prison; (ii) assessments, and allocation of the person within prison; (iii) time held in prison; (iv) transfers between prisons, and between prisons and other services such as time spent in hospital; and (v) release and preparations for resettlement in the community. There were also a number of (vi) cross-cutting themes which could potentially impact people with dementia living in prison at each stage across the prison pathway.

Dementia prison pathway considerations

(i) Reception

Upon entry into prison, prisoners are subject to an initial reception screening to identify and support immediate health and social care problems, and those in need of further assessment. An induction to prison rules and regulations also typically occurs at this step.

All papers reported that reception screening with appropriate screening tools was important in identifying cognitive difficulties and in establishing a baseline, but implementation seemed to vary (Peacock et al., 2019 ). One study in England and Wales found only 30% of prisons contacted routinely did this (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Supporting policy and a service/person to refer to directly for further assessment were also highlighted as useful (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brooke et al., 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ). Proposed cut-offs for this screening were either 50 years of age ( n  = 7), under 55 years ( n  = 1), or 55 years of age ( n  = 7). One paper reported that only a third of prisoners who were offered this screening accepted it, although the reasons for this were not stated (Patel & Bonner, 2016 ). Another paper suggested that a screening programme could have unintended adverse consequences, that could damage already fragile relationships between staff and people living in prison (Moore & Burtonwood, 2019 ). Whilst many screening tools were mentioned, there are currently no tools validated for use in prisons, and many of those used in the community may be inappropriate (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brooke et al., 2018 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Moore & Burtonwood, 2019 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Turner, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). One validation study found that the Six-item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) was not suitably sensitive for use (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Other difficulties included the limited amount of time and resources available to screen at reception (Christodoulou, 2012 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ), and that staff lacked ‘familiarity’ with screening tools (Peacock et al., 2019 ).

Only two papers mentioned the induction process (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ) as important. A need for clearly explained information in a dementia-appropriate format (written and verbal) particularly regarding healthcare, and a recommendation that PLiPWD should be regularly reminded of rules and regulations, were suggested.

(ii) Assessment

Following the screening process, the current recommendation is that an initial healthcare assessment takes place in the first seven days after entering prison. During this initial assessment period, although not necessarily within this timeframe, care plans and allocation decisions may also be made regarding where the prisoner is placed within the prison.

An initial older-person-specific health and/or social care assessment or standard process for assessment has been recommended by ten papers, six of which were from government or related bodies. It was also suggested by some papers, that a cognitive assessment should take place at either 50 years ( n  = 6) or 55 years ( n  = 2), which should be repeated every three months ( n  = 3), six months ( n  = 5) or annually ( n  = 12), with the latter including recommendations from NICE guidelines (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ). One study set in England and Wales found that most prisons (60%) that screened older people, did so between 7–12 months (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Brief and affordable tools were considered more useful (Garavito, 2020 ; Turner, 2018 ), although the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) was recommended in the care pathway developed by Forsyth et al. ( 2020 ).

Typically, assessments were conducted by healthcare staff, GPs or a psychologist ( n  = 6), a specialist in-house assessment unit ( n  = 2), or a specific dementia admissions assessment unit ( n  = 4). For further assessment, some prisons had internal teams to refer to ( n  = 5). Forsyth et al. ( 2020 ) recommend referral to external Memory Assessment Services for assessment. A case finding tool was being piloted in one prison (Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ). Assessments included can be found in Table 2 .

Assessments also explored risk and safeguarding (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), environmental impact (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ), capacity (Prison & Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ), work, education, and drug and alcohol use (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ) and a person’s strengths (Hamada, 2015 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ). Prison staff contributed to some assessments of activities of daily living (ADLs) or prison-modified ADLs (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2016 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Turner, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). Challenges to Assessment can be found in Table 3 .

Twelve papers described or recommended care planning post-assessment, in collaboration with PLiPWD and primary care, or a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) of health, social care and prison staff with external specialists healthcare proxies charities or family (Brown, 2016 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Hamada, 2015 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). However, it was suggested that prison staff be removed from the decision-making process as the dementia progresses, and be part of the ‘duty of care’ of healthcare staff and services (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ). It was recommended too that care plans be disseminated to prison wing staff (Forsyth et al., 2020 ) and peer supporters (Goulding, 2013 ), and that consent be sought for this (Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ) An ombudsman report in England and Wales noted that care plans for PLiPWD who had died in prison were inadequate (Peacock et al., 2018 ), and of the varying degrees of care planning found by Forsyth et al ( 2020 ), it was described typically as “rudimentary” (p26). Care plans are described further in Table 4 .

Many papers reported that prisons did or should make decisions about where people should be accommodated within the prison after health assessments (Brown, 2016 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Turner, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Williams et al., 2012 ), taking age and health into account. However, despite recommendations that PLiPWD should be placed on the ground floor on low bunks for instance (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), there were reports that this was not happening (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ). There were also recommendations for allocations to be made across a region to ensure people are appropriately placed in the prison system (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Booth, 2016 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Concerns were expressed about the lack of lower category places for PLiPWD (Department of Health, 2007 ), and the lack of guidance regarding placement of people with high support needs (Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ) in England and Wales.

(iii) Within-prison issues

A number of papers reported on a need for policies or frameworks to support staff to identify, assess and support people who may be living with dementia (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Turner, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), without which staff have faced difficulties in providing quality care and support (Feczko, 2014 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). Whilst there were some examples of guidance for dementia (Hamada, 2015 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Turner, 2018 ), it was suggested that all policies should be reviewed and amended to ensure that they are appropriate for older people and people living with dementia (Department of Health,  2007 ; Lee et al., 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Specific policy areas are described in Table 5 .

Issues around staff training on dementia were discussed in the majority of papers ( n  = 54) Many of these reported that prison staff either lacked training on dementia, or that training was limited ( n  = 16), with one study in England and Wales reporting that only a quarter of prison staff had received such training (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Perhaps consequently, a number of papers identified that prison staff required some dementia training ( n  = 19). Staff working on a specialist dementia unit reportedly had a comprehensive 40-h training (Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Moll, 2013 ), and it was suggested that more comprehensive training be facilitated for officers, particularly those working with PLiPWD ( n  = 18) and offender managers ( n  = 2). A need for all staff working with PLiPWD to be supervised was also suggested (Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ). Despite a lack of consensus on content and duration (du Toit et al, 2019 ), typically, the staff training undertaken and recommended was in four areas (Table 6 ). It was also recommended that training for healthcare could be more comprehensive and focused on screening, identification, assessment, diagnoses, supervision and intervention training (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2014 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; Moll, 2013 ; Moore & Burtonwood, 2019 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Peacock et al, 2019 ; Treacy et al, 2019 ; Turner, 2018 ; Williams, 2014 ). It is of note that only 21% of healthcare staff in one study in England and Wales reported attending training to identify dementia (Forsyth et al., 2020 ), similar to the figures regarding prison staff in the same study.

Much of the training described in the included papers had been formulated and delivered by dementia- or older people-specific voluntary organisations (Alzheimer’s Society, 2018 ; Brooke et al.  2018 ; Brown, 2016 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Moll, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Although it has also been recommended to involve health and social care (Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Ministry of Justice, 2013 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Turner, 2018 ), and officers and peer supporters (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Masters et al., 2016 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ) in developing the training. In one study, prison staff were also trained to deliver dementia information sessions to their peers (Treacy et al., 2019 ). A suggestion of video-training packages was also made (du Toit et al., 2019 ). Dementia training typically lacked robust evaluation (Brooke et al., 2018 ), although those available generally reported benefits in their understanding of dementia, relationships, and diagnoses (Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Masters et al., 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). It was also reported that some prison staff were resistant to working with PLiPWD (Moll, 2013 ), and that resource limitations resulted in training cuts (HMP Hull, 2015 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ).

