table of contents of literature review

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: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• 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  

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

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. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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 good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

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 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing .

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

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.

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 18 June 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.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• The Chicago School
• The Chicago School Library
• Research Guides

Conducting a Literature Review

• Introduction

What is a Literature Review?

Goals of the literature review, types of literature reviews.

• Recommended Reading
• Planning Your Literature Review
• Choose Keywords
• Decide where to search
• Formulate Your Search Strategy
• Utilize Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• Using Ai for Searching the Literature
• Evaluate, Synthesize & Analyze the Literature
• Write a Literature Review

A literature review surveys, summarizes, critically analyzes, compares, and synthesizes multiple scholarly works, or published knowledge on a particular topic or specific subject area.

Literature can include peer-reviewed or scholarly  articles, books/ ebooks, conference proceedings, theses/ dissertations, documents published by governmental agencies and non-profit organizations, and other forms of gray literature.

Conducting a literature review is part of the research process and serves to establish a base of knowledge and overview of the principal works on a specific area of research as well as identify important themes, discoveries, areas of consensus and debate, changes over time, and provide a foundation for further research.

A literature review may be written to:

•     Synthesize past and current literature on a topic
•     Identify a problem in a field of research  
•     Show how the literature relates to one another
•     Place your work in the the context of other related research

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

•     A thesis or dissertation
•     A grant proposal
•     A research paper assigned in a course 
•     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.

The following are common types of literature reviews:

Narrative or Traditional 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.

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.

Meta-analysis

This type of review utilizes quantitative methods to combine the results of independent studies and synthesize summaries and conclusions which can be used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness, plan new studies, etc.

Meta-synthesis

A 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.

Further Reading on Different Types of Literature Reviews

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods . Systematic Reviews, 1, 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

eBooks in the Library

The library has a number of books on conducting and writing literature reviews:

eBooks on Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews:

• Next: Planning Your Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://library.thechicagoschool.edu/litreview

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Researching the Literature Review

What is the literature review, find osu theses & dissertations, checklist for starting.

• 2. Find Articles
• 3. Read & Take Notes
• 4. Keep Current
• 5. Manage References
• 6. Done Yet?
• 7. Get Help

Research Librarian

The literature review is defined by a guiding concept - your thesis or research question!  It is not simply a list of summaries or the literature in your field. It serves several purposes:

• provides a background and theoretical basis for your research question or problem
• demonstrates your ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize previous work in your field
• sets the context and significance for your research topic
• identifies gaps in the literature (i.e. - shows why your work is important!)

One of the best ways to get started with your literature review is to read other literature reviews from a completed thesis or dissertation written by someone from your department.

1. Find an OSU thesis or dissertation using ScholarsArchive@OSU

• Use a keyword search if you know the name of a past student or specific research topic. However, to get an overview of common trends in theses and dissertations in your department, use the search limiters on the left side of the page. 
• First (before entering any search terms), narrow by degree field . Click the "more" button, and then select the A-Z sort option to look through the list of degree names alphabetically. Choose the department or field name that matches your area of study.

• To find recent theses or dissertations, next refine your results on the left-hand side of the results page using the Date or  Commencement Year option. Expand the box, then enter your preferred date range. For example 2021-2023. Then click "limit."
• From this focused list of results, click on a thesis or dissertation title. 
• To  view the full text,  select the Download PDF link on the left side of the page.

2. Analyze the literature review you have selected.

• Use the table of contents to find the literature review. Sometimes there are multiple literature reviews in a single thesis or dissertation if your department uses the article format.
• How many sources are used to back up ideas?
• How old are the sources?
• Do sources come from multiple format types (e.g., journal articles, government websites, books, conference proceedings)?
• What citation style is used?
• How long is the literature review?
• How much depth does the author use to back up their ideas?
• How does the author transition from one idea to the next?

Each department has its own unique expectations for the literature review.  Make sure you're on the right track by doing some background work.

• First, read theses done by others in your department and take notes about your questions (it will make you look smart).
• Next, talk to your advisor about their expectations for your literature review (and thesis).
• Find out where the final product of your literature review will end up (literature reviews can be different in scope, length and rhetorical purpose depending on how they are used) -

   In a thesis or dissertation only

   In a journal article

   In a grant proposal

• Next: 2. Find Articles >>
• Last Updated: May 1, 2024 1:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/literaturereview

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples

Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples

Published on May 15, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The table of contents is where you list the chapters and major sections of your thesis, dissertation , or research paper, alongside their page numbers. A clear and well-formatted table of contents is essential, as it demonstrates to your reader that a quality paper will follow.

The table of contents (TOC) should be placed between the abstract and the introduction . The maximum length should be two pages. Depending on the nature of your thesis , paper, or dissertation topic , there are a few formatting options you can choose from.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What to include in your table of contents, what not to include in your table of contents, creating a table of contents in microsoft word, table of contents examples, updating a table of contents in microsoft word, other lists in your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the table of contents.

Depending on the length of your document, you can choose between a single-level, subdivided, or multi-level table of contents.

• A single-level table of contents only includes “level 1” headings , or chapters. This is the simplest option, but it may be too broad for a long document like a dissertation.
• A subdivided table of contents includes chapters as well as “level 2” headings, or sections. These show your reader what each chapter contains.
• A multi-level table of contents also further divides sections into “level 3” headings. This option can get messy quickly, so proceed with caution. Remember your table of contents should not be longer than 2 pages. A multi-level table is often a good choice for a shorter document like a research paper .

Examples of level 1 headings are Introduction, Literature Review , Methodology , and Bibliography. Subsections of each of these would be level 2 headings, further describing the contents of each chapter or large section. Any further subsections would be level 3.

In these introductory sections, less is often more. As you decide which sections to include, narrow it down to only the most essential.

Including appendices and tables

You should include all appendices in your table of contents. Whether or not you include tables and figures depends largely on how many there are in your document.

If there are more than three figures and tables, you might consider listing them on a separate page. Otherwise, you can include each one in the table of contents.

• Theses and dissertations often have a separate list of figures and tables.
• Research papers generally don’t have a separate list of figures and tables.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

All level 1 and level 2 headings should be included in your table of contents, with level 3 headings used very sparingly.

The following things should never be included in a table of contents:

• Your acknowledgements page
• Your abstract
• The table of contents itself

The acknowledgements and abstract always precede the table of contents, so there’s no need to include them. This goes for any sections that precede the table of contents.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, be sure to first apply the correct heading styles throughout the document, as shown below.

• Choose which headings are heading 1 and which are heading 2 (or 3)!
• For example, if all level 1 headings should be Times New Roman, 12-point font, and bold, add this formatting to the first level 1 heading.
• Highlight the level 1 heading.
• Right-click the style that says “Heading 1.”
• Select “Update Heading 1 to Match Selection.”
• Allocate the formatting for each heading throughout your document by highlighting the heading in question and clicking the style you wish to apply.

Once that’s all set, follow these steps:

• Add a title to your table of contents. Be sure to check if your citation style or university has guidelines for this.
• Place your cursor where you would like your table of contents to go.
• In the “References” section at the top, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Here, you can select which levels of headings you would like to include. You can also make manual adjustments to each level by clicking the Modify button.
• When you are ready to insert the table of contents, click “OK” and it will be automatically generated, as shown below.

The key features of a table of contents are:

• Clear headings and subheadings
• Corresponding page numbers

Check with your educational institution to see if they have any specific formatting or design requirements.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Write yourself a reminder to update your table of contents as one of your final tasks before submitting your dissertation or paper. It’s normal for your text to shift a bit as you input your final edits, and it’s crucial that your page numbers correspond correctly.

It’s easy to update your page numbers automatically in Microsoft Word. Simply right-click the table of contents and select “Update Field.” You can choose either to update page numbers only or to update all information in your table of contents.

In addition to a table of contents, you might also want to include a list of figures and tables, a list of abbreviations, and a glossary in your thesis or dissertation. You can use the following guides to do so:

• List of figures and tables
• List of abbreviations

It is less common to include these lists in a research paper.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract in the table of contents.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

• Apply heading styles throughout the document.
• In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
• Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2023, July 18). Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/table-of-contents/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write an abstract | steps & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction, how to write effective headings, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

What’s Included: Literature Review Template

This template is structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research projects such as dissertations and theses. The literature review template includes the following sections:

• Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
• The introduction section
• The core/body section
• The conclusion /summary
• Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover. We’ve also included practical examples and links to more free videos and guides to help you understand exactly what’s required in each section.

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

FAQs: Literature Review Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The literature review chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind. 

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

• 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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

Literature Review

What is a literature review.

Students are often unsure of how to write a literature review. This is usually because, unlike other stages of a thesis such as Methods and Results, they have never written a literature review before.

FAQs about literature reviews

In the table below, you will find some of the questions that students ask, and some suggested answers.

Examples of literature reviews: organisation

Here you will find some examples from past Honours theses. The first set of examples shows part of the Table of Contents, so that you can see the kind of information included in a literature review. What can you notice about how the students have organised their reviews? 

From the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

1.1 HEPATITIS C VIRUS................................. 1

1.1.1 Genome ................................................ 1  1.1.2 Pathogenesis.......................................... 2  1.1.3 Transmission.......................................... 3  1.1.4 Epidemiology.......................................... 5 1.1.5 Treatment.............................................. 5

1.2 QUASISPECIES............................................ 7

1.2.1 Quasispecies and Treatment Outcome....... 7

1.3 METHODS TO ANLAYSE QUASISPECIES........... 8

1.3.1 Cloning and Sequencing........................... 9 1.3.2 Heteroduplex Mobility Analysis (HMA)........ 9 1.3.3 Capillary Electrophoresis......................... 11 

1.4 HYPOTHESIS AND AIMS ............................... 11 

(Oon 2005, p.ii)

What organisational approach has the student taken in example A?

Example B 

From the school of photovoltaic and renewable energy engineering.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 2-1

2.1 CLASSIC DIFFUSION CONCEPT....................... 2-1

2.1.1diffusion mechanisms................................ 2-1  2.1.2 Fick’s law .................................................. 2-4

2.2 BORON DIFFUSION ........................................ 2-9

2.2.1 diffusivity ................................................ 2-9 2.2.2 segregation coefficient ............................. 2-10 2.2.3 silicon self-interstitial and diffusion rate....... 2-12  2.2.4 formation of boron rich layer (brl).............. 2-12 2.2.5 boron diffusion systems............................. 2-14

2.3 BORON NITRIDE SOLID SOURCE DIFFUSION..... 2-15

2.3.1 benefits and challenges.............................. 2-15  2.3.2 diffusion process........................................ 2-16

2.4 SOLAR CELL CHARACTERISATION..................... 2-18

What organisational approach has the student taken in example B?

