A Literature Review Summary Fulfils Which of the Following Functions?

9.i. Introduction

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

Literature reviews tin take two major forms. The nearly prevalent ane is the "literature review" or "groundwork" section within a periodical paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in cognition that the empirical written report addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed report, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the enquiry as one that contributes something new to the cumulated noesis, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The 2d grade of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base of operations for a researcher's own piece of work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a detail area or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-called "review article" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any principal data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the fine art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out every bit a first articulate outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who runway and gauge the touch of manufactures have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more oft than whatever other type of published commodity (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if non a detailed noesis of the area in question, too as references to the well-nigh useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not piece of cake to conduct, the commitment to complete a review commodity provides a tremendous service to one's academic customs (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if non all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical information science publish review articles of some type.

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Procedure and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015), there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

formulating the research question(due south) and objective(due south),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

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

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

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

Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the cloth identified in the preceding step (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. Equally discussed later in this chapter, for sure types of reviews in that location must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a procedure to resolve disagreements must besides be in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of principal studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review squad may demand to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the enquiry design and methods. Such formal cess, which is usually conducted independently by at least ii coders, helps members of the review squad refine which studies to include in the concluding sample, decide whether or not the differences in quality may bear upon their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and translate the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each master study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes information technology possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicative information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the trouble of interest (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). However, important information may too be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the inquiry design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results (Cooper & Hedges, 2009).

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

ix.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

ix.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior cognition (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic only does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review squad oftentimes undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a item signal of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the choice of information from chief articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin can pb to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, equally in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this blazon of review tin exist very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject field area and synthesizing it. Every bit mentioned above, its main purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are oftentimes more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can besides exist used every bit educational articles to bring practitioners upwards to date with certain topics of issues (Green et al., 2006).

Recently, there accept been several efforts to innovate more than rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, amongst others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to construction a "traditional" review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic information processing approach comprised of iii steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and assay; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a serial of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies inside a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile wellness (yard-wellness) interventions for patients' cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions existence investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be fatigued as a effect of the development of these systems. To provide articulate answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an advisable mode. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract report information. A menstruation diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study choice. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for k-health intervention development.

ix.3.ii. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals whatever interpretable pattern or tendency with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (King & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger grouping of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data drove techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (eastward.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature every bit a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to place any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings correspond the land of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

In the fields of health sciences and medical information science, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic surface area are described past Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and ordinarily chronicle to publication patterns and trends. At that place is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can exist done. Instead, researchers often nowadays studies that are representative of most works published in a item area and they consider a specific time frame to exist mapped.

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

9.three.3. Scoping Reviews

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

Dissimilar narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are non aligned with the enquiry questions. It is also recommended that at least 2 independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and so the total articles for written report option (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively like shooting fish in a barrel to nowadays in tabular grade (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

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

ix.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

Systematic reviews attempt to amass, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a conspicuously formulated and often narrow inquiry question on a particular topic of interest to support prove-based exercise (Liberati et al., 2009). They attach closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to amass a big body of inquiry bear witness, assess whether furnishings or relationships are in the same direction and of the aforementioned general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the forcefulness of the overall bear witness for every issue of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them (Melt, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The chief procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and data sources, including grey literature sources, without whatsoever language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing gamble of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avert random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

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

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Motorcar (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a loftier-quality systematic review with meta-assay. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial budgetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based date reminders delivered through Short Bulletin Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this cease, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rctsouth that are eligible for inclusion. In guild to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies non captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with transmission screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and hazard of bias assessments were performed independently by ii coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rcts involving six,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of omnipresence at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor advisable to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods only because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity betwixt the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known equally qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of ane such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers past healthcare professionals and their touch on admission to data and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (world wide web.crd.york.air-conditioning.u.k./prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (eastward.one thousand., forward searches); and (c) later carried out report selection, information extraction, and gamble of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity betwixt the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative assay and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to rubber and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause cracking confusion and make information technology difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence (Moher, 2013). Therefore, at that place is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that determination-making is constantly informed past the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews, also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are 3rd types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews by and large adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. Even so, the unit of measurement of assay in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the chief study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that accept a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader enquiry topics for which there are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with centre failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized testify from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing bloodshed and hospital admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

9.three.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews adult to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous prove about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a fashion that informs policy controlling (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which center on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). As explained in a higher place, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to run across whether a new treatment or intervention does better outcomes. However, many argue that it is non possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consequent issue (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) take proposed a new arroyo for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "circuitous interventions" work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is ordinarily associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews take no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts past articulating likely underlying mechanisms then scrutinizes bachelor evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicative (Shepperd et al., 2009). Principal studies establish in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which tin can test and modify the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and enquiry studies to place ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified 6 master ways which stand for "educated guesses" to exist tested against the information in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in iv databases betwixt 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a 2-pace procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, 1 for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes beyond different contexts.