Offering healthcare across the spectrum for PLiPWDs, from acute to chronic care, with a focus on preventative and long-term care as well as palliative care was recommended by some papers (Brown, 2014 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Peacock et al, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). The development of care pathways to guide this were also recommended or formulated (du Toit et al., 2019 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ), although the majority (69%) of prisons in one study in England and Wales did not have one (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Clear and formal links with local hospitals, memory clinics, forensic and community teams for planning, training, advice, support and in-reach were also present or recommended by sixteen research and guidance papers. The amount of healthcare cover in prisons in England and Wales reportedly varied with the function of the prison with largely only local prisons having 24-h healthcare staff (Treacy et al., 2019 ), and most other forms of prison having office-type hours’ healthcare cover – including sex offender prisons where the majority of older prisoners are held (Brown, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). While specialist services or units for PLiPWD exist in a number of jurisdictions (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Treacy et al, 2019 ), more are reportedly needed (Brooke et al., 2018 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

Most healthcare teams were reportedly MDT, or this was recommended, alongside joint health and social care working ( n  = 16). A number of healthcare staff acted as the lead for older people in prisons (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016 ; Moll, 2013 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), with a recommendation that a dementia-trained nurse should lead any dementia care pathways (Forsyth et al., 2020 ) and indeed it was suggested that healthcare staff in general have training and experience in working with older people (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017b ; Moll, 2013 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Public Health England, 2017b ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Turner, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Whilst one of the recommended roles for healthcare was the prescription and monitoring of medication (Feczko, 2014 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017b ; Moll, 2013 ), much of the focus was on early identification and diagnosis, and keeping a dementia register (Department of Health, 2007 ; Moll, 2013 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and the use of non-pharmacological approaches. These broadly included: psychological interventions (Goulding, 2013 ; Hamada, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ); assistance with ADLs and social care (Feczko, 2014 ; Hamada, 2015 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Maschi, et al., 2012 ; Murray, 2004 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ); development and delivery of specialist dementia prison programmes (Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ); reablement and rehabilitation (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ); relaxation (Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ); safeguarding (Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ); and cognitive stimulation groups (Moll, 2013 ; Williams, 2014 ). Other possible roles included: training or supporting staff and peer supporters, as reported in fourteen papers, as well as advocacy (Feczko, 2014 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), allocation, assessment for offending behaviour groups, risk assessments and disciplinary hearings (Booth, 2016 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Murray, 2004 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). Challenges to Healthcare are noted in Table 7 .

Palliative care

A care pathway for dying people that meets community standards was recommended (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), as was ensuring that people could choose a preferred place to die (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Some prisoners were moved to community hospices or hospitals (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), or it was felt that they should be (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Although it was noted that some prisons lack relationships with community hospices or palliative care services and need to foster them (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

A number of prisons also reportedly had hospices, particularly in the United States (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2016 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Williams et al., 2012 ), although these have not been comprehensively evaluated (Williams et al., 2012 ). It was recommended that these be staffed by MDTs (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ), including chaplains and nutritionists (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ), and many included prisoner peer supporters (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ). The use of independent contractors was also suggested as staff-prisoner relationships were considered problematic in some prisons (Williams et al., 2012 ). Regarding family, many hospices were described as allowing more visits (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ), including one prison with family accommodation (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Whilst re-engaging with family was reportedly encouraged (Brown, 2016 ), a lack of support was noted (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ). Suggested improvements include a family liaison officer, providing a list of counselling options, and hosting memorial services (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

Social care

A social care strategy for older prisoners and a social care lead for all prisons in England and Wales has been recommended (Department of Health, 2007 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). It was reported that MDTs working with PLiPWD should and increasingly do include social workers including specialist units and hospices (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Social care roles can be found in Table 8 .

The work may be direct or may be through co-ordinating external agencies or peer supporters (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Clarity in these roles was considered paramount, particularly as uncertainty reportedly continues to exist over who is responsible for meeting prisoners’ social care needs in some prisons in England and Wales despite the passing of the Care Act, 2014 (Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). There was also some ambiguity around the threshold PLiPWD were expected to meet in order to access social care (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). In some instances, personal care was delivered informally by untrained and unsupported prison staff and peer supporters in lieu of suitably trained social care workers (Treacy et al., 2019 ), with issues raised about the unavailability of social care through the night (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Where social care staff were involved in coordinating personal care for prisoners, it was reported as positive for prisoners and prison staff (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), particularly, in one prison, where social care staff were prison-based (Forsyth et al., 2020 ).

Peer supporters

Prisoner peer supporters were operating in a number of prisons, as reported in 22 papers, and their employment was recommended by a further fourteen. Typically, these were people who had ‘good’ disciplinary and mental health records, and certainly in the US, were longer-serving prisoners. A number of papers indicated the need for peer supporters to receive training in dementia, including awareness and support (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Comprehensive 36–40 h training on dementia was delivered for those working on specialist units, including one leading to a qualification (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ). Much of the training was developed and delivered by charities, particularly dementia-related ones, as reported in eleven papers. Ongoing support and supervision was offered or recommended by some prisons, provided largely by health or social care staff or charities (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), with informal peer-to-peer support also described (Brown, 2016 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). The support and supervision received was found to be valuable (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Peer-supporter roles are listed in Table 9 .

A number of benefits to: (a) the peer supporters, (b) the prisoners they supported and, (c) the prison, were described, although formal evaluations were lacking (Brown, 2016 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). This included: payment, development of skills which could be used on release, positive impact on progression through the system, and on self-confidence and compassion, and the creation of a more humane environment. However, frustration and distress amongst peer supporters largely when untrained and unsupported was also reported (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Brown, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), and concerns raised in relation to an over-reliance on peers to do work that it is the statutory duty of health and social care to provide (Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). This was a particular problem in light of personal care being prohibited for peer supporters in England and Wales (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ). It is also of note that the role of peer supporter may also attract the opprobrium of other prisoners, with reports that they have been seen as ‘snitches’ or ‘dogs’ in some areas (Brown, 2016 ; Goulding, 2013 ). In addition, in some prisons, the peer supporter role was not advocated due to: fear of litigation; fear of replacing staff with peers; belief that people should be acquiring more transferable skills, since many would be unable to undertake care work in the community due to their offence history (Brown, 2016 ; Goulding, 2013 ).

Accommodation

There were mixed views regarding accommodation for PLiPWD. A continuum of prison accommodation was suggested from independent to 24-h care (including assisted living) (Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). A number of papers ( n  = 18) recommended that there should be some form of alternative, more appropriate accommodation developed, potentially regional, including secure facilities possibly with a palliative orientation (Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Sfera et al., 2014 ). However, there were concerns about the availability, costs and staffing of specialist units, and distances that family would have to travel to visit despite potential benefits (du Toit et al., 2019 ; Moore & Burtonwood, 2019 ). It was also suggested that PLiPWD should be released to live in the community instead (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ).

Within prisons, there was a debate evident within the papers about whether PLiPWD should be accommodated in separate units or integrated within the general prison population, which had generated little clear evidence and mixed views (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Authors have suggested that specialist or separate wings focused on older people or those with dementia were safer, met peoples’ needs better, and offered better care, support and programmes than integrated units (Brown, 2014 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Murray, 2004 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams et al., 2012 ), as long as they were ‘opt-in’ for prisoners and staff (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Moll, 2013 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams et al., 2012 ), and opportunities to get off the wing to socialise with others are provided (Treacy et al., 2019 ). The types of ‘specialist’ accommodation that PLiPWD were living in are reported in Table 10 . It is of note that papers reported a highly limited number of beds available in specialist units (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Turner, 2018 ), and that a number of older prisoner-specific prisons were being closed due to costs (Turner, 2018 ).

Four papers described the benefits of older people and those PLiPWD residing within the general prison population (Dillon et al., 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). Those living with dementia reported a benefit from socialising with, and being cared for by, younger people (Dillon et al., 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). The presence of older people also reportedly calmed younger prisoners (Dillon et al., 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). Importantly, removing people from their prison social networks may have a detrimental effect (Williams et al., 2012 ), and living on specialist units can be stigmatising (Treacy et al., 2019 ).