Examples of literature reviews: language

Here you will find some more examples of literature reviews, showing how the students refer to and comment on previous research. Look at the following examples and see how the students summarise a number of studies and contrast differing findings. Also notice the use of evaluative language to show the student's evaluation of the previous research.

• Summarising language
• Contrast language 
• Evaluative language

"Several studies [5, 6, 7] have reported the benefits of using boron solid sources over other types of boron diffusion source. … On the contrary, Warabisako et al [9] demonstrated that obtaining high efficiencies with boron solid source was no easy task. They reported severe degradation of bulk minority carrier lifetime after boron solid source diffusion" (Chen, 2003, pp.2-14-2-15).

"On evaluation of the studies performed thus far, genotype 1b RdRp proteins have been studied extensively while RdRp proteins from other genotypes have been somewhat ignored.  Kim et al. was the only group to have published a 3a RdRp paper, although their focus was on the template requirement for the NS5B gene as opposed to polymerase activity" (Tan, 2004, pp.15-16)

See next: Exercise for getting started on your literature review

Engineering & science.

• Report writing
• Technical writing
• Writing lab reports
• Introductions
• Literature Review Exercise
• Writing up results
• Discussions
• Conclusions
• Writing tools
• Case study report in (engineering)
• ^ More support

Study Hacks Workshops | All the hacks you need! 28 May – 25 Jul 2024

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Chemistry and Chemical Biology Resources

Literature review.

• Getting Started
• Chemistry journals and databases
• Find Dissertations and Theses
• Find Conference Proceedings
• Find Technical Reports
• Managing Citations
• Research Data Management
• Managing Your Academic Identity  
• Helpful Tools

Reviewing the Literature: Why do it?

• Personal: To familiarize yourself with a new area of research, to get an overview of a topic, so you don't want to miss something important, etc.
• Required writing for a journal article, thesis or dissertation, grant application, etc.

Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type, and other factors.

Background:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  - What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? - NCSU Video

Where to get help (there are lots of websites, blogs , articles,  and books on this topic) :

• The Center for writing and Communicating Ideas (CWCI)
• (these are non-STEM examples: dissertation guidance , journal guidelines )
• How to prepare a scientific doctoral dissertation based on research articles (2012)
• Writing a graduate thesis or dissertation (2016)
• The good paper : a handbook for writing papers in higher education (2015)
• Proposals that work : a guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (2014)
• Theses and dissertations : a guide to planning, research, and writing (2008)
• Talk to your professors, advisors, mentors, peers, etc. for advice

READ related material and pay attention to how others write their literature reviews:

• Dissertations
• Journal articles
• Grant proposals
• << Previous: Find Technical Reports
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 2:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/CCB

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Literature Reviews

• Overview of Literature Reviews and Systematic Reviews
• How to Get Started and Developing a Research Question
• Finding and Evaluating Sources
• Citations This link opens in a new window
• Synthesizing Sources
• Writing the Literature Review
• Systematic Reviews This link opens in a new window
• Suggested Readings
• Last Updated: Nov 30, 2023 1:07 PM
• URL: https://libguides.chapman.edu/literature_reviews

• Privacy Policy

Home » Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Table of Contents

Definition:

Table of contents (TOC) is a list of the headings or sections in a document or book, arranged in the order in which they appear. It serves as a roadmap or guide to the contents of the document, allowing readers to quickly find specific information they are looking for.

A typical table of contents includes chapter titles, section headings, subheadings, and their corresponding page numbers.

The table of contents is usually located at the beginning of the document or book, after the title page and any front matter, such as a preface or introduction.

Table of Contents in Research

In Research, A Table of Contents (TOC) is a structured list of the main sections or chapters of a research paper , Thesis and Dissertation . It provides readers with an overview of the organization and structure of the document, allowing them to quickly locate specific information and navigate through the document.

Importance of Table of Contents

Here are some reasons why a TOC is important:

• Navigation : It serves as a roadmap that helps readers navigate the document easily. By providing a clear and concise overview of the contents, readers can quickly locate the section they need to read without having to search through the entire document.
• Organization : A well-structured TOC reflects the organization of the document. It helps to organize the content logically and categorize it into easily digestible chunks, which makes it easier for readers to understand and follow.
• Clarity : It can help to clarify the document’s purpose, scope, and structure. It provides an overview of the document’s main topics and subtopics, which can help readers to understand the content’s overall message.
• Efficiency : This can save readers time and effort by allowing them to skip to the section they need to read, rather than having to go through the entire document.
• Professionalism : Including a Table of Contents in a document shows that the author has taken the time and effort to organize the content properly. It adds a level of professionalism and credibility to the document.

Types of Table of Contents

There are different types of table of contents depending on the purpose and structure of the document. Here are some examples:

Simple Table of Contents

This is a basic table of contents that lists the major sections or chapters of a document along with their corresponding page numbers.

Example: Table of Contents

I. Introduction …………………………………………. 1

II. Literature Review ………………………………… 3

III. Methodology ……………………………………… 6

IV. Results …………………………………………….. 9

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 12

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 15

Expanded Table of Contents

This type of table of contents provides more detailed information about the contents of each section or chapter, including subsections and subheadings.

A. Background …………………………………….. 1

B. Problem Statement ………………………….. 2

C. Research Questions ……………………….. 3

II. Literature Review ………………………………… 5

A. Theoretical Framework …………………… 5

B. Previous Research ………………………….. 6

C. Gaps and Limitations ……………………… 8 I

II. Methodology ……………………………………… 11

A. Research Design ……………………………. 11

B. Data Collection …………………………….. 12

C. Data Analysis ……………………………….. 13

IV. Results …………………………………………….. 15

A. Descriptive Statistics ……………………… 15

B. Hypothesis Testing …………………………. 17

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 20

A. Interpretation of Findings ……………… 20

B. Implications for Practice ………………… 22

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 25

A. Summary of Findings ……………………… 25

B. Contributions and Recommendations ….. 27

Graphic Table of Contents

This type of table of contents uses visual aids, such as icons or images, to represent the different sections or chapters of a document.

I. Introduction …………………………………………. [image of a light bulb]

II. Literature Review ………………………………… [image of a book]

III. Methodology ……………………………………… [image of a microscope]

IV. Results …………………………………………….. [image of a graph]

V. Discussion …………………………………………. [image of a conversation bubble]

Alphabetical Table of Contents

This type of table of contents lists the different topics or keywords in alphabetical order, along with their corresponding page numbers.

A. Abstract ……………………………………………… 1

B. Background …………………………………………. 3

C. Conclusion …………………………………………. 10

D. Data Analysis …………………………………….. 8

E. Ethics ……………………………………………….. 6

F. Findings ……………………………………………… 7

G. Introduction ……………………………………….. 1

H. Hypothesis ………………………………………….. 5

I. Literature Review ………………………………… 2

J. Methodology ……………………………………… 4

K. Limitations …………………………………………. 9

L. Results ………………………………………………… 7

M. Discussion …………………………………………. 10

Hierarchical Table of Contents

This type of table of contents displays the different levels of headings and subheadings in a hierarchical order, indicating the relative importance and relationship between the different sections.

    A. Background …………………………………….. 2

      B. Purpose of the Study ……………………….. 3

      A. Theoretical Framework …………………… 5

             1. Concept A ……………………………….. 6

                    a. Definition ………………………….. 6

                     b. Example ……………………………. 7

              2. Concept B ……………………………….. 8

       B. Previous Research ………………………….. 9

III. Methodology ……………………………………… 12

       A. Research Design ……………………………. 12

             1. Sample ……………………………………. 13

               2. Procedure ………………………………. 14

       B. Data Collection …………………………….. 15

            1. Instrumentation ……………………….. 16

            2. Validity and Reliability ………………. 17

       C. Data Analysis ……………………………….. 18

          1. Descriptive Statistics …………………… 19

           2. Inferential Statistics ………………….. 20

IV. Result s …………………………………………….. 22

    A. Overview of Findings ……………………… 22

B. Hypothesis Testing …………………………. 23

V. Discussion …………………………………………. 26

A. Interpretation of Findings ………………… 26

B. Implications for Practice ………………… 28

VI. Conclusion ……………………………………….. 31

A. Summary of Findings ……………………… 31

B. Contributions and Recommendations ….. 33

Table of Contents Format

Here’s an example format for a Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

C. Methodology

II. Background

A. Historical Context

B. Literature Review

III. Methodology

A. Research Design

B. Data Collection

C. Data Analysis

IV. Results

A. Descriptive Statistics

B. Inferential Statistics

C. Qualitative Findings

V. Discussion

A. Interpretation of Results

B. Implications for Practice

C. Limitations and Future Research

VI. Conclusion

A. Summary of Findings

B. Contributions to the Field

C. Final Remarks

VII. References

VIII. Appendices

Note : This is just an example format and can vary depending on the type of document or research paper you are writing.

When to use Table of Contents

A TOC can be particularly useful in the following cases:

• Lengthy documents : If the document is lengthy, with several sections and subsections, a Table of contents can help readers quickly navigate the document and find the relevant information.
• Complex documents: If the document is complex, with multiple topics or themes, a TOC can help readers understand the relationships between the different sections and how they are connected.
• Technical documents: If the document is technical, with a lot of jargon or specialized terminology, This can help readers understand the organization of the document and locate the information they need.
• Legal documents: If the document is a legal document, such as a contract or a legal brief, It helps readers quickly locate specific sections or provisions.

How to Make a Table of Contents

Here are the steps to create a table of contents:

• Organize your document: Before you start making a table of contents, organize your document into sections and subsections. Each section should have a clear and descriptive heading that summarizes the content.
• Add heading styles : Use the heading styles in your word processor to format the headings in your document. The heading styles are usually named Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3, and so on. Apply the appropriate heading style to each section heading in your document.
• Insert a table of contents: Once you’ve added headings to your document, you can insert a table of contents. In Microsoft Word, go to the References tab, click on Table of Contents, and choose a style from the list. The table of contents will be inserted into your document.
• Update the table of contents: If you make changes to your document, such as adding or deleting sections, you’ll need to update the table of contents. In Microsoft Word, right-click on the table of contents and select Update Field. Choose whether you want to update the page numbers or the entire table, and click OK.