9.iii.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important bug with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Different other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective business relationship of the research that has been washed in a particular area of interest, and appraise its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this mode, critical reviews effort to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement (Kirkevold, 1997).

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

ix.4. Summary

Table 9.i outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review blazon from another. Information technology also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can exist used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table ix.1

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

Equally shown in Table 9.ane, each review blazon addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which later on define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For instance, in the example of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing manufactures (Dark-green et al., 2006). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, depict their operational characteristics, present how the private studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other manus, systematic reviews are characterized past their loftier level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the assay and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (eastward.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical assay of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the well-nigh appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Final Remarks

In light of the increased apply of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned before, when rigorously conducted review articles stand for powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for land-of-the-art testify. The typology of literature reviews we used herein volition permit eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to proceeds a better understanding of the similarities and differences betwixt review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does non privilege whatsoever specific type of review equally being of higher quality than another (Paré et al., 2015). Equally explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a disquisitional aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in department ix.two. For ane thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated past a comprehensive documentation of the literature search procedure, extraction, coding and assay performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or non, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its evolution. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review procedure was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the pick of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of astern and forwards searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In brusque, the rigour of any review commodity is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our primary objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are cardinal to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our promise that our descriptive business relationship volition serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this of import and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Periodical of Medical Information science. 2004;44(i):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson South., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin Due north. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of enquiry on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Inquiry Policy and Systems. 2008;six(7):1–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus Southward.E. Personal wellness records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;xviii(iv):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley Fifty. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Inquiry Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in data systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;ane(three):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Greenish S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of all-time evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(five):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2d ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. 1000. Organizing cognition syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Noesis in Guild. 1988;ane(1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan One thousand. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-stride arroyo. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(i):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow Due south., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. K., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional person team'due south feel with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;xiii:48. [PMC costless article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(iii-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.Grand. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Dark-green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing information and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical computer science literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Computer science and Decision Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods Grand., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative prove: a review of possible methods. Journal of Wellness Services Enquiry and Policy. 2005;x(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(1):194–204. [PMC gratuitous commodity: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers G. M., Nelson East. Fifty., Belz North., Bennett L., Carnahan 50. … Guidelines Working Grouping. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and Eastward Health. 2011;17(2):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;five(3):101–117. [PMC gratis article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative prove synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC free article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Machine J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Greenish S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.Thou. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-assay in IS inquiry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16:ane.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an of import strategy to farther the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(5):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.three. Keele & Durham. united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software technology.
Kitsiou S., Paré One thousand., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of dwelling telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a disquisitional assessment of their methodological quality. Periodical of Medical Internet Inquiry. 2013;15(7):e150. [PMC free article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou S., Paré M., Jaana M. Furnishings of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic centre failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC complimentary article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to comport an effective literature review in support of data systems research. Informing Science. 2006;9:181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund South. 50., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer 1000. Due south. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online bear witness-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan Due south., Atherton H., Roberts Northward. Westward., Heneghan C., Tilson J.G. Use of handheld computers in clinical practise: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014;14:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]
Moher D. The problem of indistinguishable systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]
Montori V. Yard., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional written report of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;one:2. [PMC gratis article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: land of the science. Register of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(three):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram Grand. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Periodical. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are accomplished through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014;21(four):751–757. [PMC free commodity: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana Yard., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Clan. 2005;293(xix):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul Thou. M., Greene C. Chiliad., Newton-Matriarch R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Wellness Management. 2015;xviii(three):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey Chiliad., Walshe Yard. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Periodical of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen 1000., Vakkalanka Southward., Kuzniarz Fifty. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Engineering. 2015;64:1–18.
Petticrew Thousand., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. Grand., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in direction and organizational science: Assembling the field'southward full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Direction Annals. 2008;2(i):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is non: variety, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Data Systems. 2014;23(three):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells Yard. A., Bouter L. 1000., Kristjansson East., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers Thousand. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd South., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;six(eight):e1000086. [PMC gratis article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current country in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Information science. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11(1):15. [PMC free commodity: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate Chiliad., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & It. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier Chiliad., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008;eight(1):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the behemothic: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Data Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italian republic. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to set up for the future: Writing a literature review. Direction Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(ii):11.
Whitlock Due east. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(ten):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

mattockshateplesent.blogspot.com

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