Regime and activities

The maintenance of prisons regimes is the primary focus of prison officers (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ). However, there was a reported need ( n  = 19) for PLiPWD to have equal access to activities and services including work, education, gym, library and day centres where they exist, as well as a structured and varied regime on the wing on which they were accommodated, and support to access these. This support could include providing adequate seating (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), or giving prisoners more time to accomplish activities, and to assist if needed (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ). Other recommendations included an overall relaxation of regimes (Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), an ‘open door’ policy (Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017b ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), more visible staff (The King's Fund, 2013 ), and creating a more communal social environment (Christodoulou, 2012 ). On-wing social activities are described in Table 11 .

Having on-wing work available or alternative means for prisoners who are unable to work to make money was also reportedly important (Christodoulou, 2012 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston and Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 , 2016 , 2017b ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ; Murray, 2004 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). It was suggested that people with dementia should have the chance to work if wanted, and adaptations could be made to work programmes or working days made shorter to facilitate this. Some prisons had specific roles which involved lighter, simple, repetitive tasks such as gardening (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Day centres existed in some prisons, or were thought to be feasible (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and it was suggested that attendance at these could constitute meaningful paid activity (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). The centres were largely developed and facilitated by charities, and ran a wide variety of social, therapeutic, recreational, arts and advice-centred activities (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ).

Equal access to educational activities, including rehabilitation and offending behaviour programmes, was highlighted as important, particularly where attendance is needed to facilitate people’s progression through the system (Booth, 2016 ; Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Some prisons provided, or felt there was a need for, particular educational activities for PLiPWD and adaptations may be, or have been, made to learning materials and equipment, content and pace (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Dedicated library sessions have been designated in some prisons, and some libraries can and do stock specialist resources including books, audiobooks, reminiscence packs and archives of local photos, music and DVDs (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ;Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams, 2014 ). Educational materials could and have been available between sessions to aid memory with distance learning also possible (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Suggestions for alternatives for PLiPWD focused on activity and stimulation (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ), preparing for retirement classes (Department of Health, 2007 ), health promotion (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Maschiet al., 2012 ; Murray, 2004 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), the arts (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ) and IT classes (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Prisoner forums or representative could also be consulted regarding regimes and activities (Moll, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Challenges to regimen and activities are described in Table 12 .

Environment

A large number ( n  = 42) of the included papers discussed changes that prisons had made, or should make, to the built environment in order to be more suitable for PLiPWD – in one study in England and Wales, around half of prisons surveyed had made such environmental modifications (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). These focused on: (i) prisoners’ cells, (ii) bathrooms, (iii) dining hall, (iv) outside space and recreation areas, and (v) overall general prison environment (Table 13 ).

Problematically, the age and dementia-inappropriateness of buildings are considered a challenge (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Brown, 2016 ; Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Difficulties in navigating prisons where everywhere looks the same (Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Murray, 2004 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ), and the lack of budget (HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ) were also reported issues. It was suggested that the use of dementia-friendly environmental checklists could be useful, potentially with input from occupational therapists, health and social care, and dementia charities and in-house education, work and estates departments (Brown, 2014 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Hope was expressed that newly built prisons would be more dementia-friendly (Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ).

Formal policies and procedures should be in place to help maintain links between family and prisoners, and to foster an understanding of the central importance of families particularly for PLiPWD (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Some papers described how prisons could support contact by: giving help and additional time to make telephone calls and arranging visits in quieter spaces (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ); increasing the number of visits (Jennings, 2009 ); and allowing for accumulated visits or transfers to other prisons for visits closer to home (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Family communication – additional information can be found in Table 14 .

External organisations

One review suggested that external voluntary agencies were not often contacted or referred to, despite their potential benefits in terms of costs and support for staff and PLiPWDs (du Toit et al., 2019 ). However, other papers reported that charities for PLiPWD, or older people, were involved in (or were recommended to be involved in): designing and/or delivering dementia training; being part of MDTs; informing the design of referral processes, screening, assessment and case finding tools; consulting on environmental design; creating and delivering social care plans (including running activity centres); advice and support; advocacy and; co-facilitating a cognitive stimulation therapy group (Alzheimer’s Society 2018 ; Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Moll, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams, 2014 ). It was also recommended that external organisations need to have a better knowledge and understanding of prisons and people living in prison, in order to better manage risk, and for clear information sharing protocols (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ).

(iv) Transfers

During the course of their sentence, people in prison may be transferred to other prisons for various reasons or to receive treatment in hospital. The need for MDT transfer plans to be developed was reported (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), as was the need to limit the number of prisoner transfers as moving accommodation is likely to have an adverse effect (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ). It was recommended that transfers should take the distance from family and friends into account (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ), and that the ‘receiving’ facility (prison or healthcare setting) should be liaised with regarding health and social care, and risk (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ) to ensure continuity of care (Cipriani et al., 2017 ). A standard document transfer protocol was also postulated as useful, as documents need to be forwarded quickly as well (Brown, 2016 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). At the receiving facility, it was suggested that assessments and care plans should be reviewed on the day of the transfer (Brown, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Welsh Government, 2014 ), and for re-inductions to be facilitated for prison transfers (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

(v) Release and resettlement

Most prisoners will be released from prison at the end of their sentence, although a number may die before their time is served. A number of areas were highlighted regarding the release and resettlement of PLiPWD, including the possibility of early release due to dementia.

Early release

A number of papers advocated for compassionate release policies and their actual use, or alternative custodial placements such as halfway houses or secure nursing homes, that would effectively result in the early release of PLiPWD (Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Fazel et al., 2002 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Hodel & Sanchez, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Pandey et al., 2021 ; Turner, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). Although, it has also been noted that early release may not be a popular idea for some sections of the community (du Toit et al., 2019 ; Garavito, 2020 ), it was also suggested that raising community awareness of dementia may ameliorate this (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ). It was reported that prisoners with dementia should be considered in any criteria set forth for early release, particularly given the high cost/low risk ratio which they represent (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Murray, 2004 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). For prisoners who do not understand the aims of prison, continuing to hold them may be a contravention of human rights and equality laws – particularly where health and social care is inadequate (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Fazel et al., 2002 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Murray, 2004 ). It was also emphasised that the existence of units and programmes for PLiPWD should not be used to legitimise prison as an appropriate place for PLiPWD (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ). More information can be found in Table 15 .

Resettlement

Ten different areas were identified in the literature which related to the issues PLiPWD leaving prison may face on their release and resettlement into the community, these were:

(a) In-prison release preparation

Specific pre-release programmes or services for older people or those living with dementia may be required (Department of Health, 2007 ; Williams et al., 2012 ), with prisoners being cognitively screened prior to release (Goulding, 2013 ), although the latter was only found in 10% of prisons in one study (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Other suggestions for programme content included: self-efficacy, health, staving off dementia and associated anxiety, accessing services, addressing institutionalisation, setting up email addresses, and the provision of information packs on national, regional and local services and resources (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Williams et al., 2012 ).

It has been suggested that release plans and transitions be facilitated by an MDT including prisoners, the voluntary sector, offender managers, and other appropriate community-based organisations (du Toit et al., 2019 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Recommended plan content included: risk management strategies, health, social care, housing, finance, employment, leisure and voluntary sector considerations (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). It was also suggested that Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), primarily associated with sex offenders, could be set up for PLiPWD as a means to support those leaving prison and settling back into the community particularly without family support (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

Challenges to release preparation were identified as: a lack of resources, (Turner, 2018 ) the lack of clarity regarding staff resettlement roles (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), and the lack of resettlement provision offered at sex offender prisons in England and Wales (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

A number of papers reported the key role that family and friends can or do play in supporting PLiPWD leaving prison, and that this should be supported or facilitated by prison staff (Brown, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ). Initially this could include encouraging diagnosis disclosure (Dillon et al., 2019 ), using prison leave to maintain relationships (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ), involvement in discharge planning (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and placing prison leavers close to family upon release and ensuring family are supported (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ). Where PLiPWD lack family, setting up CoSAs as described above may be useful (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

(c) Probation

It was suggested that probation staff should have training to work with older people, and that some offender managers could specialise in this work (Department of Health, 2007 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Probation officers or offender managers are or can be involved in resettlement planning, (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), arranging accommodation (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), liaising with agencies such as health care or social services, checking that PLiPWD are accessing these services and disseminating reports of to-be released prisoners to relevant parties (Department of Health, 2007 ; Moll, 2013 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Importantly, the forwarding of important documents to offender managers by the prison should be routine (Department of Health, 2007 ; Moll, 2013 ). It was also recommended that probation staff should visit people in prison before release if they live out of area (Department of Health, 2007 ). The work of probation services was reportedly hampered by limited resources (Brown, 2016 ).