Purpose of Table of Contents

A table of contents (TOC) serves several purposes, including:

• Marketing : It can be used as a marketing tool to entice readers to read a book or document. By highlighting the most interesting or compelling sections, a TOC can give readers a preview of what’s to come and encourage them to dive deeper into the content.
• Accessibility : A TOC can make a document or book more accessible to people with disabilities, such as those who use screen readers or other assistive technologies. By providing a clear and organized overview of the content, a TOC can help these readers navigate the material more easily.
• Collaboration : This can be used as a collaboration tool to help multiple authors or editors work together on a document or book. By providing a shared framework for organizing the content, a TOC can help ensure that everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goals.
• Reference : It can serve as a reference tool for readers who need to revisit specific sections of a document or book. By providing a clear overview of the content and organization, a TOC can help readers quickly locate the information they need, even if they don’t remember exactly where it was located.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Outline – Types, Example, Template

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and...

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Planning and carrying out a literature review

http://prezi.com/w9f6pi15hyyb/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy Draft Text

1. What is a literature review?

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 18.6.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Identification of Ethical Issues and Practice Recommendations Regarding the Use of Robotic Coaching Solutions for Older Adults: Narrative Review

Authors of this article:

• Cécilia Palmier 1, 2 * , MSc   ; 
• Anne-Sophie Rigaud 1, 2 * , Prof Dr Med   ; 
• Toshimi Ogawa 3 , PhD   ; 
• Rainer Wieching 4 , Prof Dr   ; 
• Sébastien Dacunha 1, 2 * , MSc   ; 
• Federico Barbarossa 5 , MEng   ; 
• Vera Stara 5 , PhD   ; 
• Roberta Bevilacqua 5 , MSc   ; 
• Maribel Pino 1, 2 * , PhD  

1 Maladie d’Alzheimer, Université de Paris, Paris, France

2 Service de Gériatrie 1 & 2, Hôpital Broca, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

3 Smart-Aging Research Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

4 Institute for New Media & Information Systems, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany

5 Scientific Direction, Istituto Nazionale di Ricovero e Cura per Anziani, Ancona, Italy

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Anne-Sophie Rigaud, Prof Dr Med

Service de Gériatrie 1 & 2

Hôpital Broca

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

54 rue Pascal

Paris, 75013

Phone: 33 144083503

Fax:33 144083510

Email: [email protected]

Background: Technological advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, cognitive algorithms, and internet-based coaches have contributed to the development of devices capable of responding to some of the challenges resulting from demographic aging. Numerous studies have explored the use of robotic coaching solutions (RCSs) for supporting healthy behaviors in older adults and have shown their benefits regarding the quality of life and functional independence of older adults at home. However, the use of RCSs by individuals who are potentially vulnerable raises many ethical questions. Establishing an ethical framework to guide the development, use, and evaluation practices regarding RCSs for older adults seems highly pertinent.

Objective: The objective of this paper was to highlight the ethical issues related to the use of RCSs for health care purposes among older adults and draft recommendations for researchers and health care professionals interested in using RCSs for older adults.

Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature to identify publications including an analysis of the ethical dimension and recommendations regarding the use of RCSs for older adults. We used a qualitative analysis methodology inspired by a Health Technology Assessment model. We included all article types such as theoretical papers, research studies, and reviews dealing with ethical issues or recommendations for the implementation of these RCSs in a general population, particularly among older adults, in the health care sector and published after 2011 in either English or French. The review was performed between August and December 2021 using the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, SpringerLink, and PsycINFO databases. Selected publications were analyzed using the European Network of Health Technology Assessment Core Model (version 3.0) around 5 ethical topics: benefit-harm balance, autonomy, privacy, justice and equity, and legislation.

Results: In the 25 publications analyzed, the most cited ethical concerns were the risk of accidents, lack of reliability, loss of control, risk of deception, risk of social isolation, data confidentiality, and liability in case of safety problems. Recommendations included collecting the opinion of target users, collecting their consent, and training professionals in the use of RCSs. Proper data management, anonymization, and encryption appeared to be essential to protect RCS users’ personal data.

Conclusions: Our analysis supports the interest in using RCSs for older adults because of their potential contribution to individuals’ quality of life and well-being. This analysis highlights many ethical issues linked to the use of RCSs for health-related goals. Future studies should consider the organizational consequences of the implementation of RCSs and the influence of cultural and socioeconomic specificities of the context of experimentation. We suggest implementing a scalable ethical and regulatory framework to accompany the development and implementation of RCSs for various aspects related to the technology, individual, or legal aspects.

Introduction

Challenges associated to population aging.

Technological and medical advances have led to a demographic shift in the population, with the number of older adults constantly increasing. According to the United Nations [ 1 ], older adults (aged 60-65 years) will represent 16% of the world’s population in 2050. In addition, life expectancy is increasing, from 64.2 years in 1990 to 72.6 years in 2019, and is expected to reach 77.1 years in 2050 [ 1 ]. However, there is a wide diversity of health conditions among older adults. The health status of older adults is dependent on multiple factors, including nonmodifiable genetic factors and environmental factors, such as lifestyle [ 2 ]. Thus, older adults represent a very heterogeneous population with multiple and diverse needs and desires. With advancing age, the loss of functional independence; frailty; and other health diseases such as cardiovascular problems, cancers, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, or major neurocognitive disorders may appear [ 3 - 5 ]. Among age-related conditions, major neurocognitive disorders (eg, Alzheimer disease) receive particular attention due to the increasing prevalence of these diseases [ 6 ].

The aging population is not only a public health issue but also a socioeconomic one. To face this challenge, it is important to develop preventive measures to support active and healthy aging and to preserve the independent functioning and quality of life of older adults. The adoption of healthy behaviors can help prevent or delay the onset of pathologies or treat them if detected early [ 7 ].

The Use of Technologies for Older Adults

Preventive health measures can be supported through new technologies, such as robotic coaching solutions (RCSs) that promote healthy aging among older adults [ 8 , 9 ]. RCSs have been defined as personalized systems that continuously monitor the activities and environment of the user and provide them with timely health-related advice and interventions [ 10 - 12 ]. These systems can help users define and achieve different health-oriented goals [ 12 ].

RCSs may encompass artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that can analyze user data, personalize coaching programs, and adapt recommendations based on each individual’s needs [ 1 , 13 - 19 ]. RCSs can involve robots equipped with sensors such as cameras, microphones, or motion sensors to collect real-time data about the user, AI, and programming that enables their interaction with users [ 20 , 21 ]. These technologies are often equipped with voice and visual recognition and learning capabilities [ 20 , 21 ]. They can benefit from advanced natural language processing techniques, which allow for understanding of the user’s input, facilitating natural and effective communication [ 22 ]. RCSs can offer guidance, support, and feedback based on preprogrammed information or real-time data analysis. These data can inform coaching strategies and allow RCSs to provide users with relevant feedback [ 8 ].

RCSs can also encompass a virtual agent, which refers to a computer program or an AI system that interacts with users in a manner that simulates human conversation [ 14 , 18 , 23 ]. A virtual agent is an animated character capable of adopting a social behavior mimicking that of humans to encourage the users to make changes in their habits [ 14 ]. Virtual agents might take the form of a chatbot, voice assistant, or other AI-driven communication system [ 14 ]. Biometric monitoring devices to track physiological data such as heart rate, sleep patterns, or stress levels can also be included in RCSs [ 8 , 20 , 21 ]. These data can contribute to the configuration of personalized coaching plans. RCSs can also encompass advanced data analytics that can process large data sets generated by users’ interactions and behaviors. This functionality helps in identifying patterns, trends, and areas for improvement in coaching strategies [ 24 ]. Integrating Internet-of-Things devices in RCSs can provide additional data points about a user’s environment, lifestyle, or habits, thus contributing to a personalized coaching approach [ 25 ].

Health-oriented RCSs could enable users to lead a healthy lifestyle, by identifying needs and goals and providing appropriate risk predictions and individualized recommendations [ 12 , 26 - 28 ]. There are RCSs dedicated to a particular domain, such as physical activity or motor rehabilitation [ 9 , 16 ]. Others may have the objective of promoting independent and healthy aging [ 29 ].

Promoting active and healthy aging can allow older adults to maintain their independence and continue to live at home [ 4 , 30 ], which is a wish of many [ 3 ]. This intervention could also help to reduce the need for assistance, usually provided by informal caregivers and health professionals [ 4 , 19 , 30 - 33 ]. Furthermore, RCSs could lead to a reduction in individual and collective health care expenses [ 4 , 32 , 34 ] by easing access to health and social care interventions to a wide population, including hard-to-reach (eg, geographically isolated) individuals. However, although the use of health-related RCSs could have many benefits, several ethical issues arise with their development and implementation in human environments [ 3 , 35 - 38 ].

An Ethical Framework for the Use of Technologies for Older Adults

For RCSs to contribute to active and healthy aging, it is important that all the stakeholders (engineers, geriatricians, psychologists, etc) involved in their design and implementation refer to an ethical framework [ 3 , 38 ]. It is also important to inform society (politicians and legal experts) about such an extension of technology in people’s lives (private, professional, medicosocial, and commercial context), so that we can create a legal framework for the use of these technologies. An analysis of the way in which ethical and legal dimensions have been addressed by studies, in the field of RCSs for health care, seems useful to support the key actors in their development and implementation. The growing interest in the ethical questions associated with the use of social and assistive robots is evidenced by the volume of literature reviews [ 3 , 12 , 18 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 39 - 51 ] on the topic.

Now, it appears appropriate to systematically examine this body of work, focusing on the ethical analysis, and provide an overview of the literature. Therefore, we performed a review of the literature on RCSs for older adults using the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA Core Model; version 3.0) model [ 52 ] for analysis. This Health Technology Assessment (HTA) model makes it possible to assess the intended and unintended consequences of the use of a specific technology regarding multiple domains (eg, technological, ethical, clinical, and organizational), providing methods and concepts for this analysis [ 53 ]. Therefore, HTA is a process that informs decision-making about the introduction of new technologies such as RCSs in health care. It also seems necessary to issue guidelines for the development and implementation of health-oriented RCSs [ 54 ].