Continuity of care upon release can be difficult, and it was suggested that it could be a role of prison healthcare to ensure this (including registering with the local GP and dentist (Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). There appeared to be some differences regarding the distribution of full healthcare reports to offender managers and other appropriate agencies with some prisons sending them, some only if requested, and some not providing them on grounds of confidentiality (Moll, 2013 ). Typically, it was recommended that it was better for to-be released older prisoners if these reports were disseminated (Department of Health, 2007 ). It was also suggested that healthcare staff in prison and from the community form part of multi-disciplinary release planning, and that these plans include health considerations and healthcare staff advice on issues of accommodation (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

(e) Social care

Some papers reported that social workers can and should be involved in the process of resettlement (Department of Health, 2007 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ) and release preparation (Goulding, 2013 ). Continuity of social care arranged with the local authority was also recommended (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

(f) Accommodation

Release planning should include plans for accommodation, and involve housing agencies or care services in the community in that planning (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Importantly, people in prison may need help in registering for housing, and their homes may be in need of adaptation in response to their health or social care needs (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ). Nursing homes and other care providing facilities were reported to be reluctant to accommodate people who have been in prison (Brown, 2014 ; Brown, 2016 ; Booth, 2016 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Garavito, 2020 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ). This was described as particularly the case for those who were living with dementia (Brown, 2014 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ), with further issues reported in accommodating those who have committed sex offences (Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Garavito, 2020 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ). Concerns regarding the safety of other residents and the views of their families, and the rights of victims in general, were cited as reasons behind these placement difficulties (Brown, 2014 ; Goulding, 2013 ) – one paper reported that there had been community protests (Brown, 2016 ).

It was suggested that prisons need to build better relationships with care providers in the community, which had reportedly been forged by some (Brown, 2016 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), and that they could also provide education and support to these services (Booth, 2016 ). However, it was also noted that there may be a need for specialist residential units to be created in the community for people released from prison with dementia (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), with an example of a state-run facility for ex-prisoners in the United States (Goulding, 2013 ), and particular attention for younger ex-prisoners with dementia (Brown, 2014 ). A number of papers reported that if accommodation could not be arranged for people, this largely resulted in them remaining in prison until it was (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Soones et al., 2014 ).

(g) Finance

Imprisonment likely leads to a loss of income, meaning that older prisoners who may have served more lengthy sentences are likely to be poorer, particularly if unable to work in prison (Baldwin & Leete, 2012 ; Gaston, 2018 ). Therefore, it was suggested that release planning ought to include issues of finance (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Given that it has been suggested that people in prison should be given advice on pensions and welfare benefits, and help to arrange these (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ), addressing this would seem to be an area of particular use for older people leaving prison who may have additional problems in these areas, and for those who may need assistance in arranging their financial affairs because of their deteriorating health problems.

(h) Employment and education

People’s employment prospects are likely to be impacted upon release from prison, particularly for older people who may have served long sentences (Gaston, 2018 ). Where appropriate, it was recommended that release planning should include issues around employment (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), that information packs for people should include sections on education and employment, and that it could be useful to help people make links with the Department for Work and Pensions (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

(i) Leisure

Leisure activities and resources could be considered in release planning, and included in pre-release information packs for prisoners (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

(j) Charities and voluntary sector organisations

It was recommended in a number of papers that charity and voluntary sector organisations working with PLiPWD be involved in release planning (Department of Health, 2007 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), continuity of care (Moll, 2013 ), and in providing support during the transition and after (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). It was also suggested that in general it would be useful for PLiPWD to have contact with these organisations (Department of Health, 2007 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), and that they may be well-placed to develop information packs for prisoners on release regarding local amenities, services and resources (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

(vi) Cross-cutting themes

Eight more generalised concerns were also described which had a clear impact on the passage of PLiPWD through prison, on release and resettlement in the community, and on the issues raised thus far in the review.

Principles-philosophy

The principles suggested to underpin the support of PLiPWD are that it should be person-centred, holistic, adhere to human rights and dignity principles, proactive, health promoting, and enabling – making choices but supported if needed (Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017b ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Mackay, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ). Conversely, clashes in philosophies between prison staff, and health and social care staff have been reported with security trumping care in many cases, which can have a negative impact (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Mackay, 2015 ; Murray, 2004 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams, 2014 ). It was suggested that positioning dementia as more than just a health issue and fostering a whole-prison care-custody model or approach, with clearly defined roles for ‘care’ and ‘custody’, may be useful in resolving this (du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Public Health England, 2017b ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

A number of papers ( n  = 15) reported that budget and resource limitations had a variety of negative impacts including difficulties in providing: appropriate assessment, support and accommodation to PLiPWD; specialist accommodations, plans for which were then curtailed; delivering programmes and activities; healthcare cover; and, staff training (Booth, 2016 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; Jennings, 2009 ; Mackay, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Moore & Burtonwood, 2019 ; Pandey et al., 2021 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Turner, 2018 ). Ultimately, lack of resources has reportedly led to a system that is not able to cope appropriately with PLiPWD (Moll, 2013 ; Williams et al., 2012 ; Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ), with associated problems transferring out of the prison system into probation and care systems when people are released (Williams et al., 2012 ).

It has been suggested that PLiPWD in prison should be treated as if they have capacity to make decisions such as giving or withholding consent for treatment, unless it is proven otherwise. This is consistent with legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act (Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). It has been recommended that healthcare staff should conduct capacity assessments if there are concerns (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and be trained to do so (Maschi et al., 2012 ; Welsh Government, 2014 ). It is of note that an ombudsman report showed that PLiPWD who died lacked access to mental capacity assessments (Peacock et al., 2018 ). For PLiPWD, who are likely to lack capacity as their condition progresses, early education about, and development of, advance directives has been advocated (Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ), and staff should be trained on this (Maschi et al., 2012 ). It has also been suggested that family members, independent mental capacity advocates or healthcare proxies could or should be used for PLiPWD who lack capacity in making care, welfare and financial decisions (Brown, 2016 ; Soones et al., 2014 ), supported by legislation and oversight, as opposed to prison or healthcare staff making decisions (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ).

The issue of ‘risk’ related to PLiPWD revolves around four areas: (i) assessment, (ii) management, (iii) disciplinary procedures, and (iv) safeguarding. Full details can be found in Table 16 .

There were a number of additional facets to risk concerns regarding PLiPWD described in the papers. There were concerns that the lack of understanding of the impact of dementia on people’s behaviour could ultimately lead to people being held in prison for longer periods on account of seemingly transgressive or aggressive behaviour that could in fact be related to their dementia difficulties (Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Mistry & Muhammad, 2015 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). In one study, a prisoner with dementia was transferred to another prison because staff felt that they were ‘grooming’ an officer (Treacy et al., 2019 ), likely lengthening their overall prison stay. There was also a recurring issue in fatal incidents investigations in England and Wales of prisoners being restrained whilst dying in hospital, a practice described as unnecessary in light of their likely frail state (Peacock et al., 2018 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). One paper suggested linking future accommodation options and considerations for Release on Temporary Licence to a PLiPWD’s risk of reoffending, as well as the severity of their symptoms (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Moore and Burtonwood ( 2019 ) also observed that a lack of risk assessment protocols was a barrier to release of PLiPWD., and as Table 16 suggests, a comprehensive risk assessment, applied by appropriately trained staff should make health and its impact on future offending more salient to aid this.

There were recommendations that PLiPWD should have the opportunity to make choices in their treatment and care. This included input into care plans or making informed decisions about their care (Department of Health, 2007 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), as well as developing advance directives particularly early in a person’s sentence (Brown, 2016 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Maschi et al., 2012 ; Pandey et al., 2021 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ), and choosing ‘preferred’ places to die (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ).

Protected characteristics

There was a reported need for culturally appropriate assessments, treatment and activities (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Hamada, 2015 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), spiritual support (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), multilingual information (Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and the recognition of gender differences in dementia healthcare needs (Brown, 2014 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Williams et al., 2012 ). It was also highlighted that racism makes the experience of living with dementia in prison more problematic (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2014 ; Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ). There were some examples of policy and practice within prisons which considered some protected characteristics: assessment tools in different languages (Patterson et al., 2016 ), additional support for PLiPWD to plan care (Department of Health, 2007 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and the development of culturally appropriate care planning (Hamada, 2015 ). Hamada ( 2015 ) also advocated assessment and treatment that was culturally ‘competent’ and respectful, and which acknowledged the importance of culture and diversity.

An overall need to tackle dementia- and age-related stigma was also reported in some papers, and the need to foster cultures that are age-respectful should be reflected in staff training (Department of Health, 2007 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), In addition, practices which openly discriminate such as the lack of: dedicated dementia resources (Turner, 2018 ), appropriate lower category prison places (Department of Health, 2007 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), and appropriate accommodation on release, which at times prevents release, should also be challenged (Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Ministry of Justice, 2013 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ). There was also a lack of research into the interaction between protected characteristics and dementia in prison (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Williams et al., 2012 ).

Collaboration

Many papers advocated the need for prisons and specialist dementia units to adopt a collaborative MDT approach drawing from staff teams across the prison regarding: the identification and support of prisoners with dementia, care planning, the disciplinary process, the development, dissemination and implementation of policy, and in environmental change and the building of new prisons (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Christodoulou, 2012 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2014 , 2016 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ; Moll, 2013 ; Patterson et al., 2016 ; Peacock et al., 2018 ; Peacock, 2019 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; The King’s Fund 2013 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 , 2014 ; Williams, 2014 ). There were examples of prisoners collaborating with staff in the care of PLiPWD as peer supporters, and having joint staff-prisoner supervision and training (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ), of joint staff-prisoner wing meetings in one prison (Treacy et al., 2019 ), and of the co-designing of services and activities in others (Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). It was suggested that this collaborative way of working should be supported by an information sharing protocol, clear definitions of staff and peer supporter roles and responsibilities, and training (Brooke & Jackson, 2019 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Turner, 2018 ). It was reported that there had been a lack of communication and coordination of this process in some prisons which had a negative impact on all involved (Brooke & Rybacka, 2020 ; Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Moll, 2013 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ).

It was also suggested that the prisons collaborate with healthcare, hospice and dementia specialists in the community and with external charitable organisations (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Brown, 2014 ; Cipriani et al., 2017 ; du Toit & Ng, 2022 ; Gaston, 2018 ; Gaston & Axford, 2018 ; Goulding, 2013 ; HMP Hull, 2015 ; HMP Littlehey, 2016 ; Her Majesty's Prison & Probation Service, 2018 ; Moll, 2013 ; Peacock, 2019 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ; Sindano & Swapp, 2019 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Williams, 2014 ). In addition, inter-prison networks were recommended to be developed to share good practice across prisons (Dementia Action Alliance, 2017 ; Moll, 2013 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ; Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, 2016 ).

Information-sharing

A number of papers ( n  = 7) recommended the need for a clear information sharing protocol regarding the assessment and support of PLiPWD (Brooke et al., 2018 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; Department of Health, 2007 ; Goulding, 2013 ; Moll, 2013 ; Tilsed, 2019 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ), or a register (Forsyth et al., 2020 ). Particular attention to the interface between healthcare and prison staff and peer supporters was suggested, where it has been reported that privacy regulations have sometimes prevented contributions to collateral histories (Feczko, 2014 ) and the sharing of care plans, impairing their ability to offer appropriate support (Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ). Also, it may be against the wishes of the person with dementia, and informed consent should be sought (Forsyth et al., 2020 ; Moll, 2013 ). This lack of information can have a detrimental effect on a person’s health and wellbeing (Brown, 2014 , 2016 ; Feczko, 2014 ; Inspector of Custodial Services, 2015 ), and so discussion of this was highlighted as important, particularly where the safety of the person or others were concerned (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ). A care plan which gives only very basic information to staff and peer supporters was used in a couple of prisons (Goulding, 2013 ; Williams, 2014 ).

There also appeared to be variance with respect to whether healthcare staff disclose a dementia diagnosis to the person diagnosed with dementia. A couple of prisons’ policy was to share a diagnosis and involve family in doing so (Maschi et al., 2012 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ; Wilson & Barboza, 2010 ), however, in one prison disclosed if a person was judged to be able to cope with it, and another only disclosed if asked (Brown, 2016 ). The importance of disclosure to family allowing them to contribute to assessments, planning and support was also emphasised in some papers (Brown, 2016 ; Dillon et al., 2019 ; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017 ; Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice, 2011 ).

This review has explored the literature regarding all parts of the custodial process and its impact on people living in prison with cognitive impairment and dementia, which includes: reception, assessment, allocation, training, policy, healthcare, accommodation, adaptation, routine, access to family and external agencies, transfer and resettlement. We found evidence that problems had been identified in each of these parts of the process. We also identified a number of cross-cutting themes which interacted with the issues identified across the prison journey including: principles or philosophy regarding care; capacity; resources; considerations of risk; scope for choice; peoples’ protected characteristics; collaboration; and, information sharing. Broadly, our findings were similar to those found in previous reviews, regarding the problems with the prison process identified, and the lack of robust outcomes, and policy guidance regarding PLiPWD (Brooke and Rybacka, 2020 ; Peacock et al., 2019 ).

The aim of this review was to identify areas of good practice and for recommendations that could inform the development of prison dementia care pathways. There is a considerable breadth to the findings, but the main recommendations that have arisen from the review are:

To screen prisoners for cognitive difficulties at reception, from either 50 or 55 years

An initial older-person specific health and social care assessment, post-screening – from either 50 or 55 years, and repeated (from 3 – 12 months)

A spectrum of healthcare to be delivered including preventative, long-term and palliative care, with continuity of care upon release, and in tandem with social care

Mixed views about appropriate accommodation, but it needs to run along a continuum from independent living to 24-h care, with decisions possibly made after health assessments

Environments need to be made more older-person or dementia friendly, using checklists available, and with the voluntary sector as potential partners

A need for prison staff training on dementia, and further training for healthcare staff

The use of peer supporters was broadly reported positively, and were seemingly frequently used. However, there needs to be adequate training and support, and not to be used to do the work that is the statutory duty of health and social care staff

Equal access to activities and services, especially programmes which help people move through the system (such as offending behaviour), as well as opportunities to earn additional monies, and that provide structure and routine on wings

The maintenance of family links, and for families to be supported, are important for PLiPWD, and may be particularly so on release and resettlement

Prisons may also need to work with external care agencies to ensure placements upon release, or alternative specialist care facilities may need to be created

The main barriers to implementing these recommendations are a lack of policy or guidance at local, regional and national levels to support staff in working with PLiPWD, and also the lack of budget and resources available. The latter would also include infrastructure issues, such that a number of prisons are not appropriate for people living with dementia, and could be expensive to modify to become so, coupled with a lack of currently available alternative facilities for PLiPWD to be released to in the community. The lack of use of compassionate release is also an issue here, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, with only 54 people released (Halliday & Hewson, 2022 ). Lastly, the roles that each professional and peer group had regarding PLiPWD needed clarification in some prisons, including some resolution of the ‘clash’ of philosophies (control v care) underpinning this.