The objective of this study was to highlight the main ethical questions and corresponding recommendations linked to the use of RCSs for older adults for engineers, researchers, and health professionals in this field. For this purpose, we conducted a narrative literature review using the ethical dimension of the EUnetHTA Core Model to guide the analysis. To the best of our knowledge, such a study has not been conducted so far.

A thematic analysis of the literature was performed to identify publications that describe RCSs for supporting older adults in health care and prevention and those that address ethical issues and recommendations regarding their development and implementation. The methodology used for the narrative review was inspired by the study by Green et al [ 55 ].

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The review encompassed papers focusing on all populations, with particular attention to older adults. It focused on the concept of RCSs for health, while also incorporating publications discussing other health technologies for older adults if the authors have delved into relevant ethical considerations for their development or implementation.

The context of the review revolved around the use of RCSs (or related technologies), especially for older adults, across diverse living environments such as homes, hospitals, and nursing homes. Publications addressing RCSs and related ethical issues within the health care domain were considered, whereas those focusing solely on technical aspects (eg, AI and deep learning) or those outside the health care domain were excluded.

Various types of publications, including theoretical papers, research studies, and reviews, were included if they offered ethical reflections or recommendations for RCS use in health care. These reflections and recommendations were expected to align with the topics and issues of the ethical dimension of the EUnetHTA Core Model.

All publications, regardless of language (English or French), were eligible if published after 2011. This time frame was chosen considering the technological advancements over the past decade, which may have influenced the evolution of ethical issues and recommendations in the field of remote care systems and related technologies. Textbox 1 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria adopted for the selection of papers in this review.

Inclusion criteria

• Types of participants: all populations
• Interventions or phenomena of interest: RCSs or other technologies used in health care, if ethical issues are discussed
• Context: the use of RCSs in the health care sector
• Paper type: all paper types (theoretical papers, research studies, and reviews) that discuss ethical issues
• Language: English or French
• Date of publication: after 2011

Exclusion criteria

• Types of participants: not applicable
• Interventions or phenomena of interest: RCSs or all other types of technology outside the health care sector
• Context: the use of RCSs in non–health care sectors
• Paper type: papers about RCSs and other technologies that are not dealing with ethical issues
• Language: all other languages
• Date of publication: before 2011

Search Strategy and Study Selection

The review was conducted using the following keywords: “seniors,” “older adults,” “social robots,” “assistive robots,” “assistive technology,” “robots,” “virtual coach,” “e-coaching,” “coaching system,” “coaching device,” “ethics,” and “recommendations.”

The review was performed between August 2021 and December 2021 using the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, SpringerLink, and PsycINFO databases.

This search allowed us to find 4928 initial publications. Then, secondary research using references from other articles and the same inclusion criteria was conducted. This search allowed us to find 13 additional papers.

In total, 4943 papers were analyzed. The selection of the final publications was performed after reading the title and abstract first and, then, the full article. This selection process helped us to exclude irrelevant papers and duplicates ( Figure 1 ). In total, 0.51% (25/4943) of the papers were included in our review.

Data Analysis Criteria

The selected papers were analyzed using the ethical domain of the EUnetHTA Core Model [ 52 ]. Proper registration of the use of EUnetHTA Core Model for the purpose of this review was made on the HTA Core Model website [ 52 ].

The model was developed for the production and sharing of HTA information, allowing for the support of evidence-based decision-making in health care, but it can also be customized to other research needs. The EUnetHTA Core Model is composed of 9 domains, each including several topics. Each topic also includes different issues (ie, questions that should be considered for the evaluation of health technologies). Thus, the model is structured into 3 levels: domain (level 1), topic (level 2), and issue (level 3). The combination of a domain, topic, and issue is linked to an assessment element ID, which can be identified using a specific code for standardization purposes (B0001, B0002, etc).

The main EUnetHTA model domains include the following: (1) health and current use of the technology, (2) description and technical characteristics of the technology, (3) safety, (4) clinical effectiveness, (5) costs and economic evaluation, (6) ethical aspects, (7) organizational aspects, (8) patient and social aspects, and (9) legal aspects.

The ethical domain (level 1) in the EUnetHTA Core Model [ 52 ] includes 5 topics (level 2): “benefit-harm balance,” “autonomy,” “respect for people,” “justice and equity,” and “legislation.” Each of these topics includes several issues (level 3) [ 52 ].

In this study, 2 authors (CP and ASR) independently analyzed the 25 selected articles. First, they read the articles several times to improve familiarity with the ideas addressing the ethical aspects of RCSs. Then, in each publication (methods, results, and discussion sections), they identified segments of data that were relevant or captured an idea linked to the “ethical” domain of the model. A subsequent exploration of the coded data (sentences or set of statements) was performed to get a more precise classification at the topic level (level 2) and at the issue level (level 3). Then, the coding was performed using the HTA nomenclature. The 2 experts (CP and ASR) compared their results. In a few cases, the coding results showed a lack of consensus between the 2 coding authors, which was resolved through a subsequent discussion between them. Interrater correlation was not calculated.

A thematic analysis using the EUnetHTA framework for conducting a literature review has been described in other studies [ 56 , 57 ]. Furthermore, the use of EUnetHTA to perform an ethical analysis of health technologies has already been proposed [ 58 ]. The 25 selected articles were all coded using this methodology. Some authors have previously emphasized the possibility of overlapping issues between topics in the HTA analysis. They have suggested to assess the overlapping issues in the most relevant topic section [ 59 ].

This review was not registered, and a protocol for the review was not prepared.

Selected articles are presented in Multimedia Appendix 1 [ 3 , 12 , 18 , 31 , 32 , 37 - 51 , 60 - 64 ]. For each topic, we have presented our findings in terms of questions and recommendations according to the EUnetHTA Core Model, wherever possible.

Ethical Issues and Recommendations for the Use of New Technologies

This section aims to summarize the ethical analysis performed regarding the use of RCSs with older adults and to provide recommendations for ethical use of these devices. Table 1 presents a synthetic summary of the elements presented in this section.

Topic 1: Benefit-Harm Balance

RCSs should be developed according to the principles of beneficence (ie, to promote the interest of users) and nonmaleficence (ie, to avoid inflicting harm) [ 39 , 60 , 64 ].

What Are the Known and Estimated Benefits and Harms for Patients When Implementing or Not Implementing the Technology?

Risk of social isolation.

According to Sharkey and Sharkey [ 50 ], technological devices, when used appropriately, could benefit older adults by promoting social interaction and connection with their loved ones [ 4 , 31 , 40 ]. Broadbent et al [ 19 ] have discussed the potential of robots to reduce older adults’ social isolation. However, other authors reported the negative influence of the use of robotic devices on human contact [ 31 , 32 , 65 ]. The use of robots (eg, telepresence robots) to make some cost savings (eg, reducing travel costs and time spent on trips for family and professionals to visit older adults) would reduce face-to-face interactions [ 3 , 36 , 39 , 40 ]. Moreover, according to Körtner [ 47 ], the more people become accustomed to communicating with robots, the less they will be used to communicating with humans. The use of social robots could lead to a reduction of interactions with humans and thus to social isolation and emotional dependence [ 39 ]. However, the influence of technological devices, such as RCSs, on social isolation is still under debate, and the impact of technology would depend on the manner in which it is used.

To avoid exacerbating the users’ social isolation, Portacolone et al [ 38 ] advocate that social robots and similar technologies should be designed with the objective of fostering interactions with other humans, for instance, keeping users informed about the entertainment and socializing activities near their home, connecting them with their loved ones, and so on.

Risk of Deception

Another major risk for users is deception [ 39 , 64 , 66 ]. Portacolone et al [ 38 ] described 3 types of deception that people with neurocognitive disorders may face when interacting with social robotic systems but which may also apply to all users. The first type involves the user’s misconception of what is driving the technological device [ 51 ]. Users may be misled if they think that behind a medical chatbot, there is a real physician who communicates and reads their messages [ 44 ] or, alternatively, if they are not aware that, at some point, there are real humans guiding the technological device [ 38 ]. The second type refers to robotic devices programmed to express feelings or other types of affective communication, which may lead the user to believe that the system’s emotions are authentic. Related to this issue, Körtner [ 47 ] discussed how some older adults may fear that their social robot will forget them during their absence from home. The resemblance with the living in terms of affective behavior (eg, crying, laughing, or expressing concern) can make the user believe that there is a reciprocity between human and robot feelings [ 43 ]. The last type of deception is related to the inadequate interpretations that older adults may have regarding the nature of the robot, for example, thinking that an animal-shaped robot is a real animal or a pet [ 38 ]. Some current developments of social robots tend to make them resemble a living being, in terms of their verbal and nonverbal behaviors [ 34 , 60 ] or by highly anthropomorphizing their design [ 47 ], which may blur the boundary between the real and the artificial [ 45 , 60 ]. These design choices can also impact users’ dignity by infantilizing them as they are led to believe in something that is false [ 50 ].

However, according to some researchers [ 51 , 63 , 64 ], the notion of deception should be considered in terms of the gradation between what is morally acceptable and what is not. Deception would be morally acceptable when it aims to improve a person’s health or quality of life, for example, the use companion robots to calm a person experiencing behavioral disorders linked to dementia [ 51 ].

According to Danaher [ 43 ] and Vandemeulebroucke et al [ 40 ], to avoid deception, it is essential to be transparent to users about the design and operation of devices. As the information given to the participants is the basis for obtaining consent to use the technology, it is essential to offer them documents explaining how the device is built and its advantages and limitations in a clear manner adapted to the user’s knowledge and experience. It is also important to inform users on how to behave with technology [ 12 ]. Researchers should also answer users’ questions, pay attention to their feedback, and use it to improve the device and its documentation [ 60 ]. During experiments with RCSs, it is also important that researchers regularly remind participants of the nature of the technological device to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and to ensure that they still consent to participate in the study [ 38 ].

Biases of Algorithms

An autonomous device does not work without AI or algorithms that allow it to make decisions. However, these technologies are created by humans, and programming biases can be incorporated into them and lead to failures [ 44 ]. A technological device can, for instance, misread a situation and react accordingly, leading to a safety risk for the user [ 18 ]. Thus, it is essential that the researcher scrutinizes the algorithms used in RCSs before their implementation [ 44 ]. Fiske et al [ 44 ] also suggest providing the users with detailed explanations about the algorithms present in the technological device they are using.

What Are the Benefits and Harms of the Technology for Relatives, Other Patients, Organizations, Commercial Entities, Society, Etc?