In terms of ‘solutions’, multiple organisations have advocated for years for the need for national policy to assist prisons with older people in prison, including those living with dementia (Cornish et al., 2016 ; HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2004 , 2019 ; Prisons & Probation Ombudsman, 2016 , 2017 ). This was eventually accepted and commissioned by the UK government, although it has not been released as yet (Justice Committee, 2020 ). It has also been suggested that at a more local level, existing policies could be adapted to be more appropriate for PLiPWD – such as restraint policies for frail prisoners, and disciplinary procedures which reflect the impact that dementia may have on behaviour (Department of Health, 2007 ; Treacy et al., 2019 ). Considerations around capacity and consent would need to be weaved in, as well as a focus on the intersection with other protected characteristics. These adaptations would also need to extend to services and activities to ensure that people have equal access and opportunities. A number of reports highlighted the contribution that greater collaboration with partners in external health and social care teams could have, as well as partnerships with the voluntary sector. These could potentially assist in multiple areas including training staff and peer supporters, providing activities, assisting release preparation, at a relatively low cost, to high benefit. There were some recommendations that prisons adopt a whole-prison approach to dementia that focuses on being person-centred, health and human rights focused that may help to ameliorate some differences in philosophical approach between various staff and peer groups in prisons.

A number of potential areas for future research were also indicated by the literature, which would also support the development of prison pathways. These would include: (i) induction to prison, and (ii) release and resettlement from prison, which are important beginning and end-points, but which are under-researched; (iii) the validation of a screening tool for use in prisons, and the development or adaptation of prison-specific health and social care assessments; (iv) the interaction of protected characteristics and dementia, and the need for more culturally and gender aware pathways; (v) the paucity of research conducted in low and middle-income countries, that needs to be addressed; (vi) dementia and age-related stigma in prisons; and (vii) evaluations of all elements of the prison pathway for PLiPWD to undertaken including training, the role of peer supporters, and targeted programmes.

Strengths and limitations of the review

One key strength of this review is its comprehensiveness, particularly as it includes much grey literature. Given the lack of robust evaluation in this area, it was felt that this was necessary to represent the volume of work that has nonetheless taken place. There are, however, a number of limitations of this review. Firstly, despite the use of broad search terms, there may be the possibility that some relevant research was missed, either because of deficiencies in our searches or because of publication bias. Additionally, whilst there are twenty-two guidance and inspection documents included in this review, it is possible that some grey literature might also remain unidentified, particularly outside of the UK where the review was undertaken. Secondly, this review may be subject to a selection bias, as the yielded search results might have included literature that were excluded but which may have indirectly impacted upon the care pathways elements explored in the review. There is also a language bias, and whilst this may reflect the languages spoken by the review team members, it is also reflective of the “northern epistemic hegemony” (Aas, 2012 ), that also may have resulted in the review being largely populated by papers from high income countries. Thirdly, no formal assessment of study quality was undertaken. This is in keeping with scoping review methodology which focuses on breadth, but is nonetheless an important shortcoming inherent in scoping reviews more generally (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ).

We have completed the most comprehensive review of the literature on PLiPWD in prisons to date that we have found, including a synthesis of the extensive grey literature, and found important gaps in the literature. Our review includes a mixture of academic research, policy and position papers which identified an increasing number of prisoners with dementia or cognitive impairment as an issue, but there were more limited descriptions of what should be done, and even less describing implementation of these. Most of the literature came from developed nations where extensive assessment and care services are in place for PWD in the community, although a key question is whether prison populations are given easy access to these existing services or whether bespoke services for prisoners are required. We suggest this literature now needs to be drawn together to inform interventions for PLiPWD in the criminal justice system which can be piloted and evaluated, and inform the development of robust dementia care pathways for prisons.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials used in this review are included in this article and its appendices.

There is no standard cut-off age for older people living in prison, but it is typically set at least ten to fifteen years lower than the general population. People in prison are thought to age more rapidly due to both pre- and post-imprisonment chaotic lifestyles, substance misuse and less healthcare access and use, as well as the ‘pains of imprisonment’. See Williams et al., ( 2012 ) for further discussion.

Aas, K. F. (2012). ‘The earth is one, but the world is not’: Criminological theory and its geopolitical divisions. Theoretical Criminology., 16(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480611433433

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahalt, C., Haney, C., Rios, S., Fox, M. P., Farabee, D., & Williams, B. (2017). Reducing the use and impact of solitary confinement in corrections. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-08-2016-0040

Alzheimer’s Society. (2018). Dementia: A guide for prison officers . Alzheimer’s Society.

Google Scholar  

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Baldwin, J., & Leete, J. (2012). Behind bars: The challenge of an ageing prison population. Australian Journal of Dementia Care, 1(2), 16–19.

Booth, B. D. (2016). Elderly sexual offenders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(4), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0678-1

Brooke, J., Diaz-Gil, A., & Jackson, D. (2018). The impact of dementia in the prison setting: A systematic review. Dementia , 1471301218801715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218801715

Brooke, J., & Jackson, D. (2019). An exploration of the support provided by prison staff, education, health and social care professionals, and prisoners for prisoners with dementia. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2019.1638959

Brooke, J., & Rybacka, M. (2020). Development of a dementia education workshop for prison staff, prisoners, and health and social care professionals to enable then to support prisoners with dementia. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 26(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345820916444

Brown, J. (2014). Dementia in prison. Discussion Paper #9. Alzheimer’s Australia NSW. https://www.dementia.org.au/files/20140423-NSW-REP-DementiaInPrison.pdf .

Brown, J. (2016). Living with dementia in prison: To investigate effective care programs for people living with dementia in prison . https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Brown_J_2015_Living_with_dementia_in_prison.pdf .

Care Act UK. (2014). The Stationary Office . https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted .

Centre for Policy on Ageing. (2014). The effectiveness of care pathways in health and social care: Rapid review . Centre for Policy on Ageing. https://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/For-professionals/Research/CPA-Effectiveness_of_care_pathways.pdf?dtrk=true .

Christodoulou, M. (2012). Locked up and at risk of dementia. The Lancet Neurology, 11(9), 750–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422%2812%2970195-3

Cipriani, G., Danti, S., Carlesi, C., & Di Fiorino, M. (2017). Old and dangerous: Prison and dementia. Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine, 51, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2017.07.004

Cornish, N., Edgar, K., Hewson, A., & Ware, S. (2016). Social care or systemic neglect? Older people on release from prison . Prison Reform Trust. https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/publication/social-care-or-systemic-neglect-older-people-on-release-from-prison/ .

Dementia Action Alliance. (2017). Meeting the challenges of dementia: Roundtable discussion briefing paper . Dementia Action Alliance. https://www.dementiaaction.org.uk/assets/0003/4619/Prisons_and_Dementia_-_DAA_briefing_paper.pdf .

Department of Health. (1999). The future organisation of prison health care . Department of Health. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted .

Department of Health. (2007). A pathway to care for older offenders: A toolkit for good practice . Department of Health. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123192716tf_/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_079928 .

Di Lorito, C., Vӧllm, B., & Dening, T. (2018). Psychiatric disorders among older prisoners: A systematic review and comparison study against older people in the community. Aging & Mental Health, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1286453

Dillon, G., Vinter, L. P., Winder, B., & Finch, L. (2019). “The guy might not even be able to remember why he’s here and what he’s in here for and why he’s locked in”: Residents and prison staff experiences of living and working alongside people with dementia who are serving prison sentences for a sexual offence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(5), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1535063

du Toit, S. H. J., & McGrath, M. (2018). Dementia in prisons - enabling better care practices for those ageing in correctional facilities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81(8), 460–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022617744509

du Toit, S., & Ng, S. (2022). Improving care for older prisoners living with dementia in Australian prisons: Perspectives of external organizations. The Gerontologist, 62(4), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab077

du Toit, S. H. J., Withall, A., O’Loughlin, K., Ninaus, N., Lovarini, M., Snoyman, P., Butler, T., Forsyth, K., & Surr, C. A. (2019). Best care options for older prisoners with dementia: A scoping review. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(8), 1081–1097.

Dunne, R. A., Aarsland, D., O’Brien, J. T., Ballard, C., Banerjee, S., Fox, N. C., Isaacs, J. D., Underwood, B. R., Perry, R. J., Chan, D., Dening, T., Thomas, A. J., Schryer, J., Jones, A. M., Evans, A. R., Alessi, C., Coulthard, E. J., Pickett, J., Elton, P., … Burns, A. (2021). Mild cognitive impairment: The Manchester consensus. Age & Ageing., 50 ( 1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa228

Fazel, S., McMillan, J., & O’Donnell, I. (2002). Dementia in prison: Ethical and legal implications. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(3), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.3.156

Feczko, A. (2014). Dementia in the incarcerated elderly adult: Innovative solutions to promote quality care. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(12), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12189

Forsyth, K., Heathcote, L., Senior, J., Malik, B., Meacock, R., Perryman, K., Tucker, S., Domone, R., Carr, M., Hayes, H., et al. (2020). Dementia and mild cognitive impairment in prisoners aged over 50 years in England and Wales: A mixed-methods study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 8 ( 27). Southampton: National Institute for Health Research.

Garavito, D. M. N. (2020). The prisoner’s dementia: Ethical and legal issues regarding dementia and healthcare in prison. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy., 29, 211–235. /intechopen.73161.

Gaston, S., & Axford, A. (2018). Re-framing and re-thinking dementia in the correctional setting. In H. F. Sibat (Ed.), Cognitive disorders. IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/books/cognitive-disorders/re-framing-and-re-thinking-dementia-in-the-correctional-setting . 10.5772

Gaston, S. (2018). Vulnerable prisoners: Dementia and the impact on prisoners, staff and the correctional setting. Collegian, 25(2), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.05.004

Goulding, P. (2013). “Silver bullet” or confused greying fox? Best practice support model for older prisoners . Wintringham. https://www.wintringham.org.au/file/2016/I/Best_practice_support_model_for_older_prisoners.pdf .

Halliday, M., & Hewson, A. (2022). Bromley briefings prison factfile: Winter 2022 . Prison Reform Trust. https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Winter-2022-Factfile.pdf .

Hamada, J. N. (2015). ATPEACE with Dementia. American Jails, 29(2), 34–40.

Hayes, A. J., Burns, A., Turnbull, P., & Shaw, J. J. (2012). The health and social needs of older male prisoners. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 27(11), 1155–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3761

Hayes, A. J., Burns, A., Turnbull, P., & Shaw, J. J. (2013). Social and custodial needs of older adults in prison. Age and Ageing, 42(5), 589–593. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/aft066

Health and Social Care Committee. (2018). Prison health: Twelfth report of session 2017–19. House of Commons. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhealth/963/963.pdf .

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. (2014). Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for women in prison. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/02/final-womens-expectation_web-09-14-2.pdf .

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. (2015). HMP Isle of Wight Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/09/Isle-of-Wight-2015-web.pdf .

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. (2016). HMP Stafford . Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/06/Stafford-Web-2016.pdf .

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. (2017b). HMP Erlestoke . Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/11/HMP-Erlestoke-Web-2017.pdf .

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons. (2017a). Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for men in prisons. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. = https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/02/Expectations-for-publication-FINAL.pdf .

Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service. (2018). Model for operational delivery: Older prisoners - supporting effective delivery in prisons . Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2004). ‘ No problems – old and quiet’: Older prisoners in England and Wales. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/08/OlderPrisoners-2004.pdf .

HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Care Quality Commission. (2018). Social care in prisons in England and Wales: A thematic report . HM Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/10/Social-care-thematic-2018-web.pdf .

HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2019). HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales: Annual report 2018–19 . HM Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/07/6.5563_HMI-Prisons-AR_2018-19_WEB_FINAL_040719.pdf .

HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2021). What happens to prisoners in a pandemic?: A thematic review. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/What-happens-to-prisoners-in-a-pandemic.pdf .

HMP Hull. (2015). HM Prison Hull - Dementia action plan. Dementia Action Alliance. https://www.dementiaaction.org.uk/members_and_action_plans/4507-hm_prison_hull .

HMP Littlehey. (2016). HM Prison Littlehey - Dementia action plan. Dementia Action Alliance . https://www.dementiaaction.org.uk/members_and_action_plans/5356-hm_prison_littlehey .

Hodel, B., & Sanchez, H. G. (2013). The Special Needs Program for Inmate-Patients with Dementia (SNPID): A psychosocial program provided in the prison system. Dementia, 12(5), 654–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301211432952

Inspector of Custodial Services. (2015). Old and inside: Managing aged offenders in custody. Inspector of Custodial Services: NSW Government. http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Old%20and%20inside%20Managing%20aged%20offenders%20in%20custody.pdf .

Jennings, L. K. (2009). Aging in a confined place: An exploration of elder inmate health andhHealthcare. PhD: Univeristy of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000026/u0015_0000001_0000026.pdf .

Justice Committee. (2020). Ageing prison population. House of Commons. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2149/documents/19996/default/ .

Kay, C. (2020). COVID-19 in custody: Responding to pandemics in prisons in England and Wales. British Journal of Community Justice, 16 (1). https://mmuperu.co.uk/bjcj/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/BJCJ_Kay_2020.pdf .

Lee, C., Treacy, S., Haggith, A., Wickramasinghe, N. D., Cater, F., Kuhn, I., & van Bortel, T. (2019). A systematic integrative review of programmes addressing the social care needs of older prisoners. HEalth and Justice, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0090-0

Mackay, A. (2015). Human rights protections for people with mental health and cognitive disability in prisons. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(6), 842–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1015207

Maschi, T., Kwak, J., Ko, E., & Morrissey, M. B. (2012). Forget me not: Dementia in prison. The Gerontologist, 52(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr131

Masters, J. L., Magnuson, T. M., Bayer, B. L., Potter, J. F., & Falkowski, P. P. (2016). Preparing corrections staff for the future: Results of a 2-day training about aging inmates. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 22(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345816634667

Ministry of Justice. (2022a). Offender management statistics quarterly: January to March 2022 – Annual prison population 2022 . Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2022 .

Ministry of Justice. (2013). Hidden disabilities: Dementia - essential guide for prison officers . Ministry of Justice.

Mistry, P., & Muhammad, L. (2015). Dementia in the incarcerated: Ready or not? Corrections Forum, 24(5), 8–12.

Moll, A. (2013). Losing track of time: Dementia and the ageing prison population . Mental Health Foundation. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/losing-track-of-time-2013.pdf .

Moore, K. J., & Burtonwood, J. (2019). Are we failing to meet the healthcare needs of prisoners with dementia? International Psychogeriatrics, 31(8), 1071–1074. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021900108X

Murray, A. (2004). Prisoners who develop dementia: What we need to know. Journal of Dementia Care, 12(1), 29–33.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2017). Mental health of adults in contact with the criminal justice system . National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng66/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-4419120205

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2019). Health of people in the criminal justice system. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/health-of-people-in-the-criminal-justice-system .

Pandey, P., Varshney, P., Gajera, G. V., Nirisha, P. L., Malathesh, B. C., Manjunatha, N., Sivakumar, P. T., Kumar, C. N., & Math, S. B. (2021). Criminal responsibility in geropsychiatry: Competence, culpability, and care. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(5), S97–S106. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211030993

Patel, S., & Bonner, D. (2016). Dementia screening service in a prison population . Central & North West London NHS Foundation Trust.

Patterson, K., Newman, C., & Doona, K. (2016). Improving the care of older persons in Australian prisons using the Policy Delphi method. Dementia, 15(5), 1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301214557531

Peacock, S., Burles, M., Hodson, A., Kumaran, M., MacRae, R., Peternelj-Taylor, C., & Holtslander, L. (2019). Older persons with dementia in prison – an integrative review. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-01-2019-0007

Peacock, S., Hodson, A., MacRae, R., & Peternelj-Taylor, C. (2018). Living with dementia in correctional settings: A case report. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 14(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1097/jfn.0000000000000194

Pinder, R., Petchey, R., Shaw, S., & Carter, Y. (2005). What’s in a care pathway? Towards a cultural cartography of the new NHS. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(6), 759–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00473.x

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006).  Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme . Lancaster University. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf .

Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. (2016). Dementia learning lessons bulletin: Fatal Incidents Investigation. Prisons and Probation Ombudsman . http://www.ppo.gov.uk/app/uploads/2016/07/PPO-Learning-Lessons-Bulletins_fatal-incident-investigations_issue-11_Dementia_WEB_Final.pdf .