At the society level, Boada et al [ 39 ] mentioned an ethical consideration related to the ecological impact of robotic devices in the current context of climate crisis and the lack of natural resources. The construction of RCSs requires raw materials, high energy consumption, and the management of their waste. Therefore, it is important for developers to design technologies that consume less energy and can be recycled.

Are There Any Unintended Consequences of the Technology and Its Application for Patients?

Technologies evolving very quickly.

For some older adults, technologies evolve very quickly, which makes it difficult for them to keep up with [ 62 ]. Denning et al [ 67 ] encourage designers to develop products that are intuitive to use or to offer users a simplified training. However, although some technologies are progressing quickly, technological limitations are still present, especially regarding social robotic systems, impacting their performance [ 68 ] and generating frustration among some users [ 69 ].

Unsuitability of Technology

The lack of experience with the technologies and the fact that the systems are not suitable to everyone can reduce the usability and acceptability of RCSs among older adults [ 3 , 60 , 62 ]. Frennert and Östlund [ 62 ] highlighted that some older adults were not confident in their ability to handle a robot because of previous complicated experience with technology. Peek et al [ 70 ] also reported that users had doubts about their ability to use the technology and feared that they would easily forget how to use it. They may also fear false alarms generated by monitoring technologies. For example, a person may decide to sit on the floor, but this behavior can be considered as a fall by the technology, and it could call for an ambulance to be sent to the person’s home in vain [ 70 ].

To promote acceptability and usability of RCSs, it is essential to develop them considering the capabilities, needs, and wishes of various users [ 31 , 47 ]. “User-centered design” approaches should be used for this purpose [ 71 ]. This methodology must be performed in a continuous manner to consider the development, new preferences, and experiences of the users. Technology assessment should also be conducted before deployment in ecological environments to improve the predictability of RCSs and decrease the risk of confusion and accidents [ 40 , 47 ].

Topic 2: Autonomy

According to Anderson and Kamphorst [ 42 ], the notion of autonomy implies the recognition of people, for instance, users of RCSs, as thinking individuals who have their own perspective on matters and are able to judge what is best for them.

Is the Technology Used for Individuals Who Are Especially Vulnerable?

Free and informed consent is a prerequisite for the involvement of an individual in research, regardless of the domain. This aspect is mentioned in numerous codes and declarations such as the Declaration of Helsinki (1964-2008) [ 72 ]. In the context of studies of the use of RCSs, this principle ensures that the person has freely chosen to use a device. However, some older adults, particularly those with cognitive disorders, may have difficulties in understanding and evaluating information related to RCSs and therefore in making appropriate choices [ 3 ]. Moreover, the person may not remember that the RCS is in their environment or how it works [ 38 , 44 ]. The question of how to ensure that the older adult has understood the purpose of RCS and that their choice of using the technology is based solely on their own decision and not that of a relative, caregiver, or institution has also been discussed [ 46 ].

Researchers in the field of RCS should adapt to the cognitive abilities of the populations they work with to facilitate communication and decision-making [ 46 ]. Thus, the observation of the person’s behavior is necessary to identify potential reservations regarding the use of RCSs. When the person is very vulnerable to respond, informed consent could be sought by proxy such as from children, spouse, or partner [ 46 , 64 ]. However, according to Diaz-Orueta et al [ 37 ], the final decision of using RCSs lies with the user. To prevent loss of capacity and to guard against any risk of inducement to participate, advance directives [ 46 , 64 ] or implementation of an advance power of attorney [ 46 ] can be proposed.

Does the Implementation or Use of the Technology Affect the Patient’s Capability and Possibility to Exercise Autonomy?

Dependence on the technology.

Although the main interest of RCSs for older adults is the maintenance of functional independence, it has been claimed that these devices could make people dependent on them. By replacing users in tasks that they can still perform, the use of RCSs could create new forms of vulnerability [ 3 , 31 , 39 , 41 , 51 ].

People could rely entirely on autonomous technological devices, such as RCSs, to guide their behaviors, goals, and actions [ 12 , 73 ]. A questioning of the authenticity of users’ actions has been mentioned by Anderson and Kamphorst [ 42 ]. Users might not feel responsible for the success of their actions if they feel they are completely driven by the guidance of the RCS. People could also develop emotional and psychological feelings toward the technology. This may have negative consequences for the individuals [ 38 , 49 ] and lead to new vulnerabilities [ 39 ].

Loss of Freedom

Another ethical issue relates to the conflict between the user’s safety, encouraged by the technology guidance, and a loss of freedom. The RCS could impose constraints on the user under the pretext that the user’s actions are not good for them [ 39 , 40 , 74 ]. Sharkey and Sharkey [ 50 ] explained that to promote home care, RCS could act as a supervisor (ie, programmed to ensure that no danger is present and, if there is a danger, to implement procedures to stop it and avoid it in the future). For instance, the RCS could prevent the person from eating fatty and high-caloric food because it is harmful to them. To protect users and ensure that they live in good health, individuals using RCSs could end up being deprived of certain actions or being under some type of “house arrest” [ 50 ].

One of the goals of using such RCSs is to support older adults’ independence; therefore, it is essential that developers and researchers in the field take measures to preserve the person’s autonomy [ 75 ]. Furthermore, RCS users must have the opportunity to evaluate and re-evaluate the role given to the device, to assess whether the system is reliable and whether it is serving their interests [ 12 , 42 ].

Creating a New Source of Authority

The use of RCSs could alter human relationships, for example, by creating tensions between older adults and their informal caregivers. Their use could also create some tensions with health care professionals by creating a new source of authority [ 12 ]. Monitoring older adults through RCSs can generate anger in the user, for example, when the device insists that the older adult should take a medication that they do not want to take [ 41 , 75 ].

Topic 3: Respect for Persons

Does the implementation or use of the technology affect human dignity.

Human dignity may be affected by the use of RCSs as these technologies may be perceived as “problem evocators” [ 41 ]. Some RCSs are used to compensate for impaired capacities. However, according to Körtner [ 47 ], their use can make older adults aware of their limitations and lead to negative feelings, anxiety, or exhaustion. RCS use can also lead to a form of stigmatization by making one’s own inabilities visible to others [ 3 , 70 ]. It is important to have positive communication regarding RCSs, to provide a less stigmatizing view of their use.

Does the Technology Invade the Sphere of Privacy of the Patient or User?

To continue living at home, users are increasingly willing to tolerate intrusion in their privacy [ 70 ], but they are not always aware of when and how they are being monitored by RCSs [ 61 ]. Portacolone et al [ 38 ] provided the example of an animal-shaped companion robot, for which the older adults can signal that they no longer wish to interact with it by putting the robot to sleep. However, the animal-shaped robot can record data even when it is sleeping, but users are not always aware of this information. Forgetfulness and the lack of understanding of the device can lead to the risk of manipulation and coercion [ 44 ]. The person who is vulnerable may forget that they are being monitored and reveal personal information [ 50 ].

Technological devices, such as RCSs, must remain under the control of the users [ 47 ]. Users should have the ability to define when and where the device is used—when it collects data—to maintain their privacy, especially in intimate or private care settings.

Security of Data

According to Portacolone et al [ 38 ], remote monitoring technologies are usually controlled by third parties, sometimes even operating in another country, which can lead to cultural biases during the interaction between the older adult and the RCS. This context involves the risk that the person controlling the device (third party) takes advantage of the older adult’s vulnerability to steal their personal information or exposes the user to financial abuse [ 38 ]. Older adults are not always aware or vigilant about the sharing and use of data, which may be personal and sensitive [ 73 ]. Furthermore, RCSs can be connected to internet services that collect, store, and transfer these sensitive data [ 47 ] for commercial use [ 49 , 61 ].

In addition, the use of technologies connected to digital networks involves the risk of hacking and unauthorized surveillance [ 34 , 51 ], which can make people vulnerable [ 62 ]. Denning et al [ 67 ] found that home robots could not only be remotely located and identified but also hacked and controlled. First, users may have either preconceived and erroneous ideas about the capabilities of the device or a lack of knowledge to evaluate the safety, especially regarding data protection [ 3 ]. Second, users do not always configure their technological device correctly or update them [ 67 ].

Encryption or security systems must be put in place to protect users’ personal data captured by the devices at every stage: during collection, storage, transmission, and processing [ 3 ]. Researchers must also give particular attention to data security. In Europe, for instance, researchers and technology providers are required to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation [ 40 , 76 ]. Data collection must be performed legally or approved by the local relevant ethical committees.

To address data security challenges, 3 principles are recommended by Ienca et al [ 46 ] when developing technological devices: transparency, legitimate purpose, and proportionality. Transparency refers to the fact that the user knows that the system is collecting data and has consented to it. The user must also have precise information about when and what type of data are recorded and who has access to them [ 47 ]. Legitimate purpose refers to the notion that the monitoring and collection of data is performed for a specific purpose, (ie, in the best interest of the user or, if applicable, a relative who has consented to it). Finally, the principle of proportionality refers to the fact that the data collected are not disproportionate to the user’s needs.

Topic 4: Justice and Equity

The consequences of the technology implementation on the distribution of health care resources was discussed in the literature.

How Does Implementation or Withdrawal of the Technology Affect the Distribution of Health Care Resources?

Societal pressure.

Socioeconomic issues are also linked to the development and use of RCSs can also be raised. Individual freedom may be hindered by the “incentive” of certain stakeholders or authorities to enforce the use of RCSs [ 37 ]. The use of RCSs and similar systems may also lead to a lesser involvement of relatives, caregivers, and institutions that provide care to older adults and to the reduction of care costs; these perceived economic benefits may pressurize older adults to consent to use these devices [ 40 , 46 ]. It is also possible that older adults may have to agree to use the technological device to receive other health care benefits (eg, aids and subsidies) [ 42 ].

Digital Divide

Different opportunities to access RCSs can result in digital divide, defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [ 77 ] as a gap between those who have access to information and communication technologies and those who do not. This difference can create educational, economic, social, and even health-related disparities among citizens. Some citizens would be able to use these devices and, therefore, could benefit from their advantages, whereas others will not be able to use them and will not enjoy their benefits. The use of technologies in the health care context, through public or private institutions, should be subject to previous authorization by independent ethical committees to ensure that the use of these devices will not harm users in any way.

Inequalities in Resources

Questions about justice, equity, and equality among all citizens also arise [ 12 , 40 , 46 ]. RCSs have relatively high costs [ 64 ] and can generate additional expenses such as an internet subscription [ 3 ] that only a part of the population can afford, and this may be owing to the lack of research allowing to measure the cost-to-benefit ratio of these technologies on health [ 32 ]. It is important to ensure the access to RCSs among different living areas (ie, urban and rural). Therefore, involving municipalities and neighborhood associations seems an interesting way of raising awareness about the opportunities offered by RCSs for older adults and reaching a wider range of people.

To promote justice, equity, and fair distribution, Ienca et al [ 46 ] and Wangmo et al [ 64 ] recommend reducing the development costs of RCSs by promoting an open dissemination of source codes. In addition, RCSs should be distributed in priority to those in greatest need; therefore, measures to ensure access to RCSs under fair conditions should be established [ 51 ]. Joachim [ 78 ] also suggests to cover some of the costs of these health care–oriented technologies through health insurance.

Recommendations have been published by researchers to improve equality of access to technologies, such as using open-source software, providing priority access for individuals with low income, or relying on certain collective financing systems such as retirement or health insurance [ 46 , 51 , 78 ]. Discussions must be conducted among developers, legislators, and private and public organizations to identify viable financing solutions that allow for fair distribution of RCSs.

Replacement of Professionals

Researchers have also reported fears expressed by older adults and caregivers about how the use of technological devices could eliminate care-related jobs or replace humans [ 17 , 34 , 48 , 61 ]. There are also concerns about the use of these technological tools to reduce health care costs by decreasing the number of available health care resources and services, thereby exacerbating social inequalities [ 44 ]. The introduction of health-oriented RCSs requires adapting the contexts of care practices, which may threaten their quality [ 39 ]. Their incorporation into the care work environment can be difficult because the devices are automated and some care situations are unpredictable [ 17 , 62 ]. Furthermore, the gestion of certain tasks by technological devices requires a restructuring of the roles and responsibilities of caregivers [ 39 ]. Fiske et al [ 44 ] highlight that there are currently no recommendations or training to enable health care professionals to adopt RCSs, even though these professionals are increasingly confronted with technological devices in their practice.

The incorporation of RCSs must always be accompanied by a discussion with concerned care professionals regarding the advantages and limits of the technology. Professionals must also be supported in the use of these devices through effective training. Structured training and supervision will contribute to the development of a controlled framework of practice around the use of RCSs and thus avoid potential abuse [ 44 ]. Moreover, to encourage their use among professionals, it is essential to clearly define the role of RCSs as an additional resource for professionals and not a replacement of human care services [ 44 ].

Topic 5: Legislation

The ethical challenges linked to the lack of existing legislations and regulations dedicated to the use of the technology were discussed in the literature.

Can the Use of the Technology Pose Ethical Challenges That Have Not Been Considered in the Existing Legislations and Regulations?

Safety of devices.

The use of RCSs by older adults can result in damage and harm to their environment [ 79 ], especially when the device is still at the prototype stage [ 47 ]. Safety risks linked to the use of RCSs (eg, malfunctioning of the technology and incorrect decisions made by the coaching system) arise when they share a common space with humans and interact with them [ 39 ]. The following questions must be considered: Who is responsible in case of an accident, and who pays for the damages [ 39 , 40 , 48 , 62 , 80 ]? Is it the designer, the device, or the user himself? Currently, the civil code favors the cascade system (ie, first, the liability falls on the designer of the product; then, on the developer; and finally, on the user who has not followed the rules of use) [ 74 ]. However, the more the machine becomes autonomous, the less the existing legal frameworks can answer these questions [ 80 ]. This is a key legal issue regarding the implementation of RCSs in real settings because the person responsible for damage to the user or the environment may incur legal or even penal proceedings.

Damage and prejudice can also be caused by a failure to share authority [ 45 , 49 , 60 ]. Who between the human and the technological device holds the power to make decisions and control a functionality [ 81 ]? According to Grinbaum et al [ 45 ], it is important to specify the circumstances in which the human must take control over the technological device (RCS) and those in which the device should decide autonomously. According to Riek and Howard [ 49 ], it is preferable that in certain cases, the technological device, although autonomous, requires a human validation of its actions to keep the user in control of the device. In addition, Bensoussan and Puigmal [ 80 ] suggested the idea that technological devices must have an emergency stop button, so that the human can switch off the technology at any time.

Regulation of Technology

Currently, there is a gray area between the capabilities of RCSs, the reality of the field, and the regulations in force [ 38 ]. To accompany the researcher during the whole process of development and diffusion of RCSs, an ethical framework should be established [ 18 , 60 ]. Specifically, this can be in the form of an ethical code of conduct illustrating the expectations to all the employees of a company [ 18 ]. The researcher must regularly inform themselves about the ethics to be consistent with the evolution of the regulatory framework [ 60 ]. However, according to Nevejans [ 82 ], these ethical recommendations have no legal value and cannot protect humans from the damage caused by new technologies. Thus, it is necessary to think about a new legal framework to protect the users of RCSs [ 37 ].

The use of technologies, such as RCSs, in the health care field has grown significantly in recent years [ 17 , 18 ]. RCSs are increasingly being used for older adults with the aim of promoting healthy behaviors, quality of life, and well-being. However, the use of RCSs also raises several ethical challenges regarding the cost-to-benefit balance of these new care practices, respect for the autonomy of users, respect for privacy, justice and equity linked to their access, or need for a suitable legal framework. Such challenges could be addressed by establishing relevant recommendations for the development and use of RCSs. Some guidelines regarding the use of robotic systems have been published [ 49 , 83 ]. Moreover, in April 2021, the European Commission unveiled the first legal framework about AI [ 84 ]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no recommendations have been proposed in this field directly linked to an analysis of the literature dealing specifically with these ethical issues and potential solutions to address them.

This narrative review identified 25 articles in which authors highlighted ethical issues and recommendations related to the use of RCSs and similar technologies. The use of the EUnetHTA Core Model for the analysis of these articles made it possible to classify the information retrieved in the publications according to 5 main ethical topics—“benefit-harm balance,” “autonomy,” “respect for persons,” “justice and equity,” and “legislation”—and to provide a detailed analysis of RCS-related ethical issues. Our review also aimed to identify recommendations for better development, diffusion, and use of RCSs by a population of older adults.

Technology devices, such as RCSs, are used with older adults to enable them to live independently; to enhance their quality of life and well-being; and, therefore, to cope with the increasing care demands for older populations. RCSs may be used to encourage a range of health-related goals: physical, cognitive, nutritional, social, and emotional domains. To be effective, RCSs must be able to motivate the user by providing highly personalized care programs [ 85 , 86 ]. However, studies have shown that not all potential target users are included in the development of these devices [ 37 , 87 , 88 ]. Therefore, RCSs design might fail to meet a wide range of users’ needs, capabilities, and wishes. Thus, it is essential to apply “user-centered design” approaches and involve target users with various sociodemographic characteristics and technology experience throughout the development process. A strong involvement of the intended users of these systems in their design process would also improve the quality of the information provided to potential users of RCSs regarding their operation, type of data collected, and potential benefits of the technology. In this way, the involvement of the users would improve the quality of the process of obtaining the consent required from older adults to use the technology.

Another ethical challenge related to the use of RCSs is the fact that their wide implementation for older adults’ care may affect the distribution of health care resources. For instance, it has been found that for some older adults and informal and formal caregivers, the use of RCSs could replace humans in many caregiving tasks, eventually leading to a suppression of jobs or to a degradation of the quality of health care services [ 17 , 34 , 48 , 61 ]. In this regard, the participation of a third person (professional, volunteer, or family member) as a “human coach” could be considered when implementing RCSs in the older adults’ environment. This “human coach” could help build a “chain of trust” by being an intermediary between the RCS and the user. On the one hand, the involvement of a real person in the use of the RCS could reduce the risk of replacement of human assistance by technological assistance. On the other hand, the “human coach” could help enhance the acceptability and usability of the device, while at the same time, reassuring the user and providing recommendations to the developers, so that the RCS is consistent with users’ needs and desires. However, the benefits of involving a “human coach” in the RCS service provision has yet to be evaluated by scientific studies.

According to some studies [ 3 , 39 , 41 , 51 , 65 ], the use of RCSs can have an impact on social relationships, reducing human contact and even altering social relationships by creating tension between older adults and their caregivers. Thus, it would be interesting to identify the repercussions and implications of these devices in older adults’ daily life and in the life of the members of their social environment through new studies. It also seems necessary to evaluate the organizational impact of the implementation of RCSs and to identify potential obstacles to their use in the care professionals’ work context.

Our analysis also confirmed that for RCSs to provide personalized health-related recommendations, the collection of sensitive data is necessary. Data collection in this context also raises several ethical issues. For instance, personal data can be exposed to hacking and misuse. Proper data management, anonymization, and encryption are essential to protect the personal data of RCS users [ 86 ]. In addition, researchers and developers in this field must evaluate RCSs before implementation to ensure that they do not cause physical or moral harm to users. Thus, it has been suggested that stakeholders refer to local and regional regulatory and safety standards to guide their development and use.

Finally, our analysis also discussed how legal and ethical frameworks regarding the use of RCSs need to be adapted to cope with the constant development of new technologies. So far, existing legal frameworks are not yet adequate to respond effectively to the question of liability in case of damage caused by RCSs, particularly because these devices are becoming increasingly autonomous [ 80 ]. The establishment of “operational ethics committees in digital sciences and technologies” could help in the development and conduct of projects in this area [ 60 ]. Guidelines should be established to identify the types of applications and technological devices that require regulatory review and approval [ 44 ]. Research projects and working groups involving users, researchers, and lawyers should be set up to further investigate the legal and ethical issues related to the use of RCSs.

Some countries and regions, such as Europe and Japan have initiated the work of structuring relevant legal and ethical frameworks; however, their orientations and measures may differ culturally [ 78 ]. Future studies in the area of RCSs could consider the influence of cultural and socioeconomic specificities of the contexts of experimentation (countries and regions) regarding the acceptance and use of RCSs by older adults and formal and informal caregivers and regarding the definition of ethical and legal frameworks governing their uses. Therefore, the use of validated and widely applied analysis frameworks, for example, the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic framework [ 89 ], formulated to measure countries’ commonalities in their approaches to the interpretation of behavioral research findings (eg, regarding technology adoption) could be interesting. The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic framework [ 89 ] could help not only to explore the differences among countries regarding the validation and adoption of new technologies for older adult care but also to seek greater cultural and demographic diversity in technology research.

This dimension of cross-cultural comparison has received particular attention in the framework of a current international research partnership between Europe and Japan, such as the EU-Japan Virtual Coach for Smart Ageing (e-VITA) project. This project aims to develop a cross-cultural RCS that can be tailored to the needs of healthy older adults to promote aging well. The e-VITA RCS will be made available to older adults in their homes, which raises many of the ethical questions discussed in this paper. Therefore, the study will require the researchers to set up procedures adapted not only to the users but also to the 2 cultures (European and Japanese), respecting the corresponding ethical and legal regulations. Thus, it would be interesting to perform an analysis of the ethical issues raised by users from different countries and cultures within the framework of the e-VITA project.

Limitations

A narrative review of the literature was conducted to provide a nonexhaustive synthesis of the various ethical concerns and recommendations when using RCSs for older adults. This review has some limitations. Only articles in French and English were included. Some articles indicating ethical concerns or recommendations may not have been included when this information was not mentioned in the keywords or abstract.

Conclusions

The use of RCSs in the context of health care, particularly with an older adult population, tends to show many benefits. RCSs have the potential to improve the quality of life of older adults and their independence. When used in an ethical and appropriate manner, RCSs can help improve older adults’ emotions and cognitive and physical abilities and promote social relationships. By helping older adults to continue living at home for as long as possible, the use of health-oriented RCSs could help to address some of the challenges resulting from demographic aging. However, the use of these new health care technologies involves some ethical concerns, with the most cited issues being not only the risk of accidents, lack of reliability, loss of control, risk of deception, and risk of social isolation but also the confidentiality of data and liability in case of safety problems.

Some recommendations have been made in the past regarding the use of social and assistive robotic technologies for older adults, such as considering the opinion of target users; collecting their consent; training the care professionals to use them; and ensuring proper data management, anonymization, and encryption. However, the integration of RCSs in current health practices and, particularly, in the private homes of older adults can be disruptive. It requires the establishment of scalable and adapted ethical and regulatory frameworks that follow the technology progress and the social and digital change of society Thus, studies are needed to identify new ethical concerns arising from the organizational impact of the implementation of RCSs in different contexts, especially in the homes of older adults. The influence of cultural and socioeconomic specificities of the contexts of experimentation (countries and regions) regarding the acceptance and use of RCSs by older adults and formal and informal caregivers is also an area of interest for future studies.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a part of the EU-Japan Virtual Coach for Smart Ageing (e-VITA) project, which aims to develop a robotic coaching system for older adults [ 90 ]. The authors thank the collaborators who made this project possible: European Commission and Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris (Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’Innovation). This review was based on data collected within the e-Vita project, funded by the European Union H2020 Program (grant 101016453) and the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication; grant JPJ000595).

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no data sets were generated or analyzed during this review.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

The selected relevant articles on ethical issues regarding the use of robotic coaching solutions for older adults.

• United Nations. Croissant à un rythme plus lent, la population mondiale devrait atteindre 9,7 milliards d'habitants en 2050 et pourrait atteindre près de 11 milliards vers 2100 : Rapport de l'ONU. United Nations, Population Division. United Nations; 2019. URL: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_PressRelease_FR.pdf [accessed 2022-03-04]
• Rapport mondial sur le vieillissement et la santé. Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. 2016. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/206556 [accessed 2022-03-04]
• Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ. Ethical considerations regarding the use of smart home technologies for older adults: an integrative review. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2016;34:155-181. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ganesan B, Gowda T, Al-Jumaily A, Fong KN, Meena SK, Tong RK. Ambient assisted living technologies for older adults with cognitive and physical impairments: a review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. Dec 2019;23(23):10470-10481. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Palazzolo J, Baudu C, Quaderi A. Psychothérapies du Sujet Âgé: Prise en Charge des Pathologies du Vieillissement. 2nd edition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Elsevier Masson; 2016.
• Principaux repères de l'OMS sur la démence. World Health Organization. URL: https://www.who.int/fr/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia [accessed 2022-03-04]
• Guilbaud A, Mailliez A, Boulanger É. Vieillissement: une approche globale, multidimensionnelle et préventive. Med Sci (Paris). Dec 09, 2020;36(12):1173-1180. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• op den Akker H, Klaassen R, op den Akker R, Jones VM, Hermens HJ. Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. 2013. Presented at: CBMS '13; June 20-22, 2013:546-547; Porto, Portugal. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6627870 [ CrossRef ]
• Görer B, Salah AA, Akın HL. A robotic fitness coach for the elderly. In: Augusto JC, Wichert R, Collier R, Keyson D, Salah AA, Tan AH, editors. Ambient Intelligence: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 8309. Cham, Switzerland. Springer; 2013.
• Lete N, Beristain A, García-Alonso A. Survey on virtual coaching for older adults. Health Informatics J. Dec 01, 2020;26(4):3231-3249. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Siewiorek D, Smailagic A, Dey A. Architecture and applications of virtual coaches. Proc IEEE. Aug 2012;100(8):2472-2488. [ CrossRef ]
• Kamphorst BA. E-coaching systems: what they are, and what they aren't. Pers Ubiquit Comput. May 23, 2017;21(4):625-632. [ CrossRef ]
• Kyriazakos S, Schlieter H, Gand K, Caprino M, Corbo M, Tropea P, et al. A novel virtual coaching system based on personalized clinical pathways for rehabilitation of older adults-requirements and implementation plan of the vCare project. Front Digit Health. Oct 5, 2020;2:546562. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wrobel J, Pino M, Wargnier P, Rigaud AS. Robots et agents virtuels au service des personnes âgées : une revue de l’actualité en gérontechnologie. NPG Neurol Psychiatr Geriatr. Aug 2014;14(82):184-193. [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez PJ, Garcia-Zapirain B, Mendez-Zorrilla A. Caregiver and social assistant robot for rehabilitation and coaching for the elderly. Technol Health Care. 2015;23(3):351-357. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fasola J, Mataric MJ. A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Hum-Robot Interact. 2013;2(2):3-32. [ CrossRef ]
• Cresswell K, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh A. Health care robotics: qualitative exploration of key challenges and future directions. J Med Internet Res. Jul 04, 2018;20(7):e10410. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Winfield AF, Jirotka M. Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. Oct 15, 2018;376(2133):20180085. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J of Soc Robotics. Oct 3, 2009;1(4):319-330. [ CrossRef ]
• Abou Allaban A, Wang M, Padır T. A systematic review of robotics research in support of in-home care for older adults. Information. Jan 30, 2020;11(2):75. [ CrossRef ]
• Cortellessa G, De Benedictis R, Fracasso F, Orlandini A, Umbrico A, Cesta A. AI and robotics to help older adults: revisiting projects in search of lessons learned. Paladyn J Behav Robot. 2021;12(1):356-378. [ CrossRef ]
• Lima MR, Wairagkar M, Gupta M, Rodriguez y Baena F, Barnaghi P, Sharp DJ, et al. Conversational affective social robots for ageing and dementia support. IEEE Trans Cogn Dev Syst. Dec 2022;14(4):1378-1397. [ CrossRef ]
• Sidner CL, Bickmore T, Nooraie B, Rich C, Ring L, Shayganfar M, et al. Creating new technologies for companionable agents to support isolated older adults. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst. Jul 24, 2018;8(3):1-27. [ CrossRef ]
• Pepito JA, Locsin RC, Constantino RE. Caring for older persons in a technologically advanced nursing future. Health. 2019;11(05):439-463. [ CrossRef ]
• Pinheiro PR, Pinheiro PG, Filho RH, Barrozo JP, Rodrigues JJ, Pinheiro LI, et al. Integration of the mobile robot and internet of things to monitor older people. IEEE Access. 2020;8:138922-138933. [ CrossRef ]
• Chatterjee A, Gerdes MW, Martinez S. eHealth initiatives for the promotion of healthy lifestyle and allied implementation difficulties. In: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications. 2019. Presented at: WiMOB '19; October 21-23, 2019:1-8; Barcelona, Spain. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8923324 [ CrossRef ]
• Yousuf H, Reintjens R, Slipszenko E, Blok S, Somsen GA, Tulevski II, et al. Effectiveness of web-based personalised e‑Coaching lifestyle interventions. Neth Heart J. Jan 28, 2019;27(1):24-29. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bevilacqua R, Casaccia S, Cortellessa G, Astell A, Lattanzio F, Corsonello A, et al. Coaching through technology: a systematic review into efficacy and effectiveness for the ageing population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Aug 15, 2020;17(16):5930. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Justo R, Ben Letaifa L, Palmero C, Gonzalez-Fraile E, Torp Johansen A, Vázquez A, et al. Analysis of the interaction between elderly people and a simulated virtual coach. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. May 22, 2020;11(12):6125-6140. [ CrossRef ]
• Fiorini L, De Mul M, Fabbricotti I, Limosani R, Vitanza A, D'Onofrio G, et al. Assistive robots to improve the independent living of older persons: results from a needs study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. Jan 22, 2021;16(1):92-102. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers' experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. Jun 14, 2019;19(1):160. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pilotto A, Boi R, Petermans J. Technology in geriatrics. Age Ageing. Nov 01, 2018;47(6):771-774. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Koceska N, Koceski S, Beomonte Zobel P, Trajkovik V, Garcia N. A telemedicine robot system for assisted and independent living. Sensors (Basel). Feb 18, 2019;19(4):834. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Broadbent E. Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annu Rev Psychol. Jan 03, 2017;68(1):627-652. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Suwa S, Tsujimura M, Ide H, Kodate N, Ishimaru M, Shimamura A, et al. Home-care professionals’ ethical perceptions of the development and use of home-care robots for older adults in Japan. Int J Hum Comput Interact. Mar 13, 2020;36(14):1295-1303. [ CrossRef ]
• Nordgren A. How to respond to resistiveness towards assistive technologies among persons with dementia. Med Health Care Philos. Sep 6, 2018;21(3):411-421. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Diaz-Orueta U, Hopper L, Konstantinidis E. Shaping technologies for older adults with and without dementia: reflections on ethics and preferences. Health Informatics J. Dec 2020;26(4):3215-3230. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Portacolone E, Halpern J, Luxenberg J, Harrison KL, Covinsky KE. Ethical issues raised by the introduction of artificial companions to older adults with cognitive impairment: a call for interdisciplinary collaborations. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;76(2):445-455. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Boada JP, Maestre BR, Genís CT. The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: a critical literature review. Technol Soc. Nov 2021;67:101726. [ CrossRef ]
• Vandemeulebroucke T, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Gastmans C. The use of care robots in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. Jan 2018;74:15-25. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zafrani O, Nimrod G. Towards a holistic approach to studying human-robot interaction in later life. Gerontologist. Jan 09, 2019;59(1):e26-e36. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Anderson J, Kamphorst B. Ethics of e-coaching: implications of employing pervasive computing to promote healthy and sustainable lifestyles. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops. 2014. Presented at: PerComW '14; March 24-28, 2014:351-356; Budapest, Hungary. [ CrossRef ]
• Danaher J. Robot betrayal: a guide to the ethics of robotic deception. Ethics Inf Technol. Jan 04, 2020;22(2):117-128. [ CrossRef ]
• Fiske A, Henningsen P, Buyx A. Your robot therapist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied artificial intelligence in psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. J Med Internet Res. May 09, 2019;21(5):e13216. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grinbaum A, Chatila R, Devillers L, Ganascia JG, Tessier C, Dauchet M. Ethics in robotics research: CERNA mission and context. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. Sep 2017;24(3):139-145. [ CrossRef ]
• Ienca M, Jotterand F, Vică C, Elger B. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int J of Soc Robotics. Jun 22, 2016;8(4):565-573. [ CrossRef ]
• Körtner T. Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Z Gerontol Geriatr. Jun 25, 2016;49(4):303-307. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Operto F. Ethics in advanced robotics. IEEE Robot Automat Mag. Mar 2011;18(1):72-78. [ CrossRef ]
• Riek LD, Howard DA. A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession. In: Proceedings of 2014 Conference on We Robot. 2014. Presented at: WeRobot '14; April 4-5, 2014:1; Coral Gables, FL. URL: https:/​/robots.​law.miami.edu/​2014/​wp-content/​uploads/​2014/​03/​a-code-of-ethics-for-the-human-robot-interaction-profession-riek-howard.​pdf
• Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol. Jul 3, 2010;14(1):27-40. [ CrossRef ]
• Yew GC. Trust in and ethical design of carebots: the case for ethics of care. Int J Soc Robot. May 23, 2021;13(4):629-645. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• HTA Core Model ® version 3. EUnetHTA. URL: http://www.corehta.info/model/HTACoreModel3.0.pdf [accessed 2022-03-04]
• Health technology assessment process: fundamentals. EUPATI Toolbox. 2015. URL: https://toolbox.eupati.eu/resources/health-technology-assessment-process-fundamentals/ [accessed 2022-03-04]
• Tuli TB, Terefe TO, Rashid MM. Telepresence mobile robots design and control for social interaction. Int J Soc Robot. Jul 13, 2021;13(5):877-886. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. Sep 2006;5(3):101-117. [ CrossRef ]
• Isabet B, Pino M, Lewis M, Benveniste S, Rigaud AS. Social telepresence robots: a narrative review of experiments involving older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 30, 2021;18(7):3597. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Naudé B, Rigaud AS, Pino M. Video calls for older adults: a narrative review of experiments involving older adults in elderly care institutions. Front Public Health. Jan 14, 2021;9:751150. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Saarni S, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Lühmann D, Mäkelä M, Velasco-Garrido M, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ. Aug 01, 2008;86(8):617-623. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lampe K, Mäkelä M, Garrido MV, Anttila H, Autti-Rämö I, Hicks NJ, et al. The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Dec 23, 2009;25(S2):9-20. [ CrossRef ]
• Collectif C. Éthique de la recherche en robotique. ALLISTENE. 2014. URL: http://cerna-ethics-allistene.org/digitalAssets/38/38704_Avis_robotique_livret.pdf [accessed 2024-04-02]
• Tisseron S. Introduction. In: Tisseron S, Tordo F, editors. Robots, de Nouveaux Partenaires de Soins Psychiques. Fairfield CA. Érès Publication; 2018.
• Frennert S, Östlund B. How do older people think and feel about robots in health- and elderly care? In: Proceedings of the 2018 INBOTS Conference on Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society. 2018. Presented at: INBOTS '18; October 16-18, 2018:167-174; Pisa, Italy. URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-24074-5_28 [ CrossRef ]
• van Maris A, Zook N, Caleb-Solly P, Studley M, Winfield A, Dogramadzi S. Designing ethical social robots-a longitudinal field study with older adults. Front Robot AI. Jan 24, 2020;7:1. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics. Dec 19, 2019;20(1):98. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Portet F, Vacher M, Rossato S. Les technologies de la parole et du TALN pour l’assistance à domicile des personnes âgées : un rapide tour d’horizon (quick tour of NLP and speech technologies for ambient assisted living). In: Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Interactions Langagières pour personnes Agées Dans les habitats Intelligents. 2012. Presented at: ILADI '12; June 4-8, 2012; Grenoble, France. URL: https://aclanthology.org/W12-1402.pdf
• Bradwell HL, Winnington R, Thill S, Jones RB. Ethical perceptions towards real-world use of companion robots with older people and people with dementia: survey opinions among younger adults. BMC Geriatr. Jul 14, 2020;20(1):244. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Denning T, Matuszek C, Koscher K, Smith JR, Kohno T. A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. 2009. Presented at: UbiComp '09; September 30-October 3, 2009:105-114; Orlando, FL. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1620545.1620564 [ CrossRef ]
• Papadopoulos I, Koulouglioti C, Lazzarino R, Ali S. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. Jan 09, 2020;10(1):e033096. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pripfl J, Kortner T, Batko-Klein D. Results of a real world trial with a mobile social service robot for older adults. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 2016. Presented at: HRI '16; March 7-10, 2016:497-498; Christchurch, New Zealand. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7451824 [ CrossRef ]
• Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. Apr 2014;83(4):235-248. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lespinet-Najib V, Roche A, Chibaudel Q. Santé et handicap: d'une conception centrée «utilisateur» à la conception universelle. Ann Mines Réal Ind. 2017;2:25-27. [ CrossRef ]
• Déclaration d’Helsinki de l’AMM – Principes éthiques applicables à la recherche médicale impliquant des êtres humains. L'Association Médicale Mondiale. URL: https:/​/www.​wma.net/​fr/​policies-post/​declaration-dhelsinki-de-lamm-principes-ethiques-applicables-a-la-recherche-medicale-impliquant-des-etres-humains/​ [accessed 2022-02-03]
• Adams S, Niezen M. Digital ‘solutions’ to unhealthy lifestyle ‘problems’: the construction of social and personal risks in the development of eCoaches. Health Risk Soc. Feb 06, 2016;17(7-8):530-546. [ CrossRef ]
• Saerens P. Le droit des robots, un droit de l’homme en devenir ? Commun Technol Dév. Jun 30, 2020;(8). [ CrossRef ]
• Jenkins S, Draper H. Care, monitoring, and companionship: views on care robots from older people and their carers. Int J of Soc Robotics. Sep 15, 2015;7(5):673-683. [ CrossRef ]
• Règlement (UE) 2016/679 du parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 avril 2016 relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données, et abrogeant la directive 95/46/CE (règlement général sur la protection des données) (Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE). Le Parlement Européen Et Le Conseil De L'union Européenne. 2016. URL: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/fra [accessed 2022-02-03]
• Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers. 2001. URL: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/oecstiaab/49-en.htm [accessed 2024-04-02]
• Joachim C. Silver economy, robotique et droit - Comparaison franco-japonaise. Centre d’études et de Coopération Juridique Interdisciplinaire – Université de Poitier. Jan 2020. URL: https://hal.science/hal-03147937/document [accessed 2024-04-05]
• Kernaghan K. The rights and wrongs of robotics: ethics and robots in public organizations. Can Public Adm. Dec 12, 2014;57(4):485-506. [ CrossRef ]
• Bensoussan A, Puigmal L. Le droit des robots ? Quelle est l'autonomie de décision d'une machine ? Quelle protection mérite-t-elle ? Arch Philos Droit. 2017;59(1):165-174. [ CrossRef ]
• Tessier C. Robots autonomy: some technical issues. In: Lawless WF, Mittu R, Sofge D, Russell S, editors. Autonomy and Artificial Intelligence: A Threat or Savior? Cham, Switzerland. Springer; 2017:179-194.
• Nevejans N. Comment protéger l'homme face aux robots ? Arch Phil Droit. 2017;59(1):131-163. [ CrossRef ]
• Tambornino L, Lanzerath D, Rodrigues R, Wright D. SIENNA D4.3: survey of REC approaches and codes for artificial intelligence and robotics. Zenodo. Aug 19, 2019. URL: https://zenodo.org/records/4067990 [accessed 2024-04-04]
• Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Shaping Europe's Digital Future. URL: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai [accessed 2022-07-15]
• Kamali ME, Angelini L, Caon M, Carrino F, Rocke C, Guye S, et al. Virtual coaches for older adults’ wellbeing: a systematic review. IEEE Access. 2020;8:101884-101902. [ CrossRef ]
• Banos O, Nugent C. E-coaching for health. Computer. Mar 2018;51(3):12-15. [ CrossRef ]
• Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Gustafson DH, Mahoney JE, Johnson RA, Lee JD, et al. The effect of an information and communication technology (ICT) on older adults’ quality of life: study protocol for a randomized control trial. Trials. Apr 25, 2015;16(1):3-8. [ CrossRef ]
• Sakaguchi-Tang DK, Cunningham JL, Roldan W, Yip J, Kientz JA. Co-design with older adults: examining and reflecting on collaboration with aging communities. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. Oct 18, 2021;5(CSCW2):1-28. [ CrossRef ]
• Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. Jun 15, 2010;33(2-3):61-83. [ CrossRef ]
• EU-Japan virtual coach for smart ageing. e-VITA Consortium. URL: https://www.e-vita.coach/ [accessed 2024-04-05]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 12.04.23; peer-reviewed by J Sedlakova, S Liu; comments to author 20.08.23; revised version received 22.12.23; accepted 12.03.24; published 18.06.24.

©Cécilia Palmier, Anne-Sophie Rigaud, Toshimi Ogawa, Rainer Wieching, Sébastien Dacunha, Federico Barbarossa, Vera Stara, Roberta Bevilacqua, Maribel Pino. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.06.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.