Prisons & Probation Ombudsman. (2017). Learning from PPO investigations: Older prisoners . Prisons & Probation Ombudsman. https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ppo-prod-storage-1g9rkhjhkjmgw/uploads/2017/06/6-3460_PPO_Older-Prisoners_WEB.pdf .

Public Health England. (2017b). Physical health checks in prisons: Programme guidance. Public Health England. https://www.healthcheck.nhs.uk/commissioners-and-providers/national-guidance/ .

Public Health England. (2017a). Health and social care needs assessment of older people in prison. Public Health England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662677/Health_and_social_care_needs_assessments_of_the_older_prison_population.pdf .

Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12–A13.

Rutter, D., Francis, J., Coren, E., & Fisher, M. (2010). SCIE research resource 1: SCIE systematic research reviews: guidelines , 2 nd edition. Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/researchresources/rr01.asp .

Schrijvers, G., van Hoorn, A., & Huiskes, N. (2012). The care pathway: Concepts and theories – an introduction. Special edition: Integrated care pathways), e192. doi:10.5334.ijic.812

Senior, J., Forsyth, K., Walsh, E., O’Hara, K., Stevenson, C., Hayes, A., Short, V., Webb, R., Challis, D., Fazel, S., Burns, A., & Shaw, J. (2013). Health and social care services for older male adults in prison: The identification of current service provision and piloting of an assessment and care planning model. Health Services and Delivery Research, 1 (5). National Institute for Health Research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK259270/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK259270.pdf .

Sfera, A., Osorio, C., Gradini, R., & Price, A. (2014). Neurodegeneration behind bars: From molecules to jurisprudence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5, (no pagination) (Article 115). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00115 .

Sindano, N., & Swapp, J. (2019). Prison inreach: Dementia support provision . Paper presented at the Addressing the Challenges of Dementia in Prisons, London. https://www.dementiaaction.org.uk/assets/0004/2759/Addressing_the_Challenges_of_Dementia_in_Prisons_-_Prison_Inreach_Dementia_Support_Provision_-_Natasha_Sindano.pdf .

Soones, T., Ahalt, C., Garrigues, S., Faigman, D., & Williams, B. A. (2014). “My older clients fall through every crack in the system”: Geriatrics knowledge of legal professionals. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(4), 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12751

The King's Fund. (2013). Developing supportive design for people with dementia: The King’s Fund’s Enhancing the Healing Environment programme 2009–2012 . The King’s Fund. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/developing-supportive-design-people-dementia .

The Correctional Investigator Canada. (2019). Aging and dying in prison: An investigation into the experiences of older individuals in federal custody. Office of the Correctional Investigator. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/bec-oci/PS104-17-2019-eng.pdf .

Tilsed, S. (2019). From seldom heard to seen and heard . Paper presented at the Addressing the Challenges of Dementia in Prisons London. https://www.dementiaaction.org.uk/assets/0004/2756/Addressing_the_Challenges_of_Dementia_in_Prisons_-_From_Seldom_Heard_to_Seen_and_Heard_-_Sarah_Tilsed.pdf .

Treacy, S., Haggith, A., Wickramasinghe, N. D., & Van Bortel, T. (2019). Dementia-friendly prisons: A mixed-methods evaluation of the application of dementia-friendly community principles to two prisons in England. British Medical Journal Open, 9(8), e030087. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030087 .

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., (…) Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Turner, E. K. (2018). A study of dementia assessment practices in Ohio prisons. ( Doctor of Psychology), Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wsupsych1530901309258281&disposition=inline .

Vanhaecht, K., Sermeus, W., & De Witte, W. (2007). The impact of clinical pathways on the organisation of care processes . PHD Thesis. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. https://limo.libis.be/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=LIRIAS1718750&context=L&vid=Lirias&search_scope=Lirias&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US&fromSitemap=1#:~:text=Thirdly%2C%20in%20a%20study%20with,up%20of%20the%20care%20process.&text=Organisations%20using%20clinical%20pathways%20had,five%20subscales%20of%20the%20CPSET .

Vogel, R. (2016). Dementia in prison: An argument for training correctional officers. (PhD), . University of Denver. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=capstone_masters .

Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice. (2011). A pathway to care for older prisoners: A guide to improving health, well-being and healtcare of older prisoners . Welsh Government. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/document/168109/info/ .

Welsh Government. (2014). Policy implementation guidance: Mental health services for prisoners . Welsh Government.

Williams, G. (2014). Running a cognitive stimulation therapy group in a prison environment . The Network. https://www.seapn.org.uk/uploads/files/Norfolk-RUNNING-A-COGNITIVE-STIMULATION-THERAPY-GROUP-IN-A-PRISON-ENVIRONMENT.pdf .

Williams, B. A., Stern, M. F., Mellow, J., Safer, M., & Greifinger, R. B. (2012). Aging in correctional custody: Setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care. American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), 1475–1481. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300704

Wilson, J., & Barboza, S. (2010). The looming challenge of dementia in corrections. Correct Care, 24(2), 12–14. https://www.ncchc.org/filebin/images/Website_PDFs/24-2.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the funders for their contributions towards this review. We also would like to thank the key stakeholders, especially the prison advisors and old age psychiatry and care advisors, who contributed towards shaping and contextualising this evidence review.

This is a summary of research which was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England - previously, the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England – and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), as part of the wider prison care programme. The views expressed are those of the author(s).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Criminology, Sociology & Social Policy, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

Samantha Treacy

Leicester School of Allied Health Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

Steven Martin & Tine Van Bortel

Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Nelum Samarutilake, Ben R. Underwood & Tine Van Bortel

Cambridge Medical Library, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Veronica Phillips

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

Ben R. Underwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ST was the lead researcher and conceptualised, designed, searched, analysed and interpreted data, and led on writing the manuscript. VP provided crucial and extensive library support. SM and NS were involved in screening and extracting data as well as analysis (SM), reviewing and editing various versions of the manuscript. TVB was the Principle Investigator/Study Lead and contributed towards conceptualisation, design, data quality control, manuscript reviewing and editing, and supervising all aspects of the study. BRU was Co-Principle Investigator and provided clinical advice input. ST, SM and TVB revised the peer-reviewed manuscript. All authors read and approved the final submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tine Van Bortel .

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..

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Additional file 2. Appendix 2:

Example search strategy.

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.

Treacy, S., Martin, S., Samarutilake, N. et al. Dementia care pathways in prisons – a comprehensive scoping review. Health Justice 12 , 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-023-00252-7

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2023

Accepted : 16 November 2023

Published : 20 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-023-00252-7

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

• People living in prison
• Care pathways

Health & Justice

ISSN: 2194-7899

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

Maintenance work is planned for Wednesday 1st May 2024 from 9:00am to 11:00am (BST).

During this time, the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly and some pages may be temporarily unavailable. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Sensors & Diagnostics

The role of optical fiber sensors in the new generation of healthcare devices: a review.

This paper presents a review of the optical sensors systems for wearable applications aiming at the new demands on healthcare motivated not only by the new paradigms in internet of things, but also in the photonics development and the artificial intelligence algorithms. In this context, the overview of musculoskeletal disorders and the role of wearable sensors systems in such applications are discussed. In addition, there is a comprehensive discussion of the components of a wearable sensor systems with the novel developments and approaches in different wearable applications. Thus, the optical fiber sensors developments, approaches and applications are discussed for their use in smart textiles, biosensors and intrusive applications. Moreover, new developments on power supplies are discussed aiming at a self-powered sensor systems. Therefore, this review paper can aid on the development on the new generation of wearable sensor systems in healthcare applications using optical fiber sensors and general optical based sensors, which can overcome or mitigate the shortcomings of conventional sensors technologies.

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

A. Leal-Junior, J. Silva, L. Macedo, A. Marchesi, S. Morau, J. Valentino, F. Valentim and M. Costa, Sens. Diagn. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4SD00032C

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements