literature reviews for research

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 31 May 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.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

How I run a virtual lab group that’s collaborative, inclusive and productive

Career Column 31 MAY 24

Defying the stereotype of Black resilience

Career Q&A 30 MAY 24

How I overcame my stage fright in the lab

Career Column 30 MAY 24

Researcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here’s how to fix it

Career Column 27 MAY 24

How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation

Career Feature 24 MAY 24

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

News 31 MAY 24

What is science? Tech heavyweights brawl over definition

Japan’s push to make all research open access is taking shape

News 30 MAY 24

Associate Editor, High-energy physics

As an Associate Editor, you will independently handle all phases of the peer review process and help decide what will be published.

Homeworking

American Physical Society

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Immuno-Oncology

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions available within our multidisciplinary research teams based In Hong Kong.

Hong Kong (HK)

Centre for Oncology and Immunology

Chief Editor

Job Title:  Chief Editor Organisation: Nature Ecology & Evolution Location: New York, Berlin or Heidelberg - Hybrid working Closing date: June 23rd...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Global Talent Recruitment (Scientist Positions)

Global Talent Gathering for Innovation, Changping Laboratory Recruiting Overseas High-Level Talents.

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Postdoctoral Associate - Amyloid Strain Differences in Alzheimer's Disease

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

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

Quick links

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

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

Search form

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

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

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

You identify:

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

It Also Helps You:

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

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

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

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.

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, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you....

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Enhancing Searching as Learning (SAL) with Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 June 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• Kok Khiang Lim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7118-6864 8 &
• Chei Sian Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0891-6526 8  

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 2117))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

Searching as Learning (SAL), a learning process with potential knowledge gain during searches in a digital environment, is an emerging field in human-computer interaction research, especially with recent technological advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). According to SAL, the act of searching for the information itself can be a valuable learning experience. Many studies have investigated SAL’s learning perspective and facets supported by traditional search systems (e.g., web browsers), to access, search, and retrieve information to fulfill users’ learning intentions. However, the applications of GenAI, as well as their roles and disruption to the existing SAL process, are unclear. To address this gap, this study aims to shed light on the applicability of GenAI in enhancing the SAL process by conducting a systematic literature review.

First, we seek to define the concepts of ‘learning’ and ‘searching’ by examining the components of SAL in the literature and then detailing how SAL would have occurred. Next, the systematic literature review, guided by PRISMA, uses the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) framework to develop searchable keywords and guide the literature review. Five major databases were searched, and literature that fulfilled the PICO’s criteria was included for review. Preliminary analysis shows that GenAI could improve and ease SAL human-computer interfaces that inevitably change the process and influence users’ learning behavior, such as how information is retrieved and consumed. Consequently, these opportunities posed concerns about information reliability, accuracy, and long-term effects on user behavior.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Disclosure of Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Choo, C.W., Detlor, B., Turnbull, D.: Information seeking on the web: an integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday 5 (2000). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v5i2.729

Wildemuth, B.M., Freund, L.: Assigning search tasks designed to elicit exploratory search behaviors. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval, pp. 1–10 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2391224.2391228

Vakkari, P.: Searching as learning: a systematization based on literature. J. Inf. Sci. 42 , 7–18 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515615833

Article   Google Scholar  

Dhillon, M.K.: Online information seeking and higher education students. In: Chelton, M., Cool, C. (eds.) Youth Information- Seeking Behavior II: Context, Theories, Models, and Issues, pp. 165–205. Scarecrow Press, Lanham (2007)

Google Scholar  

Chiu, T.K.F.: Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 6 , 100197 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197

Song, C.P., Song, Y.P.: Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students. Front. Psychol. 14 , 1260843 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843

Malmström, H., Stöhr, C., Ou, A.W.: Chatbots and other AI for learning: a survey of use and views among university students in Sweden. Chalmers Stud. Commun. Learn. High. Educ. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.17196/cls.csclhe/2023/01

Abdaljaleel, M., et al.: A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT. Sci. Rep. 14 , 1983 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8

Stahl, B.C., Eke, D.: The ethics of ChatGPT – exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 74 , 102700 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700

Wu, X., Duan, R., Ni, J.: Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT. J. Inf. Intell. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiixd.2023.10.007

Pollock, A., Berge, E.: How to do a systematic review. Int. J. Stroke 13 , 138–156 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017743796

Gimenez, P., Machado, M., Pinelli, C., Siqueira, S.: Investigating the learning perspective of searching as learning, a review of the state of the art. In: 31st Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education, pp. 302–311 (2020). doi: https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2020.302

Kuhlthau, C.: Guided inquiry: school libraries in the 21st century. Sch. Libr. Worldw. 16 , 1–12 (2001). https://doi.org/10.29173/slw6797

Flavell, J.: Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34 , 906–911 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Pressley, M.: Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In: Farstrup, A.E., Samuel, S.J. (eds.) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, pp. 291–309. International Reading Association, Newark (2002)

Hoyer, J.v., Pardi, G., Kammerer, Y., Holtz, P.: Metacognitive judgments in searching as learning (SAL) tasks: Insights on (mis-) calibration, multimedia usage, and confidence. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Search as Learning with Multimedia Information, pp. 3–10. Association for Computing Machinery, Nice (2019)

Marchionini, G.: Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49 , 41–46 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1121949.1121979

https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Niedbał, R., Sokołowski, A., Wrzalik, A.: Students’ use of the artificial intelligence language model in their learning process. Procedia Comput. Sci. 225 , 3059–3066 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.299

American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/06/chatgpt-learning-tool

Page, M.J., et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 10 , 89 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Fink, A.: Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2005)

Bach, T.A., Khan, A., Hallock, H., Beltrão, G., Sousa, S.: A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: an HCI perspective. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 40, 1–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2138826

Floridi, L., Chiriatti, M.: GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Mind. Mach. 30 , 681–694 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1

Bandara, W., Miskon, S., Fielt, E.: A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. In: ECIS 2011 Proceedings 19th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–13. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)/Association for Information Systems (2011). https://eprints.qut.edu.au/42184/

Jo, H.: Understanding AI tool engagement: a study of ChatGPT usage and word-of-mouth among university students and office workers. Telematics Inform. 85 , 102067 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102067

Jo, H., Park, D.H.: AI in the workplace: examining the effects of ChatGPT on information support and knowledge acquisition. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2278283

Murgia, E., Abbasiantaeb, Z., Aliannejadi, M., Huibers, T., Landoni, M., Pera, M.S.: ChatGPT in the classroom: a preliminary exploration on the feasibility of adapting ChatGPT to support children’s information discovery. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 22–27 (2023). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3563359.3597399

Pellas, N.: The effects of generative AI platforms on undergraduates’ narrative intelligence and writing self-efficacy. Educ. Sci. 13 , 1155 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111155

Yilmaz, R., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G.: The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 4 , 100147 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147

Yilmaz, R., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G.: Augmented intelligence in programming learning: examining student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. Artif. Hum. 1 , 100005 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005

Duong, C.D., Vu, T.N., Ngo, T.V.N.: Applying a modified technology acceptance model to explain higher education students’ usage of ChatGPT: a serial multiple mediation model with knowledge sharing as a moderator. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 21 , 100883 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100883

Rahman, M.S., Sabbir, M.M., Zhang, D.J., Moral, I.H., Hossain, G.M.S.: Examining students’ intention to use ChatGPT: does trust matter? Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 39 , 51–71 (2023). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8956

Songsiengchai, S., Sereerat, B.O., Watananimitgul, W.: Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI): Chat GPT for effective English language learning among Thai students. Kurdish Stud. 11 , 359–373 (2023). https://doi.org/10.58262/ks.v11i3.027

Wandelt, S., Sun, X., Zhang, A.: AI-driven assistants for education and research? a case study on ChatGPT for air transport management. J. Air Transp. Manag. 113 , 102483 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2023.102483

Al-Sharafi, M.A., Al-Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N.A., Arpaci, I.: Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31 , 7491–7510 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2075014

Arif, M., Qaisar, N., Kanwal, S.: Factors affecting students’ knowledge sharing over social media and individual creativity: an empirical investigation in Pakistan. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 20 , 100598 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100598

Bouton, E., Tal, S.B., Asterhan, C.S.C.: Students, social network technology and learning in higher education: visions of collaborative knowledge construction vs. the reality of knowledge sharing. Internet High. Educ. 49 , 100787 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100787

Proper, H.A., Bruza, P.D.: What is information discovery about? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50 , 737–750 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9%3c737::AID-ASI2%3e3.0.CO;2-C

Lee, C.T., Pan, L.-Y., Hsieh, S.H.: Artificial intelligent chatbots as brand promoters: a two-stage structural equation modeling - artificial neural network approach. Internet Res. 32 , 1329–1356 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2021-0030

Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., Neumann, M.M.: The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. J. Mark. 70 , 19–36 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKG.70.4.019

Randall, W.L.: Narrative intelligence and the novelty of our lives. J. Aging Stud. 13 , 11–28 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(99)80003-6

Rieh, S.Y., Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P., Lee, H.-J.: Towards searching as a learning process: a review of current perspectives and future directions. J. Inf. Sci. 42 , 19–34 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515615841

Tayan, O., Hassan, A., Khankan, K., Askool, S.: Considerations for adapting higher education technology courses for AI large language models: a critical review of the impact of ChatGPT. Mach. Learn. Appl. 15 , 100513 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100513

Slyer, J.T.: Unanswered questions: implications of an empty review. JBI Evid. Synth. 14 , 1–2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-002934

Yaffe, J., Montgomery, P., Hopewell, S., Shepard, L.D.: Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS ONE (2012). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036626

Abdel Aziz, M.H., Rowe, C., Southwood, R., Nogid, A., Berman, S., Gustafson, K.: A scoping review of artificial intelligence within pharmacy education. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 88 , 100615 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.100615

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore under its AI Singapore Programme (AISG Award No: AISG-GV-2023-013).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Kok Khiang Lim & Chei Sian Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kok Khiang Lim .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Constantine Stephanidis

Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Margherita Antona

Stavroula Ntoa

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Gavriel Salvendy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Lim, K.K., Lee, C.S. (2024). Enhancing Searching as Learning (SAL) with Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Literature Review. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S., Salvendy, G. (eds) HCI International 2024 Posters. HCII 2024. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 2117. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61953-3_17

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61953-3_17

Published : 01 June 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-61952-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-61953-3

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 24 May 2024

Vertebral hemangiomas: a review on diagnosis and management

• Kyle Kato 1 ,
• Nahom Teferi 2 ,
• Meron Challa 1 ,
• Kathryn Eschbacher 3 &
• Satoshi Yamaguchi 2  

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume  19 , Article number:  310 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

246 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Vertebral hemangiomas (VHs) are the most common benign tumors of the spinal column and are often encountered incidentally during routine spinal imaging.

A retrospective review of the inpatient and outpatient hospital records at our institution was performed for the diagnosis of VHs from January 2005 to September 2023. Search filters included “vertebral hemangioma,” "back pain,” “weakness,” “radiculopathy,” and “focal neurological deficits.” Radiographic evaluation of these patients included plain X-rays, CT, and MRI. Following confirmation of a diagnosis of VH, these images were used to generate the figures used in this manuscript. Moreover, an extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed for the literature review portion of the manuscript.

VHs are benign vascular proliferations that cause remodeling of bony trabeculae in the vertebral body of the spinal column. Horizontal trabeculae deteriorate leading to thickening of vertical trabeculae which causes a striated appearance on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), “Corduroy sign,” and a punctuated appearance on axial imaging, “Polka dot sign.” These findings are seen in “typical vertebral hemangiomas” due to a low vascular-to-fat ratio of the lesion. Contrarily, atypical vertebral hemangiomas may or may not demonstrate the “Corduroy” or “Polka-dot” signs due to lower amounts of fat and a higher vascular component. Atypical vertebral hemangiomas often mimic other neoplastic pathologies, making diagnosis challenging. Although most VHs are asymptomatic, aggressive vertebral hemangiomas can present with neurologic sequelae such as myelopathy and radiculopathy due to nerve root and/or spinal cord compression. Asymptomatic vertebral hemangiomas do not require therapy, and there are many treatment options for vertebral hemangiomas causing pain, radiculopathy, and/or myelopathy. Surgery (corpectomy, laminectomy), percutaneous techniques (vertebroplasty, sclerotherapy, embolization), and radiotherapy can be used in combination or isolation as appropriate. Specific treatment options depend on the lesion's size/location and the extent of neural element compression. There is no consensus on the optimal treatment plan for symptomatic vertebral hemangioma patients, although management algorithms have been proposed.

While typical vertebral hemangioma diagnosis is relatively straightforward, the differential diagnosis is broad for atypical and aggressive lesions. There is an ongoing debate as to the best approach for managing symptomatic cases, however, surgical resection is often considered first line treatment for patients with neurologic deficit.

Introduction

Vertebral hemangiomas (VHs) are benign vascular lesions formed from vascular proliferation in bone marrow spaces that are limited by bony trabeculae [ 1 ]. VHs are quite common and are often incidental findings on spinal computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients presenting with back or neck pain [ 2 , 3 ]. Previous, large autopsy series such as Schmorl (1926) and Junghanns (1932) found a VH prevalence of 11% in adult specimens [ 1 , 4 ]. However, the prevalence is believed to be higher as modern imaging techniques allow for better detection of small VHs that may not be easily diagnosed on autopsy specimens [ 5 ]. They can occur at any age but are most often seen in individuals in their 5th decade of life with a slight female preponderance [ 2 , 6 , 7 ]. Most VHs are found in the thoracic or lumbar spinal column and often involve the vertebral body, though they can extend to the pedicle, lamina, or spinous process, and may span multiple spinal segments [ 5 ].

The vast majority of VHs are asymptomatic, quiescent lesions [ 3 ]. Prior studies have stated less than 5% of VHs are symptomatic [ 8 , 9 ], although the 2023 study by Teferi et. al. demonstrated 35% of their 75 VH patients presented with symptoms including localized pain, numbness, and/or paresthesia [ 1 ]. 85% of symptomatic cases in this series were found to have VHs localized in the thoracic spine [ 1 ].

Among symptomatic VHs, up to 20–45% of cases may exhibit aggressive features including damage to surrounding bone and soft tissue or demonstrate rapid growth that extends beyond the vertebral body and invades the paravertebral and/or epidural space [ 1 , 5 , 10 , 11 ]. When “aggressive”, VHs may compress the spinal cord and nerve roots causing severe symptoms [ 1 , 5 ]. 45% of symptomatic VH patients present with neurologic deficits secondary to compressive lesions, bony expansion, disrupted blood flow, or vertebral body collapse while the remaining 55% present solely with back pain [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

VHs are primarily diagnosed with radiographs, CT, and MRI, although other studies such as angiography, nuclear medicine studies, and positron emission—computed tomography (PET-CT) have been previously utilized to a lesser extent [ 1 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Radiologically, these lesions can be grouped into Typical, Atypical, and Aggressive subtypes (see radiological features). Histologically, VHs are composed of varying proportions of adipocytes, blood vessels, and interstitial edema which leads to thickening of vertical trabeculae in the affected vertebra [ 5 ]. This histopathology leads to the characteristic “polka-dot” sign on axial CT/MRI and “corduroy” sign on coronal and sagittal CT/MRI [ 5 , 20 ].

In terms of management, conservative treatment with observation and pain control are the mainstay of treatment for asymptomatic VH patients and those with mild-to-moderate pain respectively [ 21 ]. Surgical decompression is indicated for patients with neurologic deficits including compressive myelopathy or radiculopathy [ 22 ]. Other symptomatic patients have a wide variety of treatment options available including sclerotherapy, embolization, radiotherapy, and/or vertebroplasty [ 1 , 5 , 23 ]. The best approach in managing an individual patient with a symptomatic VH has not been elucidated and there have been different management algorithms suggested based on varying institutional experiences [ 1 , 5 , 24 , 25 ].

This article will review what is currently known regarding VHs. Diagnostic techniques and challenges will be highlighted as well as current treatment recommendations from the literature.

A retrospective review of the inpatient and outpatient hospital records at our institution was performed for the diagnosis of VHs from January 2005 to September 2023. Search filters included “vertebral hemangioma” "back pain,” “weakness,” “radiculopathy,” and “focal neurological deficits.” Radiographic evaluation of these patients included plain X-rays, CT, and MRI. Following confirmation of a diagnosis of VH, these images were used to generate the figures used in this manuscript. Moreover, an extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed for the literature review portion of the manuscript.

68 Articles were selected from our PubMed search. This article will review what is currently known about VHs. Diagnostic techniques and challenges will be highlighted as well as current treatment recommendations from the literature.

Histopathological features

VHs are benign tumors composed of various sized blood vessels, adipocytes, smooth muscle, fibrous tissue, hemosiderin, interstitial edema, and remodeled bone [ 5 , 7 , 26 , 27 ]. Macroscopically, they appear as soft, well-demarcated, dark red masses with intralesional, sclerotic boney trabeculae and scattered blood-filled cavities lending to a honeycomb appearance [ 5 , 6 , 7 ].

Microscopically, there are four subtypes of hemangiomas based on vascular composition: capillary, cavernous, arteriovenous (AV), and venous hemangiomas [ 28 ] (Fig.  1 ). Capillary hemangiomas are composed of small, capillary-sized blood vessels while cavernous hemangiomas present with collections of larger, dilated blood vessels [ 1 ]. AV hemangiomas are composed of interconnected arterial and venous networks while an abnormal collection of veins comprises venous hemangiomas [ 1 ]. VHs are predominately capillary and cavernous subtypes with thin-walled blood vessels surrounded by edematous stroma and boney trabeculae that permeate the bone marrow space [ 1 , 7 , 27 ]. In a sample of 64 surgically treated VHs cases, Pastushyn et al. reported 50% were capillary subtype, 28% were cavernous subtype, and 22% were mixed [ 29 ]. Occasionally, secondary reactive phenomena such as fibrous and/or adipose involution of bone marrow and remodeling of bone trabeculae may be seen [ 7 , 26 ]. Symptomatic VHs can be caused by all hemangioma subtypes, and there are no distinguishing features between subtypes on imaging [ 1 ]. However, cavernous and capillary subtypes are associated with favorable postsurgical outcomes [ 29 ].

Capillary hemangioma ( A and B ): A H&E 200× magnification showing proliferation of small caliber vessels within a fibrous stroma with surrounding bone, B CD34 immunohistochemical stain, 200× magnification highlighting small caliber vascular spaces. Cavernous hemangioma ( C and D ): C H&E 100× magnification showing proliferation of thin-walled, dilated, blood filled vascular channels, D H&E 200× magnification: Thin-walled, dilated vascular channels within a loose stroma with adjacent mature bone. Venous hemangioma ( E and F ): E H&E 100 ×  magnification showing abnormal proliferation of thick-walled vessels with dilated lumens. F H&E 100× magnification reveals tightly packed, thick-walled vessels with adjacent fragments of mature bone

Radiographic features

The histopathology of VHs gives rise to imaging features used to classify VHs as typical, atypical, or aggressive [ 13 ]. Typical and atypical MRI findings are correlated with the intralesional ratio of fat to vascular components [ 20 ]. Lesions with a high fat content are more likely to demonstrate features of typical VHs while those with a high vascular content (atypical VHs) tend to present without these findings [ 5 , 30 , 31 ]. Aggressive VHs have features including destruction of the cortex, invasion of the epidural and paravertebral spaces, and lesions extending beyond the vertebral body [ 13 , 15 , 20 ].

Laredo et al. demonstrated that VHs with a higher fatty content are generally quiescent lesions, while those with a higher vascular content are more likely to display “active” behavior and potentially evolve into compressive lesions [ 20 ]. Therefore, asymptomatic VHs can display both typical or atypical imaging findings while symptomatic lesions are more likely to present with atypical or aggressive findings [ 1 ]. Despite radiographically typical VHs being relatively easy to diagnose, atypical and aggressive VHs are much more challenging to recognize as they do not present with classic imaging findings and often mimic other pathologies such as multiple myeloma, metastatic bone lesions, and inflammatory conditions [ 5 , 30 , 31 ]. Compressive VHs often have coinciding radiologic and clinical classifications due to the correlation between aggressive behavior and compressive symptoms [ 5 ].

While MRI, CT, and radiographs are the primary imaging modalities used in the workup of VHs, other studies have also been used. Angiography will occasionally be performed to identify feeding/draining vessels and evaluate the blood supply to the spinal cord [ 5 ]. Multiphase technetium 99-methyl diphosphonate ( 99 Tc-MDP) bone scintigraphy may show increased tracer uptake in all phases (perfusion, blood pool, and delayed) due to technetium 99-labeled red blood cell accumulation in the tumors, which occurs in all hemangiomas [ 16 ]. PET-CT has been used to classify VHs as “hot” or “cold” lesions based on the degree of 18-FDG and 68-Ga DOTATATE uptake [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Although angiography is useful in clarifying the vascular network of aggressive VHs primarily, nuclear medicine studies offer a much more limited contribution to diagnosis when compared to CT and MRI [ 5 ].

Typical VHs

The collection of thin-walled, blood-filled spaces that comprise VHs cause resorption of horizontal trabeculae and reinforcement of vertical trabeculae, leading to a pattern of thickened vertical trabeculae interspersed with lower density bone of the nonexpanding vertebral body [ 15 , 31 , 32 ]. This composition is responsible for the “corduroy cloth” appearance seen in typical VHs on radiographic images [ 31 ].

On unenhanced axial CT images, typical VHs are characterized by a “polka dot” appearance, termed polka-dot sign. This is caused by small, punctate areas of high attenuation from hyperdense trabeculae surrounded by hypodense stroma [ 20 , 33 ] (Fig.  2 ). Like radiographs, sagittal and coronal CT images display the “corduroy” sign caused by thickened trabeculae in a field of hypodense bone (Fig.  2 ). There is no extraosseous extension of the hemangioma in typical VHs [ 5 ].

Sagittal ( A ) and axial ( B ) CT scans of a typical VH in an asymptomatic 50-year-old male demonstrating the “Corduroy” and “Polka-dot” signs respectively. Sagittal ( C ) and axial ( D ) T1-weighted MRIs of typical VHs are predominately hyperintense with areas of hypo-intensity due to thickening of vertical trabeculae. Sagittal ( E ) and axial ( F ) T2-weighted MRIs of typical VHs also appear as hyperintense lesions with areas of hypo-intensity that may demonstrate the “Corduroy” and “Polka-dot” signs as seen in CT images of typical VHs

Typical VHs tend to appear as hyperintense lesions on T1- and T2-weighted MRI sequences due to predominately fatty overgrowth with penetrating blood vessels [ 31 ] (Fig.  2 ). There are punctate areas of slight hypointensity within the lesion on axial T1-weighted MRI due to thickened vertical trabeculae which resembles the “polka-dot" sign [ 5 ] (Fig.  2 ). These trabeculae appear as linear striations on sagittal/coronal T1- and T2-weighted MRI [ 5 ] (Fig.  2 ). Fluid-sensitive sequences (i.e. short-tau inversion recovery or fat-saturated T2-weighted MRI) appear slightly hyperintense due to the vascular components of the lesion, and T1-weighted MRI with contrast demonstrates heterogenous enhancement of the lesion [ 3 ] (Fig.  3 ).

Contrast-enhanced T1 MRIs of a T8 VH in an asymptomatic fourteen-year-old female ( A ) and L3, L5 VHs in a thirty-one-year-old female with back pain ( B ), illustrating the heterogenous presentation of hemangiomas on post-contrast MRI

Atypical VHs

In contrast to typical VHs, atypical VHs tend to have a higher vascular component-to-fat ratio and may not demonstrate the classical imaging findings such as the “corduroy” and “polka-dot” signs [ 5 ]. This composition gives the lesion an iso- to hypointense appearance on T1-weighted MRI as well as a very high intensity appearance on T2-weighted and fluid-sensitive MRI [ 20 , 31 ] (Fig.  4 ). Atypical VHs often mimic primary bony malignancies or metastases and are more likely to demonstrate aggressive features, often making them difficult to diagnose [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Asymptomatic fifty-six-year-old male with a T9 atypical vertebral hemangioma that appears iso- to hypointense on axial T1 MRI ( A ) and hyperintense on axial T2 MRI ( B ). Atypical vertebral hemangiomas of the L3 and L5 vertebral bodies in a thirty-one-year-old female who presented with backpain. Sagittal T1 ( C ) and T2 ( D ) demonstrate hypo- and hyperintense lesions respectively

Aggressive VHs

Aggressive VHs routinely have atypical features on any imaging modality [ 1 , 5 ]. They may appear radiographically normal or show nonspecific findings such as osteoporosis, pedicle erosion, cortex expansion, vertebral collapse, or irregular vertical trabeculae associated with lytic areas of varying size [ 13 , 15 ] (Fig.  5 ).

Fifty-five-year-old female with an aggressive vertebral hemangioma of the L4 vertebral body with extension into the spinal canal. A Sagittal T1 MRI shows hypo-intensity of the entire vertebral body, although vertebral height is maintained. B Sagittal T2 MRI redemonstrates the lesion but appears hyperintense due to the vascularity of the hemangioma. Axial T1 ( C ) and T2 ( D ) MRI show involvement of the pedicles bilaterally and extension of the lesion into the anterior epidural space

CT findings are often nonspecific, including features such as extraosseous soft tissue expansion, cortical ballooning, or cortical lysis [ 34 , 35 ]. As with atypical VHs, the “corduroy” and “polka-dot” signs may not be readily visualized in aggressive or destructive lesions due to the higher vascular-to-fat ratio common in these hemangiomas [ 5 ]. However, it is important to be mindful of these signs because they can guide to the correct diagnosis. Other CT features that may assist in the diagnosis of inconspicuous VHs include extension of the lesion into the neural arch, involvement of the entire vertebral body, or an irregular honeycomb pattern due to serpentine vascular channels and fatty proliferation within the network of reorganizing bony trabeculae [ 20 ]. Vertebral fractures are rare due to the reinforcement of vertical trabeculae [ 1 ].

The composition of aggressive VHs, with a hypervascular stroma and less fat, results in a hypointense lesion on T1-weighted MRI [ 20 , 31 ] (Fig.  5 ). Again, this may conceal the “corduroy” and “polka-dot” signs which remain amongst the most useful imaging findings in the diagnosis of VHs, particularly in cases where other findings are nonspecific [ 5 ]. These non-specific findings may include hyperintensity on T2-weighted MRI due to the vascular components of the lesion (Fig.  5 ), which is also seen in most neoplastic and inflammatory lesions [ 31 ]. Areas of hyperintensity on fluid-sensitive MRI and the presence of lipid-dense content within the lesion may be seen as well [ 31 , 36 ]. Other features suggestive of an aggressive VH include a maintained vertebral body height, a sharp margin with normal marrow, an intact cortex adjacent to a paraspinal mass, or enlarged paraspinal vessels, however these findings are also nonspecific and relatively uncommon [ 5 , 13 ]. Although highly unusual, there have been cases of aggressive VHs with extensive intraosseous fatty stroma and simultaneous extraosseous extension of the lesion, permitting a straightforward diagnosis [ 36 ].

Even though some aggressive VHs may be diagnosed on CT and MRI, challenging cases may warrant the use of more advanced imaging techniques for accurate diagnosis. Higher fluid content relative to cellular soft tissue gives hemangiomas a bright appearance on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with elevated apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, distinguishing them from metastases [ 37 ]. Volume transfer constant (K trans ) and plasma volume, which reflect capillary permeability and vessel density respectively, are quantitative measures derived from dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE MRI) perfusion imaging that can also be used to differentiate VHs and metastases [ 38 ]. K trans and plasma volume are both low in VHs and elevated in metastatic lesions [ 38 ]. Furthermore, aggressive VHs may show a signal drop when comparing non-contrast T1-weighted MRI with and without fat suppression, as well as microscopic lipid content on chemical shift imaging [ 39 ]. Finally, characteristic findings of aggressive VHs in angiography include vertebral body arteriole dilation, multiple capillary phase blood pools, and complete vertebral body opacification [ 15 ].

Laredo et al. [ 15 ] proposed a six-point scoring system to assist in the diagnosis of aggressive VHs based on the more common features observed in radiographs and CT. One point was given for each of the following findings: a soft tissue mass, thoracic location between T3–T9, involvement of the entire vertebral body, an irregular honeycomb appearance, cortical expansion, and extension into the neural arch [ 15 ]. The authors suggest that aggressive VHs should be suspected when a patient presents with nerve root pain in association with three or more of these features [ 15 ]. However, additional studies are needed to determine the utility of this scoring system as the predictive power has not been determined [ 5 ].

Some VHs are difficult to diagnose because they can have nonspecific findings on radiographs, CT, and MRI, making characteristic findings such as the “corduroy” and “polka-dot” signs, when present, important diagnostic features. VHs may also coexist with other vertebral lesions, further complicating the diagnosis. In these cases, angiography can differentiate a VH from a nonvascular lesion [ 40 ]. Ultimately, a biopsy may be required for accurate diagnosis, especially when there is potential for a malignant lesion such as angiosarcoma or epithelioid hemangioendothelioma.

Clinical features

VHs are often noted incidentally on spinal imaging and are often observed in patients in their fifth to sixth decade of life. Studies have shown that vertebral hemangiomas exhibit a slight female preponderance, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.5. [ 6 ]. Clinically, most VHs are asymptomatic and quiescent lesions, which rarely demonstrate active behavior and become symptomatic [ 41 ]. VHs occur most frequently in the thoracic spine [ 42 ], followed by the lumbar spine and cervical spine; sacral involvement is very rare [ 43 ].

When symptomatic, VHs can present with localized back pain or result in neurologic symptoms that are attributable to spinal cord compression, nerve root compression, or both, leading to myelopathy and/or radiculopathy [ 1 ]. At least 4 mechanisms of spinal cord and nerve root compression have been suggested: (1) hypertrophy or ballooning of the posterior cortex of the vertebral body caused by the angioma, (2) extension of the angioma through the cortex into the epidural space, (3) compression fracture of the involved vertebra, and (4) epidural hematoma [ 44 ]. When aggressive and symptomatic with spinal cord compression, VHs tend to occur in the thoracic spine [ 42 ].

Boriani et al. classified VHs into 4 groups based on the presence of symptoms and radiographic findings [ 45 ]. These include: Type I—latent, mild bony destruction with no symptoms; Type II—active, bony destruction with pain; Type III—aggressive, asymptomatic lesion with epidural and/or soft-tissue extension; and Type IV—aggressive, neurologic deficit with epidural and/or soft tissue extension.

Management options

Most VHs are asymptomatic and do not require treatment [ 1 , 21 ]. Treatment is indicated in cases with back pain or neurological symptoms, including myelopathy and/or radiculopathy, often caused by neuronal compression or vertebral fracture [ 1 ]. Previously, surgery was the primary treatment option offered to these patients, which was associated with an increased risk of complications, particularly intraoperative bleeding [ 1 ]. New modalities such as vertebroplasty have since gained traction as adjuncts or alternatives to surgery [ 1 ]. Today, there are several management options available for the treatment of symptomatic VHs, including conservative medical therapy, surgery, percutaneous techniques, radiotherapy, or a combination of these modalities [ 1 , 46 ].

There is no consensus on the best treatment strategy, however recently Teferi et. al. proposed a treatment algorithm for VHs based on their institutional experience and literature review (Fig.  6 ) [ 1 ]. They recommend conservative management for typical, asymptomatic VHs, CT-guided biopsy and metastatic workup with PET-CT for radiographically atypical VHs, surgical intervention with or without adjuvant therapy in cases with epidural spinal cord compression or vertebral compression fracture, and radiotherapy for recurrent, asymptomatic VHs following surgery.

Algorithm for diagnosis and management of VHs proposed by Teferi et al. [ 1 ]

Surgical treatment of VHs is recommended in cases with rapid or progressive neurologic symptoms including compressive myelopathy or radiculopathy [ 47 ]. Baily et al. documented the first case of surgical management for VHs after they successfully resolved a patient’s paraplegia secondary to an aggressive VH [ 48 ]. Prior to the 1960s, the average neurological recovery rate was 73% (range, 43–85%) with a mortality rate of 11.7% [ 49 ]. This is consistent with a series published by Ghormley et al. in 1941 where 5 symptomatic VH patients were treated with decompressive laminectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. Although three patients achieved partial or complete resolution of neurologic deficits, the procedure resulted in the death of the remaining two patients secondary to significant blood loss [ 50 ]. There were very few cases of symptomatic VHs documented prior to the 1960s, with one literature review reporting only 64 instances of VHs with neurologic dysfunction [ 49 ]. More recent studies demonstrate improvement in surgical outcomes with neurological recovery reaching 100% and mortality as low as 0% [ 42 ].

The goal of surgery is to decompress neural elements and stabilize the spine [ 1 ]. Potential options include corpectomy, involving resection of a portion of the vertebral body containing the hemangioma, followed by anterior column reconstruction and/or laminectomy, which offers indirect decompression [ 1 ]. The selected approach depends on the size of the hemangioma and the extent of vertebral body and/or neural arch involvement due to potential weaknesses in the anterior column and the location of the epidural intrusion into the spinal canal [ 1 ]. For example, corpectomy and reconstruction could be performed in cases with ventral spinal cord compression while cases with dorsal compression could be treated with laminectomy [ 1 ].

Corpectomy has an increased risk of substantial intraoperative blood loss, up to 5 L in some cases, due to the hypervascular nature of VHs [ 1 , 51 ]. Acosta et al. reported an average blood loss of 2.1 L in their series of 10 aggressive VHs treated with corpectomy [ 51 ]. Conversely, laminectomy has a lower surgical burden and reduced risk of significant intraoperative blood loss [ 1 ]. Laminectomy blood loss can be further reduced by nearly 50% by performing vertebroplasty before laminectomy [ 8 ]. Preoperative embolization of VHs should also be considered to minimize intraoperative blood loss and reduce mortality [ 1 , 22 ].

Goldstein et al. demonstrated that en bloc resection may not be necessary, as intralesional resection produced equivalent long-term survival and prevention of recurrence in their series of 65 patients [ 47 ]. However, there have not been any large-scale studies comparing outcomes and recurrence rates of indirect decompression versus corpectomy [ 1 ].

The treatment algorithm proposed by Teferi et al. suggests dividing symptomatic VH patients with radiculopathy or neurological deficit into cohorts of epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) versus vertebral body compression fracture to determine appropriate surgical intervention (Fig.  6 ) [ 1 ]. Patients with ESCC are encouraged to undergo preoperative embolization followed by laminectomy with or without fusion depending on spinal stability, or preoperative embolization followed by corpectomy and fusion if ESCC is accompanied by extensive anterior column compromise [ 1 ]. Conversely, the recommended treatment for symptomatic VHs secondary to vertebral body compression fracture is posterior laminectomy with decompression and fusion [ 1 ].

Whether through corpectomy or laminectomy, surgical management of VHs has a low recurrence rate [ 1 ]. Piper et al. reported complete remission in 84% of VHs treated surgically in their 2020 meta-analysis [ 52 ]. They also reported a severe complication rate, including pathological fracture, significant intraoperative blood loss, wound infection, and cerebrospinal fluid leak, of 3.5% [ 1 , 52 ].

Percutaneous techniques

Percutaneous techniques include vertebroplasty, sclerotherapy, and embolization which have been rising in popularity as treatment options for VHs in isolation or in combination with surgery [ 1 ].

Vertebroplasty is a minimally invasive procedure that improves the structural integrity of a vertebra by injecting an acrylic compound, such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), into a lesion [ 1 ]. It was first utilized in the treatment of VHs by Galibert et al. in 1987 [ 53 ]. PMMA causes thrombosis and irreversible sclerosis of the hemangiomatous venous pool, shrinking the lesion and consolidating trabecular microfractures [ 1 ]. It allows for rapid recovery of mobility, enhances anterior column support, and provides vertebral stabilization, but does not induce new bone formation due to poor biological activity and absorbability [ 54 , 55 ]. Vertebroplasty is particularly effective in alleviating back pain in VH patients with intravertebral fractures by providing an immediate analgesic effect and has previously been recommended as stand-alone first line therapy for VHs with moderate to severe back pain without neurologic compromise [ 1 , 54 ]. It can also be used in combination with surgery to reduce intraoperative blood loss when given as a preoperative adjunct therapy [ 8 ]. The most common complication of vertebroplasty is extravasation of injected compound outside the vertebral body with rates of 20–35% [ 55 , 56 ]. However, some researchers suggest small amounts of extravasation should be considered a stopping point rather than a complication as the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic [ 55 , 56 ]. In a series of 673 vertebroplasty cases, Layton et al. reported extravasation in 25% of patients with only 1% developing clinical symptoms of new onset radiculopathy (5 patients) or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (1 patient) [ 56 ]. Their second most common complication was rib fracture related to lying prone on the fluoroscopy table during the procedure which occurred in 1% of cases (7 patients) [ 56 ].

Alternatively, sclerotherapy involves direct intralesional injection of ethanol under percutaneous CT-guidance which causes thrombosis and destruction of endothelium, resulting in devascularization, shrinkage of the lesion, and, consequently, decompression of the neural elements [ 46 ]. It was first described as a treatment for VHs in 1994 by Heiss et al. and is less common in the treatment of VHs [ 57 ]. CT angiography is a prerequisite to target the most hypervascular subsection of the lesion and ensure patients are candidates for the procedure without leakage of contrast media, which occurred in 25% of patients in a series of 18 cases [ 58 ]. There are reports of intraoperative sclerotherapy as an adjunct to surgery, but the sample sizes are similarly limited [ 59 , 60 ]. Complications of direct ethanol injection include neurologic deterioration (including Brown- Sequard syndrome), pathologic fractures, and VH recurrence [ 46 , 61 ].

The last option for percutaneous intervention is trans-arterial embolization of feeding vessels using particulate agents [ 1 ]. It has been used as a preoperative adjunct therapy with surgery to reduce blood loss as well as a primary treatment for VHs alone or in conjunction with vertebroplasty [ 41 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. In a series of 26 patients, Premat et al. demonstrated embolization combined with vertebroplasty was safe and effective in treating pain associated with aggressive VHs but was less effective in resolving motor deficits [ 65 ]. The primary role for embolization in the treatment of compressive VHs is preoperative adjunct therapy to reduce the risk of procedural bleeding [ 62 ].

• Radiotherapy

Radiotherapy (XRT) is a noninvasive approach that can obliterate hemangiomas and relieve pain through vascular necrosis and/or anti-inflammatory effects [ 1 ]. It is a suitable option for VH patients with back pain and no neurologic deficits, or as postoperative adjunct therapy after suboptimal surgical decompression. Patients with neural element compromise often require prompt decompression to prevent irreversible injury that is more appropriately managed with surgery rather than the delayed response offered by XRT [ 1 , 21 , 66 ]. Neurological deficits may, in fact, be aggravated by XRT, as demonstrated in 20% of patients with aggressive VHs from a series of 29 cases by Jiang et al. [ 8 ]. Multiple studies have proclaimed a 60–80% success rate in eliminating symptoms from VHs using XRT, which increases to over 90% when including partial symptom relief [ 8 , 67 , 68 ]. This does include neurological deficits in some cases, but the response of these symptoms to XRT continues to vary [ 52 ]. A radiation dose of at least 34 Gy was recommended by Heyd et al. after their multicenter study identified significantly greater symptom relief and recurrence control compared to lower doses [ 67 ].

XRT is gaining popularity as a postoperative adjunct therapy intended to reduce local recurrence, especially in subtotal resections [ 8 , 52 , 67 ]. There is a 50% recurrence rate in partial resections without adjunct XRT [ 8 , 11 ]. The extent to which XRT can reduce recurrence has not been fully elucidated and has been suggested for future study [ 52 ]. However, these potential benefits must be weighed against the known adverse effects including nausea, fatigue, anorexia, ileus, radionecrosis, and specifically in spinal XRT, radiation myelitis [ 1 , 8 , 52 ].

VHs are often asymptomatic, incidental findings on routine spinal imaging that do not require treatment or follow-up imaging unless they become symptomatic. Most can be diagnosed with characteristic CT and MRI findings while atypical lesions may be difficult to differentiate from alternative diagnoses. Some authors suggest the utilization of emerging imaging techniques such as DWI or DCE MRI to differentiate atypical lesions from malignancies, which is a promising solution that requires further research. Other authors suggest observation with regular follow-up may be the best course of management for asymptomatic, atypical lesions while others still recommend biopsy for definitive diagnosis of atypical lesions. Regardless, there is a consensus that symptomatic lesions should be treated. Most authors recommend surgical decompression for treatment in patients with neurological deficits, but there is ongoing debate as to the optimal treatment for back pain alone. There are several treatment options which should be considered case-by-case given the properties of various lesions. Management algorithms have been suggested but additional research is required to identify the optimal treatment for the many different classifications of VHs.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

• Vertebral hemangioma

Computed tomography

Magnetic resonance imaging

Arteriovenous

Positron emission-computed tomography

Technetium 99-methyl diphosphonate

Diffusion weighted imaging

Apparent diffusion coefficient

Volume transfer constant

Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Epidural spinal cord compression

Polymethyl methacrylate

Teferi N, Chowdhury AJ, Mehdi Z, Challa M, Eschbacher K, Bathla G, Hitchon P. Surgical management of symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: a single institution experience and literature review. Spine J. 2023;23(9):1243–54.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rodallec MH, Feydy A, Larousserie F, Anract P, Campagna R, Babinet A, Zins M, Drapé JL. Diagnostic imaging of solitary tumors of the spine: what to do and say. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):1019–41.

Baudrez V, Galant C, Vande Berg BC. Benign vertebral hemangioma: MR-histological correlation. Skelet Radiol. 2001;30:442–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Huvos AG. Hemangioma, lymphangioma, angiomatosis/lymphangiomatosis, glomus tumor. Bone tumors: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders. 1991;553–78.

Gaudino S, Martucci M, Colantonio R, Lozupone E, Visconti E, Leone A, Colosimo C. A systematic approach to vertebral hemangioma. Skelet Radiol. 2015;44:25–36.

Article   Google Scholar  

Campanacci M. Hemangioma. In: Campanacci M, editors. Bone and soft tissue tumors: clinical features, imaging, pathology and treatment. Padova: Piccin Nuova Libraria & Wien: Springer; 1999. p. 599–618.

Hameed M, Wold LE. Hemangioma. In: Fletcher CDM, Bridge JA, Hogendoorn P, Mertens F, editors. WHO classification of tumors of soft tissue and bone. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2013. p. 332.

Google Scholar  

Jiang L, Liu XG, Yuan HS, Yang SM, Li J, Wei F, Liu C, Dang L, Liu ZJ. Diagnosis and treatment of vertebral hemangiomas with neurologic deficit: a report of 29 cases and literature review. Spine J. 2014;14(6):944–54.

Unni KK, Inwards CY. Dahlin's bone tumors: general aspects and data on 10,165 cases. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

Corniola MV, Schonauer C, Bernava G, Machi P, Yilmaz H, Lemée JM, Tessitore E. Thoracic aggressive vertebral hemangiomas: multidisciplinary management in a hybrid room. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:3179–86.

Fox MW, Onofrio BM. The natural history and management of symptomatic and asymptomatic vertebral hemangiomas. J Neurosurg. 1993;78(1):36–45.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Murphey MD, Fairbairn KJ, Parman LM, Baxter KG, Parsa MB, Smith WS. From the archives of the AFIP. Musculoskeletal angiomatous lesions: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1995;15(4):893–917.

Cross JJ, Antoun NM, Laing RJ, Xuereb J. Imaging of compressive vertebral haemangiomas. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:997–1002.

Alexander J, Meir A, Vrodos N, Yau YH. Vertebral hemangioma: an important differential in the evaluation of locally aggressive spinal lesions. Spine. 2010;35(18):E917–20.

Laredo JD, Reizine D, Bard M, Merland JJ. Vertebral hemangiomas: radiologic evaluation. Radiology. 1986;161(1):183–9.

Elgazzar AH. Musculoskeletal system. In: Synopsis of pathophysiology in nuclear medicine. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 90–2.

Choi YY, Kim JY, Yang SO. PET/CT in benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors and tumor-like conditions. In: Editors. Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology. Thieme Medical Publishers; 2014. pp. 133–48

Brogsitter C, Hofmockel T, Kotzerke J. 68Ga DOTATATE uptake in vertebral hemangioma. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(5):462–3.

Basu S, Nair N. “Cold” vertebrae on F-18 FDG PET: causes and characteristics. Clin Nucl Med. 2006;31(8):445–50.

Laredo JD, Assouline E, Gelbert F, Wybier M, Merland JJ, Tubiana JM. Vertebral hemangiomas: fat content as a sign of aggressiveness. Radiology. 1990;177(2):467–72.

Dang L, Liu C, Yang SM, Jiang L, Liu ZJ, Liu XG, Yuan HS, Wei F, Yu M. Aggressive vertebral hemangioma of the thoracic spine without typical radiological appearance. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1994–9.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kato S, Kawahara N, Murakami H, Demura S, Yoshioka K, Okayama T, Fujita T, Tomita K. Surgical management of aggressive vertebral hemangiomas causing spinal cord compression: long-term clinical follow-up of five cases. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15:350–6.

Klekamp J, Samii M. Epidermal Tumors. In: Surgery of spinal tumors. Springer; 2007. p. 321–522.

Blecher R, Smorgick Y, Anekstein Y, Peer A, Mirovsky Y. Management of symptomatic vertebral hemangioma: follow-up of 6 patients. Clin Spine Surg. 2011;24(3):196–201.

Subramaniam MH, Moirangthem V, Venkatesan M. Management of aggressive vertebral haemangioma and assessment of differentiating pointers between aggressive vertebral haemangioma and metastases—a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2023;13(4):1120–33.

Hart JL, Edgar MA, Gardner JM. Vascular tumors of bone. In: Seminars in diagnostic pathology. WB Saunders; 2014. p. 30–8.

Dorfman HD, Czerniak B. Vascular lesions. In: Dorfman HD, Czerniak B, editors. Bone tumors. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 729–814.

Rudnick J, Stern M. Symptomatic thoracic vertebral hemangioma: a case report and literature review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(9):1544–7.

Pastushyn AI, Slin’ko EI, Mirzoyeva GM. Vertebral hemangiomas: diagnosis, management, natural history and clinicopathological correlates in 86 patients. Surg Neurol. 1998;50(6):535–47.

Blankstein A, Spiegelmann R, Shacked I, Schinder E, Chechick A. Hemangioma of the thoracic spine involving multiple adjacent levels: case report. Spinal Cord. 1988;26(3):186–91.

Hanrahan CJ, Christensen CR, Crim JR. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT. Radiographics. 2010;30(1):127–42.

Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Modic MT, Carter JR, Mapstone T, Dengel FH. Vertebral hemangiomas: MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;165(1):165–9.

Persaud T. The polka-dot sign. Radiology. 2008;246(3):980–1.

Nguyen JP, Djindjian M, Gaston A, Gherardi R, Benhaiem N, Caron JP, Poirier J. Vertebral hemangiomas presenting with neurologic symptoms. Surg Neurol. 1987;27(4):391–7.

Gaston A, Nguyen JP, Djindjian M, Le Bras F, Gherardi R, Benhaiem N, Marsault C. Vertebral haemangioma: CT and arteriographic features in three cases. J Neuroradiol. 1985;12(1):21–33.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Friedman DP. Symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: MR findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(2):359–64.

Winfield JM, Poillucci G, Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Shah V, Tunariu N, Kaiser MF, Messiou C. Apparent diffusion coefficient of vertebral haemangiomas allows differentiation from malignant focal deposits in whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:1687–91.

Morales KA, Arevalo-Perez J, Peck KK, Holodny AI, Lis E, Karimi S. Differentiating atypical hemangiomas and metastatic vertebral lesions: the role of T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(5):968–73.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shi YJ, Li XT, Zhang XY, Liu YL, Tang L, Sun YS. Differential diagnosis of hemangiomas from spinal osteolytic metastases using 3.0 T MRI: comparison of T1-weighted imaging, chemical-shift imaging, diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Oncotarget. 2017;8(41):71095–104.

McEvoy SH, Farrell M, Brett F, Looby S. Haemangioma, an uncommon cause of an extradural or intradural extramedullary mass: case series with radiological pathological correlation. Insights Imaging. 2016;7(1):87–98.

Teferi N, Abukhiran I, Noeller J, Helland LC, Bathla G, Ryan EC, Nourski KV, Hitchon PW. Vertebral hemangiomas: diagnosis and management. A single center experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;190:105745.

Acosta FL Jr, Sanai N, Chi JH, Dowd CF, Chin C, Tihan T, Chou D, Weinstein PR, Ames CP. Comprehensive management of symptomatic and aggressive vertebral hemangiomas. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2008;19(1):17–29.

Wang B, Zhang L, Yang S, Han S, Jiang L, Wei F, Yuan H, Liu X, Liu Z. Atypical radiographic features of aggressive vertebral hemangiomas. JBJS. 2019;101(11):979–86.

Jayakumar PN, Vasudev MK, Srikanth SG. Symptomatic vertebral haemangioma: endovascular treatment of 12 patients. Spinal cord. 1997;35(9):624–8.

Boriani S, Weinstein JN, Biagini R. Primary bone tumors of the spine: terminology and surgical staging. Spine. 1997;22(9):1036–44.

Doppman JL, Oldfield EH, Heiss JD. Symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: treatment by means of direct intralesional injection of ethanol. Radiology. 2000;214(2):341–8.

Goldstein CL, Varga PP, Gokaslan ZL, Boriani S, Luzzati A, Rhines L, Fisher CG, Chou D, Williams RP, Dekutoski MB, Quraishi NA. Spinal hemangiomas: results of surgical management for local recurrence and mortality in a multicenter study. Spine. 2015;40(9):656–64.

Bailey P, Bucy PC. Cavernous hemangioma of the vertebrae. J Am Med Assoc. 1929;92(21):1748–51.

Krueger EG, Sobel GL, Weinstein C. Vertebral hemangioma with compression of spinal cord. J Neurosurg. 1961;18(3):331–8.

Ghormley RK, Adson AW. Hemangioma of vertebrae. JBJS. 1941;23(4):887–95.

Acosta FL Jr, Sanai N, Cloyd J, Deviren V, Chou D, Ames CP. Treatment of Enneking stage 3 aggressive vertebral hemangiomas with intralesional spondylectomy: report of 10 cases and review of the literature. Clin Spine Surg. 2011;24(4):268–75.

Piper K, Zou L, Li D, Underberg D, Towner J, Chowdhry AK, Li YM. Surgical management and adjuvant therapy for patients with neurological deficits from vertebral hemangiomas: a meta-analysis. Spine. 2020;45(2):E99-110.

Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie. 1987;33(2):166–8.

Guarnieri G, Ambrosanio G, Vassallo P, Pezzullo MG, Galasso R, Lavanga A, Izzo R, Muto M. Vertebroplasty as treatment of aggressive and symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: up to 4 years of follow-up. Neuroradiology. 2009;51:471–6.

Kim BS, Hum B, Park JC, Choi IS. Retrospective review of procedural parameters and outcomes of percutaneous vertebroplasty in 673 patients. Interv Neuroradiol. 2014;20(5):564–75.

Layton KF, Thielen KR, Koch CA, Luetmer PH, Lane JI, Wald JT, Kallmes DF. Vertebroplasty, first 1000 levels of a single center: evaluation of the outcomes and complications. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(4):683–9.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Heiss JD, Doppman JL, Oldfield EH. Relief of spinal cord compression from vertebral hemangioma by intralesional injection of absolute ethanol. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(8):508–11.

Bas T, Aparisi F, Bas JL. Efficacy and safety of ethanol injections in 18 cases of vertebral hemangioma: a mean follow-up of 2 years. Spine. 2001;26(14):1577–81.

Murugan L, Samson RS, Chandy MJ. Management of symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: review of 13 patients. Neurol India. 2002;50(3):300.

Singh P, Mishra NK, Dash HH, Thyalling RK, Sharma BS, Sarkar C, Chandra PS. Treatment of vertebral hemangiomas with absolute alcohol (ethanol) embolization, cord decompression, and single level instrumentation: a pilot study. Neurosurgery. 2011;68(1):78–84.

Niemeyer T, McClellan J, Webb J, Jaspan T, Ramli N. Brown-Sequard syndrome after management of vertebral hemangioma with intralesional alcohol: a case report. Spine. 1999;24(17):1845.

Singh PK, Chandra PS, Vaghani G, Savarkar DP, Garg K, Kumar R, Kale SS, Sharma BS. Management of pediatric single-level vertebral hemangiomas presenting with myelopathy by three-pronged approach (ethanol embolization, laminectomy, and instrumentation): a single-institute experience. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32:307–14.

Yao KC, Malek AM. Transpedicular N-butyl cyanoacrylate-mediated percutaneous embolization of symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(5):450–5.

Kawahara N, Tomita K, Murakami H, Demura S, Yoshioka K, Kato S. Total en bloc spondylectomy of the lower lumbar spine: a surgical techniques of combined posterior-anterior approach. Spine. 2011;36(1):74–82.

Premat K, Clarençon F, Cormier É, Mahtout J, Bonaccorsi R, Degos V, Chiras J. Long-term outcome of percutaneous alcohol embolization combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty in aggressive vertebral hemangiomas with epidural extension. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2860–7.

Yang ZY, Zhang LJ, Chen ZX, Hu HY. Hemangioma of the vertebral column: a report on twenty-three patients with special reference to functional recovery after radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1985;24(2):129–32.

Heyd R, Seegenschmiedt MH, Rades D, Winkler C, Eich HT, Bruns F, Gosheger G, Willich N, Micke O, German Cooperative Group on Radiotherapy for Benign Diseases. Radiotherapy for symptomatic vertebral hemangiomas: results of a multicenter study and literature review. Int J Radiat Oncol* Biol* Phys. 2010;77(1):217–25.

Asthana AK, Tandon SC, Pant GC, Srivastava A, Pradhan S. Radiation therapy for symptomatic vertebral haemangioma. Clin Oncol. 1990;2(3):159–62.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics provided funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Iowa Carver, College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA

Kyle Kato & Meron Challa

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Iowa Carver, College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA

Nahom Teferi & Satoshi Yamaguchi

Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Carver, College of Medicine,, Iowa City, IA, USA

Kathryn Eschbacher

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KK performed a portion of the literature review and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript/generating figures. NT performed most of the literature review and was a major contributor in reviewing the manuscript. MC contributed to writing the manuscript. KE provided histological images for figures. SY was a major contributor in reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle Kato .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication.

Consent was obtained to publish Fig.  6 from Teferi et al. [ 1 ].

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kato, K., Teferi, N., Challa, M. et al. Vertebral hemangiomas: a review on diagnosis and management. J Orthop Surg Res 19 , 310 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04799-5

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2024

Accepted : 18 May 2024

Published : 24 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04799-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Laminectomy
• Sclerotherapy
• Vertebroplasty

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Behav Neurosci
• PMC10317209

Understanding health behavior change by motivation and reward mechanisms: a review of the literature

The global rise of lifestyle-related chronic diseases has engendered growing interest among various stakeholders including policymakers, scientists, healthcare professionals, and patients, regarding the effective management of health behavior change and the development of interventions that facilitate lifestyle modification. Consequently, a plethora of health behavior change theories has been developed with the intention of elucidating the mechanisms underlying health behavior change and identifying key domains that enhance the likelihood of successful outcomes. Until now, only few studies have taken into account neurobiological correlates underlying health behavior change processes. Recent progress in the neuroscience of motivation and reward systems has provided further insights into the relevance of such domains. The aim of this contribution is to review the latest explanations of health behavior change initiation and maintenance based on novel insights into motivation and reward mechanisms. Based on a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar, four articles were reviewed. As a result, a description of motivation and reward systems (approach/wanting = pleasure; aversion/avoiding = relief; assertion/non-wanting = quiescence) and their role in health behavior change processes is presented. Three central findings are discussed: (1) motivation and reward processes allow to distinguish between goal-oriented and stimulus-driven behavior, (2) approach motivation is the key driver of the individual process of behavior change until a new behavior is maintained and assertion motivation takes over, (3) behavior change techniques can be clustered based on motivation and reward processes according to their functional mechanisms into facilitating (= providing external resources), boosting (= strengthening internal reflective resources) and nudging (= activating internal affective resources). The strengths and limitations of these advances for intervention planning are highlighted and an agenda for testing the models as well as future research is proposed.

1. Introduction

The prevalence of lifestyle-related chronic diseases has increased dramatically in the last decades. Chronic diseases were responsible for 71% of all deaths occurring worldwide in 2019 ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022a ), of which about one third are premature deaths, i.e., happening to people aged between 30 and 69 years ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022a ). Diseases of the circulatory system like stroke and ischaemic heart disease accounted for 30% of all deaths in 2019 in OECD countries, followed by cancer (24%), diseases of the respiratory system (10%) and diabetes (3%) ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2021 ). Individuals living with these conditions also face a major stress burden due to disability, in some cases already at young ages. Indeed, averaged across 26 OECD countries, more than one third of individuals aged 16 and over have been found to be living with longstanding illness or health problems ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2021 ). In addition, comorbidities (multimorbidity) as well as individual physical and emotional suffering frequently occur ( Stewart et al., 1989 ; Moussavi et al., 2007 ; de Ridder et al., 2008 ), reducing overall quality of life ( Maresova et al., 2019 ).

These numbers and trends can in part be traced back to rising rates of obesity, sedentary behavior and poor nutrition, as well as other metabolic risk factors for chronic diseases including tobacco use and harmful alcohol intake. In addition, as diseases and comorbidities accumulate in older age, countries’ aging populations further influence these numbers ( Zhou et al., 2016 ). Indeed, most countries in the world have experienced, and will experience great demographic transitions. It has been estimated that between 2015 and 2050, the number of individuals aged 60 years and older will nearly double from 12 to 22%, with two billion people aged above 60 years by 2050 ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022b ). At the same time, life expectancy has risen from 67.5 years in 2000 to 72.9 years in 2020 at the world’s average ( The World Bank, 2022 ). Based on these projections, it can be assumed that the total number of individuals with longstanding illnesses or health problems will continue to rise.

The treatment of chronic diseases is often lengthy and intense, and is frequently accompanied by a reduced ability to work ( Seuring et al., 2015 ). While this can reduce the quality of life in patients further ( Jing et al., 2018 ), it can also affect an individual’s household financial resources ( Seuring et al., 2015 ). In low income settings, tremendous costs for treatment can quickly drain savings ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022a ). This, in return, may perpetuate people’s conditions, as it has been found that poverty is closely linked with the prevalence of chronic diseases: vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people tend to get ill quicker and have lower life expectancy than people of higher social positions ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022a ). The main reasons for this phenomenon are that economically vulnerable individuals are at greater risk of being exposed to harmful products, such as tobacco, tend to have unhealthy diets, and, in some countries, cities or neighborhoods, have limited access to health services. In fact, the average life expectancy at birth of people with low income is 4.4 (women) to 8.6 (men) years lower than of people in the highest of five income groups ( Lampert et al., 2019 ).

These costs on individuals are accompanied by costs for the healthcare system and society as a whole. Health expenditure related to diabetes, for example, is at least 966 billion USD per year worldwide, which represents a 316% increase over the last 15 years ( International Diabetes Federation [IDF], 2021 ). In Germany, the cost burden for diabetes type 2 treatment has been calculated to be on average 1.8 times higher than for other diseases ( Ulrich et al., 2016 ). Multimorbidity typically incurs greater health care costs ( Rizzo et al., 2015 ), measured by the use of medication as well as emergency department presentations and hospital admissions ( Chan et al., 2002 ). For example, Schneider et al. (2009) found that older adults in the United States with three or more chronic conditions utilized on average 25 times more hospital bed-days and had on average 14.6 times more hospital admissions than older adults without any chronic condition. Furthermore, with one additional chronic condition in older adults, the health care utilization costs increase near exponentially ( Lehnert et al., 2011 ). In addition to these financial impacts, chronic conditions tend to dwell on non-tangible resources, e.g., through time and energy spent on disease management by the patient and family members ( Ellrodt et al., 1997 ; Korff et al., 1998 ; Wagner, 2000 ). These circumstances call for shifting the focus to health care measures that help to prevent and improve chronic conditions according to patient needs in a cost-effective way.

There is compelling evidence to suggest that lifestyle changes can significantly improve the conditions of chronic diseases. Studies have demonstrated the positive impact of increased exercise, healthier nutrition, reduced alcohol intake, smoking cessation, and relaxation techniques on a range of chronic conditions ( Ornish et al., 1990 ; Knowler et al., 2002 ; Savoye et al., 2007 ; Alert et al., 2013 ; Cramer et al., 2014 ; Morris et al., 2019 ). These health behaviors can decrease the major metabolic risk factors for chronic diseases and premature deaths, including blood pressure, blood glucose, blood lipids, and obesity ( World Health Organisation [WHO], 2022a ). Remarkably, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is predominantly attributable to lifestyle-related factors rather than genetic risks ( Langenberg et al., 2014 ). Moreover, lifestyle changes could prevent up to 70% of strokes and cases of colon cancer, 80% of coronary heart diseases, and 90% of diabetes cases ( Willett, 2002 ). Such findings highlight the tremendous potential of lifestyle modification interventions for public health outcomes.

It is widely recognized that individuals encounter challenges when endeavoring to attain their lifestyle goals. This is not unexpected, given that lifestyle change necessitates a series of individual choices that often require postponement of immediate pleasure in favor of prospective long-term health gains (a.k.a. delayed gratification, present bias, hyperbolic discounting, etc., see Stroebe et al., 2008 , 2013 ; Hall and Fong, 2015 ). Despite these obvious difficulties, practitioners, politicians and stakeholders aim to engage patients in health behavior change ( Esch, 2018 ). How consistently individuals pursue health behavior changes depends largely on how well they can overcome their innate present bias and on their endowment with other resources, such as their knowledge about health behavior change consequences, their beliefs in their ability to succeed, their self-regulation skills, self-efficacy, internal locus of control, engagement and empowerment ( Cane et al., 2012 ; Cheng et al., 2016 ; Sheeran et al., 2016 ; Ludwig et al., 2020 ; Cardoso Barbosa et al., 2021 ). Hence, a thorough understanding of health behavior change and interventions to support health behavior change taking into account individuals’ resources are necessary.

Numerous health behavior change theories have been devised, with a primary emphasis on reflective resources and willpower ( Kwasnicka et al., 2016 ). However, there is a scarcity of research on domains that are supported by, or rooted in, neuroscientific evidence. Notably, recent advances in the neuroscience of motivation and reward systems have revealed new insights into the importance of such domains ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 , 2022 ).

The aim of this contribution is to provide an overview of the latest explanations of health behavior change initiation and maintenance based on novel insights to motivation and reward mechanisms. Based on a literature search in PubMed (22 hits), PsycInfo (39 hits), and Google Scholar using the term “motivation AND reward AND (‘behavior change’ OR ‘behavior modification’)” in titles and abstracts in January 2023, we identified four articles which discuss neurobiological mechanisms of reward and motivation in relation to health behavior change ( Letzen et al., 2019 ; Ludwig et al., 2020 ; Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 , 2022 ). These are integrated into the social psychological literature on behavior change, previously reviewed in Michaelsen and Esch (2021 , 2022) . The review is structured as follows: the next chapter presents a summary of behavior change theories as discussed in social and health psychology in order to provide thorough ground for the discussion of the role of motivation and reward processes in health behavior change. This is followed by a description of motivation and reward processes as recently discussed in neurobiological science. After this, three models are presented which take into account motivation and reward mechanisms in health behavior change and thereby combine the two strands of literature and present interesting avenues for future health behavior change intervention planning and implementation. A discussion of the review and future research is presented at the end of the article.

2. Behavior change theories in social and health psychology

A large number of theories aiming to explain health behavior change have been published in recent decades, most of them grounded in social and health psychology. These theories differ in the views of human nature they hold ( Bandura, 1989 ) as well as in what they consider to be the fundamental drivers of behavior and the resources necessary for behavior change.

Established theories are concerned with the determinants of and motives for initiation of behavior change, and some also take into account the domains that enhance the likelihood of maintaining a new behavior after initiation ( Kwasnicka et al., 2016 ). Among the leading theories are Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory ( Bandura, 1989 ), Gollwitzer’s theory on Implementation Intentions ( Gollwitzer, 1999 ), and the Social Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci (2000) and Deci and Ryan (2008) . In Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, individuals are assumed to learn new behaviors not only through trial-and-error but also through copying the behavior of others. Based on the existence of role models, the performance of the new behavior is enhanced by outcome expectancies (individuals understand the potential outcomes of their behavior), self-efficacy (individuals believe that they can achieve their desired behavioral goal), and identification (individuals identify with certain aspects of the role model) ( Bandura, 1989 ). In Gollwitzer’s (1999) theory on Implementation Intentions, individuals are suggested to make plans for anticipated situations, in which their desired behavior is at risk. These plans (implementation intentions) are assumed to delegate the control of goal-directed responses over these critical situations when encountered. Another prominent behavior change theory has been published by Ryan and Deci (2000) and Deci and Ryan (2008) . According to their Self-Determination Theory, for behavior change to be successful, three basic psychological needs require fulfillment: autonomy (being the causal agent of one’s own life), competence (ability to master skills important to oneself) and relatedness (feeling connected to others). A number of other theories have each determined a small, inconsistent number of domains supposedly relevant for behavior change initiation.

In a systematic review on 100 behavior change maintenance theories, Kwasnicka et al. (2016) highlight a deficiency in theoretical elaboration regarding the process of maintenance after initial change present in the literature. Theories that are concerned with the behavior change maintenance describe several stages of a behavior change process and the resources necessary to progress from one stage to another. A widely used theory is the Transtheoretical Model ( Prochaska et al., 2008 ), according to which an individual’s change process starts at a precontemplation stage, and continues with the contemplation, planning, implementation, maintenance and termination stages. Similar processes have been suggested by other authors ( Weinstein and Sandman, 1992 , 2002 ; Gollwitzer, 1999 ; Rothman et al., 2004 ; Schwarzer et al., 2011 ). For example, Weinstein and Sandman (2002) emphasize the stage before precontemplation where individuals may be unaware of the issue (e.g., that change in diet could improve their health conditions) and Rothman et al.’s (2004) model adds a habit stage where individuals have automated the new behavior. Michaelsen and Esch (2021) have provided the first comprehensive synthesis of behavior change models, a flexible seven-stage behavior change process, which allows to systematically relate motivation and reward mechanisms to these stages. In their process, individuals may experience the stages unawareness, awareness, contemplation, planning, initiation, continued action, and maintenance. These stages are categorized into three phases of engagement, namely, non-engagement, motivational engagement, and executive engagement, in which individuals’ actions are driven by different types of motivation and reward processes ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 , 2022 ), as explained in more detail below.

3. Motivation and reward systems involved in behavior change processes

Michaelsen and Esch (2021) have described three types of motivational states (approach motivation, avoidance motivation, and assertion motivation) and their corresponding rewards (pleasure, relief, and quiescence) that seem to play key roles in health behavior change processes (see Figure 1 ).

Three types of motivation and reward. Esch (2022) ; copyright: ©2022 by the author (TE). Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

3.1. Approach motivation

Approach motivation, also known as appetitive or incentive salience, is focused on stimuli or goals that are associated with positive and pleasurable experiences ( Bozarth, 1994 ; Esch and Stefano, 2004 ; Elliot et al., 2013 ). This type of motivation is linked to the wanting-system, reward expectation, performance, and action ( Esch, 2022 ). The attainment of a desired stimulus or goal typically produces a sense of pleasure or reward, which may or may not be noticeable depending on the intensity of the experience. The reward is not derived from the stimulus or goal itself, but from the psychological and neurobiological processes that occur when there is a positive anticipation and response to a stimulus or goal ( Berridge and Kringelbach, 2008 ; Schultz, 2015 ). While it is challenging to categorize experiences into specific types of motivational processes, it is generally agreed that individuals tend to assess stimuli as positive or negative ( Elliot et al., 2013 ). These assessments are frequently referred to as fundamental affective experiences and include emotions such as joy, pleasure, and excitement ( Schneirla, 1959 ; Cacioppo et al., 1999 ; Elliot et al., 2013 ; Lang and Bradley, 2013 ; Rolls, 2013 ). Therefore, the essence of approach motivation lies in the anticipation of obtaining a reward that is characterized by positive emotions.

The underlying physiological mechanisms of motivation occur in specific brain areas distinct from other sensory and cognitive areas ( Kringelbach, 2005 ; Esch, 2022 ). The approach motivation and reward system is commonly described as being embedded in the central nervous system (CNS), involves nerve cells that originate in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and send projections to the frontal brain, specifically the nucleus accumbens (NAC), via the neurotransmitter dopamine ( Nestler, 2001 ; Nestler et al., 2001 ; Esch and Stefano, 2004 , 2010 ). The nucleus accumbens (NAC) plays a crucial role in the neural regulation of reward-seeking behavior by signaling the degree of effort necessary to acquire a reward and the desire to obtain it, thereby determining the appetitive motivational salience. Additionally, the ventral tegmental area-nucleus accumbens (VTA-NAC) pathway is responsible for measuring and regulating the rewarding aspects of an activity, transmitting pertinent information to other brain regions ( Esch and Stefano, 2004 ; Berridge, 2007 ; Smith et al., 2011 ; Esch, 2022 ). The magnitude of expected reward has been found to significantly influence the likelihood of an individual to retain and repeat a behavior ( Esch and Stefano, 2010 ). Furthermore, the hippocampus and amygdala have been identified as crucial components of the reward system, with the hippocampus serving as a gatekeeper for experiences to be recognized and stored in memory, while the amygdala assesses these experiences as either pleasurable or detrimental ( Esch and Stefano, 2004 ; Nestler and Malenka, 2004 ). The mesocortical dopamine pathway in the frontal cortex is also known to be involved in the evaluation of the “costs” and risks associated with the pursuit of rewards, ultimately shaping an individual’s behavioral response ( Esch and Stefano, 2010 ).

3.2. Avoidance motivation

The construct of avoidance motivation, also referred to as negatively-valenced fearful salience, pertains to the motivational system that drives the avoidance of punishment or potential harm, rather than the pursuit of reward. This type of motivation is intricately linked to the fight-flight-freeze response, which encompasses physiological and behavioral changes in response to perceived threat ( Bozarth, 1994 ; Esch and Stefano, 2004 ; Seymour et al., 2007 ; Esch, 2022 ). The phenomenon commonly known as avoidance behavior is typically evoked by an aversive or challenging stimulus, and elicits a motivated reaction of withdrawal, commonly manifested as the act of moving away from unpleasant conditions. It is noteworthy that avoidance behavior can be differentiated from punishment, which exerts a suppressing effect on the strength of the behavioral response (passive avoidance), and from negative reinforcement, which engenders an augmenting effect on the strength of the behavioral response (active avoidance) ( Schultz, 2015 ). In contrast to active reactions such as fighting or fleeing in response to a fear-inducing stimulus, there can also be the passive reactions of freezing ( Berridge, 2018 ). Emotions associated with avoidance motivation include anxiety, fear, and disgust ( Lang, 1995 ; Cacioppo et al., 1999 ; Watson et al., 1999 ; Elliot et al., 2013 ; Hirschberg and Manning, 2015 ; Esch, 2022 ).

Avoidance motivation is embedded in the stress system and involves increased sympathetic activity and the release of cortisol, adrenaline, opioids, and vasopressin ( Esch, 2022 ). This type of motivation is rooted in the lower limbic system, specifically the amygdala and hypothalamus. Upon the anticipation of an actual or imagined threat, two distinct pathways are instigated: one through the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, leading to the release of cortisol, and the other through the sympathetic nervous system, leading to the release of adrenaline ( Esch, 2022 ). The freeze reaction is also connected to the amygdala ( LeDoux, 1998 ). Successful avoidance can lead to relief, a positive, low-arousal emotion that can be experienced as relaxation or reward ( Levenson, 2011 ; Krisam et al., 2017 ; Esch, 2022 ). An incontrovertible interdependence between the approach and avoidance motivation systems exists, as akin brain regions are triggered during both relief and other positive affects ( Kim et al., 2007 ; Sangha, 2015 ).

3.3. Assertion motivation

The majority of research on motivation and reward does not differentiate between behavior driven by approach motivation and behavior driven by assertion motivation. In point of fact, these two categories of motivation are frequently confounded or amalgamated ( McCall and Singer, 2012 ), despite the divergent neurobiological mechanisms underlying them, their distinct loci in the brain, and their discrepant behavioral outcomes. Assertion motivation, or assertive salience, is linked to the “non-wanting” system and associated with inaction, acceptance, or contentment, homeostasis, and quiescence. It describes the motivation to maintain a certain condition or state ( McCall and Singer, 2012 ; Esch, 2022 ). Assertion motivation is different from approach motivation in terms of the emotions it evokes and the types of behavior it leads to McCall and Singer (2012) and Esch (2022) . Assertion motivation is associated with a lack of desire to change or move away from the current state, while approach motivation is associated with a desire to move toward something. Assertion motivation can be seen in instances where a person is content with their current situation, such as a newly habituated health behavior, and there is no inclination to change or move away from it.

Assertion motivation is linked to increased activity in the parasympathetic autonomous nervous system and is associated with neurotransmitters such as endogenous opiates, oxytocin, acetylcholine, serotonin, and endocannabinoids ( Esch, 2022 ). Brain areas involved in the activation of assertive motivation include the midbrain, vagus areas, cingulum, hippocampus, ventral striatum, hypothalamus, and pituitary gland ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). It is different from approach and avoidance motivation in terms of related affective qualities and behavioral outcomes and is not characterized by activation of dopaminergic activity.

4. Weaving together motivation and reward mechanisms with health behavior change theories

Weaving together psychological explanations of behavior change with neurobiological understandings of motivation and reward processes has produced three models explaining different aspects of behavior change. First, a model differentiating goal-directed and stimulus-driven behavior ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ) will be explained. This is followed by the description of the Model of Engagement, that illustrates the role of the three types of motivation during a behavior change process ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). Finally, the behavior change resource model ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ) that integrates the differentiation between goal-directed and stimulus-driven behavior with the Model of Engagement to explain the functional mechanisms of behavior change techniques is presented. The elaborations of Ludwig et al. (2020) concerning reward valuation and Letzen et al. (2019) on mesocorticolimbic function in behavior change are discussed within these sections.

4.1. Goal-directed and stimulus-driven behavior

Kwasnicka et al.’s (2016) systematic review revealed that existing health behavior change theories largely focus on cognitive resources deemed necessary for achieving behavior change. Their findings indicated that only 10% of the theories reviewed took into account the relevance of automatic responses to relevant cues or stimuli, which has been identified as a limitation to existing theories ( Van Cappellen et al., 2018 ). This is because the manifestation of health behaviors in daily life is often influenced by implicit emotions and non-cognitive motives, rather than reflective cognitive willpower, as various dual-process models have emphasized (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky, 1982 ; Strack and Deutsch, 2004 ; Hall and Fong, 2007 ; Marteau et al., 2012 ; Sheeran et al., 2013 ). Dual-process models of decision-making have been developed to differentiate between two regulatory systems in the brain: reflective (cognitive, conscious) and affective (impulsive, intuitive, automatic) antecedents of behavior ( Chaiken, 1980 ; Petty and Cacioppo, 2012 ). The reflective system is based on conscious deliberation and control, which requires subjective effort. It draws upon an individual’s knowledge of probabilities and values and is based on rules of language and logic. The key processes of the reflective system are volition and reasoning, which can be intentionally accessed. However, the reflective process is relatively slow ( Strack and Deutsch, 2004 ; Sheeran et al., 2013 ). The reflective system typically supersedes the automatic system, which is quicker and more effortless, and operates by utilizing stored associations acquired through experiences, responding to habits and impulses. Strack and Deutsch (2004) posit that the automatic system is a significant impulsive process that engenders activation, in which perceptual inputs stimulate elements in the associative memory, subsequently activating other related elements. This form of information processing is characterized by its rapidity and operation beyond conscious awareness, as noted in the extant literature ( Strack and Deutsch, 2004 ; Evans, 2010 ; Sheeran et al., 2013 ). While this view has garnered both commendation and condemnation from scholars ( Evans, 2018 ), it nevertheless represents a significant contribution to the comprehension of health behavior and behavior change. Furthermore, a widespread view stemming from dual-process models is that the more rapid component governs behavior.

In reference to dual-process models and the differentiation between controlled goals and autonomous goals (or unnoticed stimuli), Michaelsen and Esch (2021) present a neurobiologically informed model of stimulus-driven and goal-directed behavior. In stimulus-driven behavior, a stimulus activates automatic processes and leads to behavior without the individual having noticed the stimulus. Once a stimulus has undergone cognitive processing and been transformed into a goal, the ensuing behavior is referred to as goal-directed behavior. The authors posit that both varieties of stimuli are capable of inciting appetitive, aversive, or assertive salience by means of reward anticipation. In this way, motivational salience, or the ability to attract and hold attention, can lead to action and engagement without conscious thought or planning ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ; Carver, 2009 ; Kruglanski et al., 2014 ; Berridge, 2018 ). Both unnoticed stimuli and those that are deliberately processed can result in the same actions and engagement. However, in goal-directed behavior, the individual is aware of their actions and is actively involved in the process, as noted by Michaelsen and Esch (2021) . Figure 2 illustrates the difference between stimulus-driven and goal-directed behavior in a simplified way.

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven behavior ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ).

The model can be expanded by the theory proposed by Ludwig et al. (2020) , who propose an approach to achieve sustainable behavior change through a combination of theories and research on autonomous motivation, reinforcement learning and mindfulness. The authors argue that behavior change can occur through increased awareness of the reward value of specific actions, which drives future behavior, in addition to the commonly proposed “mental gap” mechanism. The stability of a behavior depends on changes in its reward value over time and the accessibility of more rewarding behaviors. The reward value of a behavior may depend on both external and internal factors, such as subjective experience and goal achievement. The authors suggest that bringing present-moment or mindful awareness to current behavior can update the reward value of habitual behaviors and lead to new learning. This approach involves direct, in-the-moment, curious awareness and is not reliant on reflective thought processes. An increased awareness about stimuli that engender change through increased reward value would shift individuals, in the above model, from stimulus-driven to goal-directed behavior.

4.2. Motivational engagement in behavior change processes

Based on the synthesis of multi-stage behavior change theories, Michaelsen and Esch (2021) have derived three different phases of engagement, based on the role of motivational processes involved during the stages of behavior change. During the first phase, called non-engagement phase, individuals are either unaware that behavior change may improve their health conditions, or they are aware but have no intention to change an aspect of their health behavior. During this phase, any motivational mechanisms are yet absent. Stimuli like new information about the health benefits of a certain behavior change may activate motivational processes so that individuals progress into the motivational engagement phase, which is comprised of the contemplation and planning stages.

The nature of the contemplative phase is contingent on the sort of motivational salience that is evoked by the stimulus. Should an individual be satisfied with their present state, assertive salience becomes operational. Here, the likelihood of perpetuating the present condition is linked to positive valence that instigates sensations of quiescence, stillness, and/or relaxation stemming from the discharge, such as that of endogenous opiates, oxytocin and related neurotransmitters, as well as parasympathetic activity. Such a state leads to a lack of behavioral activity, resulting in the cessation of the process of behavior change. In the event that an individual desires a change, either appetitive or aversive salience is elicited. When appetitive salience is activated, information undergoes processing by the mesocortical dopamine pathway in the frontal cortex, and a preference for a new behavior is set ( Esch and Stefano, 2010 ; Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). On the other hand, should aversive salience be activated, information is routed through the stress response pathways, namely, the hypothalamic-pituitary (-adrenal) axis and the (amygdalar-) sympathetic nervous system axis ( Esch and Stefano, 2010 ).

The planning stage is defined by cognitive, goal-directed action (see Figure 3 ). In order to plan, the actions of thinking, reflecting, and evaluating are involved, and, neurobiologically, the upper limbic level. The cognitive task of planning is propelled by either appetitive or aversive motivational salience and may culminate in an intention, or a series of intentions (a plan). Michaelsen and Esch (2021) contend that, owing to its cognitive underpinnings, planning can only transpire in goal-directed behavioral processes, and not in stimulus-driven behavioral processes. They posit that both stages of motivational engagement can be bypassed if the presented stimulus and the evoked motivational salience go unnoticed (i.e., are stimulus-driven).

Model of Engagement ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ).

The third engagement phase is called executive engagement and consists of the stages initiation, continued action and maintenance ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). According to the authors, initiation is the behavioral consequence of a response-outcome mechanism, whereby an individual actively reacts to the appetitive or aversive motivational salience that ensues from the encounter (and processing) of a stimulus. This reaction is propelled by the anticipation of pleasurable feelings (in the case of positive stimuli) or relief (in the case of negative stimuli). The appraisal of experiences as pleasurable or unpleasurable takes place within the endogenous reward system (such as the amygdala), which also encompasses the establishment of associations between an experience and other stimuli ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). Upon fulfillment of the expectation of a positive experience, said experience engenders a memory that, in turn, spawns an anticipation of a reward from the same activity, thereby enhancing the likelihood of the behavior being reiterated ( Van Cappellen et al., 2018 ). This phenomenon is referred to as reward responsiveness ( Carver and White, 1994 ).

The process of recording memories of experiences, which includes the context in which they occurred, such as the location, time, and social companionship, entails the involvement of the hippocampus ( Nestler, 2001 ; Nestler et al., 2001 ; Esch and Stefano, 2004 , 2010 ). This type of learning can lead to a reciprocal effect: as time passes, associations between positive affect and stimuli that predict it, and memories of it, may endow those stimuli with appetitive salience, making them more likely to capture attention in the future ( Fredrickson and Joiner, 2018 ; Van Cappellen et al., 2018 ). The phenomenon of learning encompasses two critical components, namely conditioning and expectation. In the context of stimulus-driven and goal-directed behavior, the experience of reward is not contingent on whether the stimulus was subjected to cognitive processing to be transformed into a goal. According to Michaelsen and Esch (2021) , the initiation of a new behavior through the activation of endogenous reward triggers a learning process, wherein the association between the new behavior and the experienced positive affect fosters reward expectancy, potentially resulting in continued action. The present study posits that the maintenance of response-outcome associations between pleasurable stimuli and their predictive cues is enhanced by sustained behavioral engagement. In this context, the authors assert that the probability of repetitive behavior, and consequently the degree of engagement therein, is contingent upon the magnitude of endogenous reward elicited by the new behavior ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). Following the repeated enactment of stimulus-driven or goal-directed behavioral actions, individuals ultimately transition into a maintenance stage, characterized by a sustained operant learning process that leads to habit formation ( Schultz, 2015 ). During this stage, the behavior is executed with regularity, and the assertive salience driven by the motivation and reward systems remains active, thereby strengthening the habitually performed action ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). The experience of quiescence, calm or contentment associated with the activation of the parasympathetic nervous system and other down-regulatory pathways serves as a powerful motivator for the maintenance of newly adopted behaviors. This state of contentment engenders a state of “non-wanting” with regard to further modifications of behavior ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 ). This Model of Engagement is presented in Figure 3 .

The findings can be integrated with the idea of Letzen et al. (2019) , who incorporate putative neurobiological mechanisms contributing to motivation for pain self-management into the Motivational Model for Pain Self-Management ( Jensen et al., 2003 ). The authors propose that an altered function in the mesocorticolimbic function would inhibit behavior change. The goal of this updated model is to determine whether potential neurobiological deficiencies contributing to poor motivation feed into observed non-adherence among patients with chronic pain. The authors hypothesize that mesocorticolimbic function subserves treatment-related learning history, contingency processing, and cost/benefit analysis, and individuals with mesocorticolimbic dysfunction will have lower perceived importance of symptom self-management and poorer self-efficacy for symptom self-management. They also suggest that magnitude of mesocorticolimbic dysfunction will correlate with reported treatment motivation, so that greater dysfunction is associated with poorer readiness for change, and that self-reported treatment motivation moderates the relationship between pre-treatment mesocorticolimbic function and adherence ( Letzen et al., 2019 ). The article also suggests that practice of a pain management strategy will be associated with mesocorticolimbic activity via reinforcement, and individuals with high reinforcement from this practice will have greater motivation for future practice, leading to better adherence ( Letzen et al., 2019 ). While the authors do not discuss pain management behavior as a process, by relating their hypothesis to the Model of Engagement, we can derive that mesocorticolimbic dysfunction would inhibit the progress to the stages contemplation, planning, initiation and/or continued action, and individuals with mesocorticolimbic dysfunction facing these stages within their health behavior change process would need specific support to progress.

4.3. The behavior change resource model

4.3.1. three types of behavior change resources.

The resources individuals need to progress from one health behavior change stage to another, as suggested in a number of health behavior change theories, have been summarized by Cane et al. (2012) , Kwasnicka et al. (2016) , and Carey et al. (2019) . Recently, the resources that facilitate changes in health behavior have been classified by Michaelsen and Esch (2022) into two broad categories, namely the socio-environmental resources external to the individual, and the bio-psychological resources that pertain to the internal state of the individual, with both types being characterized by changeable and non-changeable factors. While behavior change techniques (BCTs) cannot be leveraged to address non-changeable factors such as the weather, their utility is geared to targeting changeable resources ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ).

Based on the distinction between reflective and affective aspects, Michaelsen and Esch (2022) have established a categorization of resources according to how these resources are accessed or generated in the brain. As such, resources are either external (socio-environmental), or internal (bio-psychological), whereby the latter can be either reflective or affective. Reflective resources are accessed, generated or refined through deliberate and effortful cognitive processing, including but not limited to goal-setting and behavioral regulation. In contrast, affective resources, such as emotions and their reinforcing valences, may be promptly elicited by environmental stimuli without the need for volitional engagement. External resources, such as environmental context and material resources, can be externally provided ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ). These three types of changeable resources are depicted in Figure 4 .

Three types of changeable resources ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ).

4.3.2. Behavior change techniques

Behavior change theories provide a foundation for developing effective behavior change techniques (BCTs) to support individuals in modifying their behaviors. Such theories have been employed in diverse ways, including the integration of social interactions based on Bandura’s (1989) Social Cognitive Theory, and assisting patients in generating implementation intentions, drawing on Gollwitzer’s (1999) theory on Implementation Intentions [see Bélanger-Gravel et al. (2013) for a meta-analysis of BCTs based on Gollwitzer’s (1999) theory on Implementation Intentions]. The extant literature has primarily focused on employing behavior change techniques (BCTs) that enhance cognitive resources, such as nutritional or psychological counseling ( Ball et al., 2013 ), or create situations that promote behavior modification, such as supervised walking groups ( Kassavou et al., 2013 ) or financial incentives ( Lee et al., 2019 ). However, these techniques often fail to account for patients’ individual differences in needs and circumstances ( Cecchini et al., 2010 ). The majority of interventions geared toward behavioral change tend to be financially costly and hence, not sustainable over a prolonged period of time or feasible to offer to a wide populace ( Forster et al., 2011 ). Some interventions have also yielded adverse side effects. For instance, monetary rewards for weight loss have been shown to be effective until the remuneration is obtained; however, subsequent weeks have reported higher odds of weight gain ( Paul-Ebhohimhen and Avenell, 2008 ). In contrast to BCTs that mainly, or solely, address cognitive, rational, or circumstantial/environmental resources and domains, modern BCTs primarily build on individual behavioral responses to various motivational stimuli, including affective components of a behavioral decision. Examples are the use of wearables (e.g., Piwek et al., 2016 ) and other digital innovations (e.g., Priesterroth et al., 2019 ) as well as reminders (e.g., Orr and King, 2015 ) among various forms of nudging. Nudging can be understood as shaping decision contexts in a way that encourages a particular behavior (e.g., Hansen and Jespersen, 2013 ) in a playful way through the activation of affective processes in the brain ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ).

Despite a rapid growth in the implementation of interventions, most of these interventions are only successful in the short term, and often fail to demonstrate a significant improvement in the medium and long term (e.g., Marteau et al., 2012 ; International Diabetes Federation [IDF], 2013 ; Ulrich et al., 2016 ; Sainsbury et al., 2019 ). One reason for this may be the lack of comprehensive theories that allow developing successful BCTs. Another reason may be the insufficient use of theories in intervention development. In a scoping review pertaining to nudging interventions, it was discovered that only a quarter of the studies under review took into consideration the purported working mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of the intervention, while three-quarters focused solely on demonstrating its efficacy ( Szaszi et al., 2018 ). The working mechanisms, which involve the connections between BCTs and the targeted domains or resources, i.e., the specific BCT that addresses a particular resource, were elucidated upon by Carey et al. (2019) . A detailed list of resources relevant to behavior change initiation is presented by Michie et al. (2005) , who identified 112 behavior change theories and clustered the domains of behavior change mentioned therein into 12 categories. This Theoretical Domains Framework has been validated by Cane et al. (2012) , who extended the number of categories to 14 domains: “knowledge,” “skills,” “social/professional role and identity,” “beliefs about capabilities,” “optimism,” “beliefs about consequences,” “reinforcement,” “intentions,” “goals,” “memory,” “attention and decision processes,” “environmental context and resources,” “social influences,” “emotion,” and “self-regulation”. Kwasnicka et al. (2016) have summarized the domains that have been presented relevant for behavior change maintenance in their reviewed maintenance theories into five overarching categories; “maintenance motives,” “self-regulation,” “resources,” “habit,” and “environmental and social influences.” These inhibit significant overlaps with Cane et al.’s (2012) 14 domains. An analysis of these resources and the BCTs they are targeted by is presented by Michaelsen and Esch (2022) , as is further explained below.

4.3.3. Clustering BCTs

Based on the triad of behavior change resources, BCTs can be clustered according to how they address these resources and can thereby be described as the functional mechanisms of BCTs. In this way, Michaelsen and Esch (2022) derived three types of BCTs, namely those, that provide external resources (facilitating), those which strengthen internal reflective resources (boosting) and those that activate internal affective resources (nudging).

4.3.3.1. Facilitating

BCTs that focus on providing external resources enable individuals to engage in a desired behavior. These resources, which fall under categories such as “environmental context and resources” and “social influences” in the Theoretical Domains Framework ( Michie et al., 2005 ; Cane et al., 2012 ), can be provided by the individual, another person, or an organization. Illustrative of the aforementioned interventions are strategies that enhance the availability of healthy food alternatives within workplace canteens ( Geaney et al., 2013 ), incentivization programs that offer monetary rewards ( Petry et al., 2013 ), modification of the physical environment through initiatives such as the establishment of public fitness trails ( Cohen et al., 2012 ), and social support mechanisms including the facilitation of assisted walking groups ( Kassavou et al., 2013 ). These techniques can help facilitate behavior change, but the new behavior may not be sustained once the external resources are removed. However, when an individual has established a routine or habit of a specific new behavior, and their motivation to continue is strong, the end of the availability of the BCT may lead to a similar behavior that can be implemented independently of the original BCT. As an example, the termination of an organized walking group may prompt the participants to either sustain their walking activity on an individual basis or establish autonomous walking groups.

4.3.3.2. Boosting

Internal reflective resources can be addressed by involving cognitive processes. BCTs which target theses resources are called boosts. These enjoyable tasks foster the building up or strengthening of internal reflective resources that can support health behavior change. Examples are “beliefs about capabilities,” “beliefs about consequences,” “intentions,” “goals,” and “behavioral regulation” ( Cane et al., 2012 ). These types of interventions may include self-monitoring techniques, such as keeping a diary or practicing mindfulness ( Shomaker et al., 2019 ) to improve attention and awareness. Additionally, interventions like health education ( Gigerenzer et al., 2007 ) and nutritional counseling ( Ball et al., 2013 ) can increase an individual’s understanding of the consequences of their behavior and lead to a willingness to change. There are also other examples of boosting interventions (see, e.g., Grüne-Yanoff and Hertwig, 2016 ) that can similarly lead to an increased readiness to change and intentional implementation of a desired behavior ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ). Having executed the desired behavior by means of one’s own effort, thus, leads to an experience of self-efficacy and the related positive affect. This in turn, can act as a reinforcement to pursue the behavior again. The generated effects potentially persist beyond the intervention, if those resources have become sufficiently strong or stable ( Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff, 2017 ) and the reward, e.g., through the self-efficacy experience, has been sufficiently intense and therefore been stored in memory.

4.3.3.3. Nudging

Nudges are interventions that guide people toward a certain behavior without limiting their freedom of choice (e.g., Thaler and Sunstein, 2008 ; Alemanno and Sibony, 2015 ; Halpern and Sanders, 2016 ). This is achieved by manipulating aspects of the environment to create cues, stimuli, or triggers that make the desired behavior more appealing. Nudging activates the emotional aspects of decision-making, making the behavior more attractive, enjoyable and intrinsically rewarding, while still allowing individuals to make their own choices ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 , 2022 ). Nudging does not require cognitive skills or external resources, but it activates non-conscious or automatic resources to compensate for the lack of external or reflective resources needed for behavior change ( van Gestel et al., 2020 ). Felsen and Reiner (2015) provided a neuroscientific explanation of how nudges exert their effects based on diffusion-to-bound models. In diffusion-to-bound models, it is assumed that a decision is made within a decision space bounded by the available choices. A decision variable that is comprised of multiple factors that influence the decision including current sensory stimulation, stored memory about past experience, and the subjective value of each option, moves further or closer to each bound depending on the strength of these factors until one bound is reached and the corresponding decision is made ( Felsen and Reiner, 2015 ). Nudges can be considered to shift the decision variable toward the bound of the preferred choice, i.e., making the preferred choice more likely ( Felsen and Reiner, 2015 ).

In a systematic review, nudging interventions have been shown to lead to medium size effects in behavior change ( Mertens et al., 2022 ). Examples are variations in the manner of presenting food items ( Bucher et al., 2016 ; Broers et al., 2017 ; van Gestel et al., 2020 ), reminders or reinforcement-based learning schemes ( Orr and King, 2015 ; Yom-Tov et al., 2017 ), lotteries ( Volpp et al., 2008 ), and point systems ( Priesterroth et al., 2019 ), all of which serve to augment the expectation of rewards. The underlying premise is that the magnitude of the anticipated reward is positively correlated with the likelihood of remembering and repeating it ( Esch and Stefano, 2004 ). These nudges are believed to only have temporary effects on behavior, as the increased motivation from the nudge is not sustained once the nudge is removed. For example, a study that used point-of-decision prompts to encourage stair use in a university dormitory found that the effects were not sustained once the prompts were removed ( Howie and Young, 2011 ). However, with frequent repetition, the behavior being nudged may become a habit that continues even after the nudge is removed because of neurobiological learning processes ( Verplanken and Aarts, 1999 ; Lieberoth et al., 2018 ; van Rookhuijzen et al., 2021 ).

4.3.4. Summary of the behavior change resource model

The classification of BCTs based on the behavior change resources they address, may be sufficient to define all existing BCTs and explain their functional mechanism. This means that any BCT, such as those listed in Michie et al. (2013) can be categorized as facilitating, boosting, or nudging. Michaelsen and Esch (2022) have defined resource-driven behavior change as a process that increases the likelihood of a preferred behavior by focusing on the resources needed for that particular behavior to occur. Resource-driven behavior change is accomplished via the implementation of one or a blend of three BCT types that provide external resources (facilitating), build up internal reflective resources (boosting) or activate internal affective resources (nudging). Upon achieving a certain level of efficacy, the BCTs can prompt the initiation or maintenance of a new behavior, which can subsequently yield a positive response (affect) as a reward. Such reward can serve as a cue or stimulus to augment resources, known as vantage resources ( Van Cappellen et al., 2018 ). Exemplifying this notion, a positive affect can function as a reinforcement, thereby acting as a subtle prompting mechanism (nudging), as the experience of a pleasurable affect is deemed vital in predicting the likelihood of subsequent behavioral engagement ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2022 ). Furthermore, successful implementation or repetition of the desired behavior can also reinforce other desirable cognitive and affective states, such as strengthening one’s belief in one’s own abilities (i.e., self-efficacy), which can serve as a boosting strategy. Neurobiologically, these emotional influences on reward experiences and subsequent decisions are mediated in the medial prefrontal cortex, as evidence from human and animal model studies indicates ( Euston et al., 2012 ). Therefore, the functional mechanisms of BCTs are not independent, but interrelated with neurobiological motivation and reward proceedings. Recognizing these multidirectional causal relationships, Michaelsen and Esch (2022) propose a new framework for understanding the functional mechanisms of BCTs, called the behavior change resource model (BCRM). The BCRM and its relation to the Model of Engagement is illustrated in Figure 5 .

Behavior change resource model and its relation to the Model of Engagement ( Michaelsen and Esch, 2021 , 2022 ).

5. Discussion

5.1. understanding health behavior change by motivation and reward mechanisms.

Despite being essential to enhance health, behavior change support is rarely covered by health care systems around the world ( Chauhan et al., 2017 ; Grabovac et al., 2019 ). It is therefore even more important to support the development of interventions, which are powerful in terms of efficiency and preservation of individuals’ autonomy in order to be applied in low-resource settings or independently of political decision-makers. Behavior change has been studied primarily from a social psychology perspective, focusing on cognitive, or reflective, resources and domains relevant to behavior change, including circumstantial/environmental aspects. Neurobiological advances in automatic functioning as well as motivation and reward systems, however, fit neatly into the discussion of how humans act and how behavior can be changed. Integrating motivation and reward mechanisms into the behavior change literature and presenting new models to understand behavior change potentially helps policy makers to identify the necessary and sufficient environmental, economic, and psychological conditions that make healthy choices possible and easy.

A framework with a similar purpose as the behavior change resource model is the behavior change wheel (BCW) ( Michie et al., 2011 ). The BCW is based on a review of 19 behavior change frameworks from various fields (e.g., health, environmental behavior). Its core is a “behavior system” with three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation. These three conditions can be interpreted as attributes of behavior change resources. They overlap slightly with the categorization of resources made by Michaelsen and Esch (2022) , in the sense that opportunity to behavior change is present when external resources are available, capability is fulfilled when the necessary internal reflective resources are strong enough, and motivation can be seen as an internal affective resource. In the BCW, motivation represents a psychological resource (referring to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation) and is not discussed or integrated in terms of its neurobiological underpinnings. In a second step, Michie et al. (2011) developed intervention functions, which are essentially a categorization of BCTs into nine groups: education, persuasion, incentivization, coercion, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, modeling and enablement. The three conditions are then linked to the intervention’s functions without a specific explanation of how the conditions relate to the interventions, i.e., their functional mechanisms are not explained.

5.2. Practical implications of the presented literature

The understanding of the role of motivational salience in health behavior change processes presented by the Model of Engagement could be applied to develop suitable cues and stimuli, e.g., nudges that direct people’s actions into their desired outcome. General examples are fruit placement experiments ( Wansink et al., 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2016 ) or goal formation through social comparison ( Custers and Aarts, 2005 , 2010 ). The findings can also be used in a more differentiated way. Considering the seven stages of the behavior change process, findings imply that different BCTs are required depending on where at the change process an individual is. At the unawareness stage, individuals are not aware that behavior change could contribute to their health status. Therefore, to move to the next stage, individuals require knowledge, insight or possibly a shift in health locus of control from external to more internal (i.e., perceiving the reward from one’s behavior as contingent on one’s own behavior, see Rotter, 1966 , or Cheng et al., 2016 for a meta-analysis on health locus of control and specific health behaviors). Knowledge can be provided, for example, through large-scale policy campaigns. Once an individual is aware that a change in behavior could positively affect their current or future health, a number of other resources may be required to spike interest in behavior change and to move into the motivational engagement phase. For example, hearing or reading about personal experiences from peers (e.g., friends, colleagues) could lead to goal formation. Thus, an individual could be incentivized to talk with peers about their health behavior goals and achievements. To move from the contemplation to the planning stage, information about various offers of health promotion courses could be beneficial. In general, the findings can be applied using these three steps:

• 1. Determining at which stage of their individual change process an individual is.
• 2. Identifying the resource(s) needed to reach the next relevant stage.
• 3. Selecting a BCT that targets the lacking, weak or inactive resource.

Step 1 can be done by applying motivational interviewing ( Rollnick and Miller, 1995 ) or the set of questions developed by Michie et al. (2005) . For step 2, the Theoretical Domains Framework by Cane et al. (2012) or any other framework that lists health behavior change resources, can be used. Once the lacking, weak or inactive resources for successful behavior change have been identified, one or more suitable BCTs can be selected and applied (step 3). Michaelsen and Esch (2022) provide guidance for the third step in their application guide of the BCRM. In this table, the potential target groups for each type of BCT, based on the seven-stage behavior change process described above, are explained and numerous examples for various settings and stakeholders are given. This can assist health/behavior therapists, intervention planners and patients in selecting appropriate measures to achieve the desired health behavior change.

From a public health perspective, the findings of the studies can also contribute to improve health literacy of specific patient groups, e.g., the chronically ill, or specific populations, such as vulnerable families, e.g., in low-income settings. By identifying the needs of these groups in relation to their health, knowing which type of motivation to foster and which resource to provide, strengthen, or activate with which measures, health behavior (e.g., diet) and disease management (e.g., regularly measuring blood sugar) can be improved. Thus, the findings can also be used in prevention and health promotion contexts and potentially help to close the gap in life expectancy between low- and high-income communities.

Furthermore, the findings have the potential to improve intervention effectiveness by better matching the goals of the intervention and the goals of the patients or individuals for whom they are developed. Interventions with a better fit promise better outcomes ( Michie and Prestwich, 2010 ; Prestwich et al., 2014 ; Beard et al., 2019 ; Carey et al., 2019 ) and could therefore be more cost-effective, thereby relying less on scarce financial resources of providers, such as health insurances, local governments, or states.

5.3. Avenues for future research

The results presented in this review are theoretical in nature and therefore require empirical verification. In addition, a number of aspects contained in the studies need to be explored further or discussed in more detail. Some of these points for future research are highlighted in the following.

First, for a number of research strands processed in this review, systematic rather than convenience literature searches could help to substantiate the claims made. While systematic literature searches have been conducted and reviews published on behavior change resources and BCTs (e.g., Cane et al., 2012 ; Prestwich et al., 2014 ; Kwasnicka et al., 2016 ), as well as on behavior change frameworks that served as a basis in the presented analyses (e.g., Kwasnicka et al., 2016 ; Carey et al., 2019 ), conducting new systematic searches and reviews could help to integrate the knowledge gained since the reviews were published. Especially the growing literature on single- or multi-system models (as alternatives to dual-process models) of behavior would benefit from a systematic overview and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the views published so far. On this basis, the BCRM potentially requires refinement. The literature on health promotion and behavior change is growing rapidly, so more up-to-date reviews could help to increase the granularity and accuracy of the findings. For example, a future systematic search of the behavior change resource literature could be done to map the resources identified in the literature to the three types of resources generated in this review. A comprehensive list of internal affective, internal reflective and external resources could be the result. This list could then be augmented by neurobiological analyses of the functional mechanisms proposed. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of empirically tested BCTs can result in a list and discussion of BCTs in the light of their functional mechanisms. Providing such lists would facilitate the application of the BCRM such that users could easily identify resources they need and the BCTs that help to address them.

Second, the Model of Engagement could be tested in the “real world” with patients, e.g., in primary care settings, through interviews that help patients to describe how they perceive their own behavior change process, at which stage they assume to be and what they require to move forwards. These descriptions are presumably very diverse and depend on patient characteristics, such as age, disease or cultural background. Qualitative interviews are potentially the right starting point for the development of a more general questionnaire to test the model in a larger population and with specific target groups.

Third, the BCRM, and aspects of it, is proposed based on several implicit hypotheses that need empirical verification. The first hypothesis is that it is possible to determine uniquely the stage in the behavior change process for each individual patient. This hypothesis could be tested through a new questionnaire that builds upon motivational interviewing ( Rollnick and Miller, 1995 ) or the set of questions developed by Michie et al. (2005) with specific reference to the stages developed in the Model of Engagement. The second hypothesis is that motivation and reward systems are required to process along the stages. This could be tested by interviewing individuals who have successfully progressed along their stage process with respect to their own description of their affective states (pleasure, relief, quiescence) that were present while progressing. The third hypothesis is that resources can uniquely be classified into internal affective, internal reflective and external resources. Neuroscientific methods such as brain imaging could be used to analyze the affective and motivational components associated with these resources and potentially involved in various BCTs. The fourth hypothesis is that certain BCTs influence resources through the three described functional mechanisms of facilitating, boosting, or nudging. Qualitative research methodologies may provide a means to expound upon the perceptions of individuals who have undergone specific interventions, in relation to the mechanisms that either support or impede their engagement in behavior change processes.

Future research should explore the specific functional mechanisms of BCTs in more detail. So far, the literature presents only a general understanding of the functional mechanisms of BCTs. The BCRM should be subject to further scrutiny by investigating the intricate affective processes that underlie nudging interventions, through the assessment of affective states before, during, and after decision-making. Gaining insight into the neurobiological mechanisms that underpin the three functional components of the BCRM, and their respective roles in determining motivational salience and reward intensity, would undoubtedly enhance the scientific knowledge base and prove invaluable in the development and implementation of future interventions in everyday settings.

Finally, the application process of the three steps with patients or communities could be accompanied by research on its applicability, feasibility and effectiveness to optimize the model and its features for future use.

6. Conclusion

Previous theories of health behavior change have overemphasized either cognitive, rational, or relational aspects, while largely neglecting the emotional-affective or motivational processes involved in behavior change. Recent literature has integrated neuroscientific evidence and evidence-informed models into the explanations of how health behavior can be changed, short-term and long-term. Thereby, classifications of behavior change resources and behavior change techniques have been developed and the mechanisms of behavior change techniques have been explained. All in all, the literature has potential to be enriched by more neuroscientific evidence, e.g., more details of the functional mechanisms of health behavior change techniques for particular behavior change resources. Other interesting avenues for future research have been described in this review.

Author contributions

MM was responsible for initial literature search, article screening, interpretation of the existing research, conducting the analysis, as well as writing, and critical revision of the manuscript. TE provided support from the idea through the conception and design of the review and also provided suggestions for revising the manuscript. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Alemanno A., Sibony A. -L. (2015). Nudge and the law: A European perspective. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alert M. D., Rastegar S., Foret M., Slipp L., Jacquart J., Macklin E., et al. (2013). The effectiveness of a comprehensive mind body weight loss intervention for overweight and obese adults: A pilot study. Complement. Ther. Med. 21 286–293. 10.1016/j.ctim.2013.05.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ball L., Johnson C., Desbrow B., Leveritt M. (2013). General practitioners can offer effective nutrition care to patients with lifestyle-related chronic disease. J. Prim. Health Care 5 59–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1989). “ Social cognitive theory ,” in Annals of child development: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development , ed. Vasta R. (Stamford, CT: JAI Press; ), 1–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beard E., West R., Lorencatto F., Gardner B., Michie S., Owens L., et al. (2019). What do cost-effective health behaviour-change interventions contain? A comparison of six domains. PLoS One 14 : e0213983 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0213983 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bélanger-Gravel A., Godin G., Amireault S. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity. Health Psychol. Rev. 7 23–54. 10.1080/17437199.2011.560095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berridge K. C. (2007). The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: The case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology 191 391–431. 10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berridge K. C. (2018). Evolving concepts of emotion and motivation. Front. Psychol. 9 : 1647 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01647 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berridge K. C., Kringelbach M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology 199 457–480. 10.1007/s00213-008-1099-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozarth M. (1994). “ Pleasure systems in the brain ,” in Pleasure: The politics and the reality , ed. Warburton D. M. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Broers V. J. V., de Breucker C., van den Broucke S., Luminet O. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of nudging to increase fruit and vegetable choice. Eur. J. Public Health 27 912–920. 10.1093/eurpub/ckx085 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucher T., Collins C., Rollo M. E., McCaffrey T. A., Vlieger N., de, et al. (2016). Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: A systematic review of positional influences on food choice. Br. J. Nutr. 115 2252–2263. 10.1017/S0007114516001653 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo J. T., Gardner W. L., Berntson G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 839–855. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cane J., O’Connor D., Michie S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement. Sci. 7 : 37 . 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cardoso Barbosa H., de Queiroz Oliveira J. A., Moreira da Costa J., Melo Santos R. P., et al. (2021). Empowerment-oriented strategies to identify behavior change in patients with chronic diseases: An integrative review of the literature. Patient Educ. Counsel. 104 689–702. 10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey R. N., Connell L. E., Johnston M., Rothman A. J., de Bruin M., Kelly M. P., et al. (2019). Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: A synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Ann. Behav. Med. 53 693–707. 10.1093/abm/kay078 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S. (2009). Threat sensitivity, incentive sensitivity, and the experience of relief. J. Pers. 77 125–138. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00540.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., White T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 319–333. 10.1037//0022-3514.67.2.319 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cecchini M., Sassi F., Lauer J. A., Lee Y. Y., Guajardo-Barron V., Chisholm D. (2010). Tackling of unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and obesity: Health effects and cost-effectiveness. Lancet 376 1775–1784. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61514-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaiken S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39 752–766. 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan D. K. Y., Chong R., Basilikas J., Mathie M., Hung W. T. (2002). Survey of major chronic iIlnesses and hospital admissions via the emergency department in a randomized older population in Randwick, Australia. Emerg. Med. 14 387–392. 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00343.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chauhan B. F., Jeyaraman M. M., Mann A. S., Lys J., Skidmore B., Sibley K. M., et al. (2017). Behavior change interventions and policies influencing primary healthcare professionals’ practice-an overview of reviews. Implement. Sci. 12 : 3 . 10.1186/s13012-016-0538-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng C., Cheung M. W. L., Lo B. C. Y. (2016). Relationship of health locus of control with specific health behaviours and global health appraisal: A meta-analysis and effects of moderators. Health Psychol. Rev. 10 460–477. 10.1080/17437199.2016.1219672 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen D., Marsh T., Williamson S., Golinelli D., McKenzie T. L. (2012). Impact and cost-effectiveness of family fitness zones: A natural experiment in urban public parks. Health Place 18 39–45. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.008 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cramer H., Lauche R., Haller H., Steckhan N., Michalsen A., Dobos G. (2014). Effects of yoga on cardiovascular disease risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 173 170–183. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.02.017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Custers R., Aarts H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89 129–142. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.129 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Custers R., Aarts H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science 329 47–50. 10.1126/science.1188595 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Ridder D., Geenen R., Kuijer R., van Middendorp H. (2008). Psychological adjustment to chronic disease. Lancet 372 246–255. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61078-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49 182–185. 10.1037/a0012801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Eder A. B., Harmon-Jones E. (2013). Approach–avoidance motivation and emotion: Convergence and divergence. Emot. Rev. 5 308–311. 10.1177/1754073913477517 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellrodt G., Cook D. J., Lee J., Cho M., Hunt D., Weingarten S. (1997). Evidence-based disease management. JAMA 278 1687–1692. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550200063033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T. (2018). OpenNotes, patient narratives, and their transformative effects on patient-centered care. NEJM (Catalyst). Available online at: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/CAT.18.0078 (accessed January 25, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T. (2022). The ABC model of happiness-neurobiological aspects of motivation and positive mood, and their dynamic changes through practice, the course of life . Biology 11 : 843 . 10.3390/biology11060843 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T., Stefano G. B. (2004). The neurobiology of pleasure, reward processes, addiction and their health implications. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 25 235–251. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Esch T., Stefano G. B. (2010). Endogenous reward mechanisms and their importance in stress reduction, exercise and the brain. AMS 6 447–455. 10.5114/aoms.2010.14269 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Euston D. R., Gruber A. J., McNaughton B. L. (2012). The role of medial prefrontal cortex in memory and decision making. Neuron 76 1057–1070. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans J. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychol. Inq. 21 313–326. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans J. (2018). “ Dual process theory: Perspectives and problems ,” in Dual process theory 2.0 , ed. De Neys W. (Oxforshire: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; ), 137–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felsen G., Reiner P. B. (2015). What can neuroscience contribute to the debate over nudging? Rev. Philos. Psychol. 6 469–479. 10.1007/s13164-015-0240-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forster M., Veerman J. L., Barendregt J. J., Vos T. (2011). Cost-effectiveness of diet and exercise interventions to reduce overweight and obesity. Int. J. Obes. 35 1071–1078. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredrickson B. L., Joiner T. (2018). Reflections on positive emotions and upward spirals. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13 194–199. 10.1177/1745691617692106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geaney F., Di Scotto Marrazzo J., Kelly C., Fitzgerald A. P., Harrington J. M., Kirby A., et al. (2013). The food choice at work study: Effectiveness of complex workplace dietary interventions on dietary behaviours and diet-related disease risk - study protocol for a clustered controlled trial. Trials 14 : 370 . 10.1186/1745-6215-14-370 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W., Kurz-Milcke E., Schwartz L. M., Woloshin S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 8 53–96. 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gollwitzer P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. Am. Psychol. 54 493–503. 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabovac I., Smith L., Stefanac S., Haider S., Cao C., Waldhoer T., et al. (2019). Health care providers’ advice on lifestyle modification in the US population: Results from the NHANES 2011-2016. Am. J. Med. 132 489–497.e1. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.11.021 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grüne-Yanoff T., Hertwig R. (2016). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds Mach. 26 149–183. 10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall P. A., Fong G. T. (2007). Temporal self-regulation theory: A model for individual health behavior. Health Psychol. Rev. 1 6–52. 10.1080/17437190701492437 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall P. A., Fong G. T. (2015). Temporal self-regulation theory: A neurobiologically informed model for physical activity behavior. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9 : 117 . 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D., Sanders M. (2016). Nudging by government: Progress, impact, & lessons learned. Behav. Sci. Policy 2 52–65. 10.1353/bsp.2016.0015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen P. G., Jespersen A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 4 3–28. 10.1017/S1867299X00002762 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen P. G., Skov L. R., Jespersen A. M., Skov K. L., Schmidt K. (2016). Apples versus brownies: A field experiment in rearranging conference snacking buffets to reduce short-term energy intake. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 19 122–130. 10.1080/15378020.2016.1129227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertwig R., Grüne-Yanoff T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 973–986. 10.1177/1745691617702496 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschberg J., Manning C. D. (2015). Advances in natural language processing. Science 349 261–266. 10.1126/science.aaa8685 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howie E. K., Young D. R. (2011). Step it up: A multicomponent intervention to increase stair use in a university residence building. Am. J. Health Promot. 26 2–5. 10.4278/ajhp.091106-ARB-357 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Diabetes Federation [IDF] (2013). IDF diabetes , 6th Edn. Belgium: International Diabetes Federation. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Diabetes Federation [IDF] (2021). IDF diabetes , 10th Edn. Belgium: International Diabetes Federation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen M. P., Nielson W. R., Kerns R. D. (2003). Toward the development of a motivational model of pain self-management. J. Pain 4 477–492. 10.1016/S1526-5900(03)00779-X [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jing X., Chen J., Dong Y., Han D., Zhao H., Wang X., et al. (2018). Related factors of quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 16 : 189 . 10.1186/s12955-018-1021-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Sci. Am. 246 160–173. 10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kassavou K., Turner A., French D. (2013). Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 10 : 18 . 10.1186/1479-5868-10-18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Lee S., Park K., Hong I., Song B., Son G., et al. (2007). Amygdala depotentiation and fear extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 20955–20960. 10.1073/pnas.0710548105 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowler W. C., Barrett-Connor E., Fowler S. E., Hamman R. F., Lachin J. M., Walker E. A., et al. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Eng. J. Med. 346 393–403. 10.1056/NEJMoa012512 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korff M., Gruman J., Schaefer J., Curry S. J., Wagner E. H. (1998). Collaborative management of chronic illness. Ann. Int. Med. 127 1097–1102. 10.7326/0003-4819-127-12-199712150-00008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kringelbach M. L. (2005). The human orbitofrontal cortex: Linking reward to hedonic experience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6 691–702. 10.1038/nrn1747 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krisam M., Meder B., Philipsborn P., von (2017). Nudging in der primärprävention: Eine übersicht und perspektiven für deutschland. Gesundheitswesen 79 117–123. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruglanski A. W., Chernikova M., Rosenzweig E., Kopetz C. (2014). On motivational readiness. Psychol. Rev. 121 367–388. 10.1037/a0037013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwasnicka D., Dombrowski S. U., White M., Sniehotta F. F. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behavior change: A systematic review of behavior theories. Health Psychol. Rev. 10 1–39. 10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lampert T., Hoebel J., Kroll L. E. (2019). Soziale unterschiede in der mortalität und lebenserwartung in deutschland. Aktuelle situation und trends. J. Health Monit. 4 3–15. 10.25646/5868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. Am. Psychol. 50 372–385. 10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang P. J., Bradley M. M. (2013). Appetitive and defensive motivation: Goal-directed or goal-determined? Emot. Rev. 5 230–234. 10.1177/1754073913477511 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langenberg C., Sharp S. J., Franks P. W., Scott R. A., Deloukas P., Forouhi N. G., et al. (2014). Gene-lifestyle interaction and type 2 diabetes: The EPIC interact case-cohort study. PLoS Med. 11 : e1001647 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001647 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeDoux J. (1998). Fear and the brain: Where have we been, and where are we going? Biol. Psychiatry 44 1229–1238. 10.1016/S0006-3223(98)00282-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Y., Mozaffarian D., Sy S., Huang Y., Liu J., Wilde P. E., et al. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through medicare and medicaid: A microsimulation study. PLoS Med. 16 : e1002761 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002761 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lehnert T., Heider D., Leicht H., Heinrich S., Corrieri S., Luppa M., et al. (2011). Review: Health care utilization and costs of elderly persons with multiple chronic conditions. Med. Care Res. Rev. 68 387–420. 10.1177/1077558711399580 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Letzen J. E., Seminowicz D. A., Campbell C. M., Finan P. H. (2019). Exploring the potential role of mesocorticolimbic circuitry in motivation for and adherence to chronic pain self-management interventions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 98 10–17. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levenson R. W. (2011). Basic emotion questions. Emot. Rev. 3 379–386. 10.1177/1754073911410743 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberoth A., Holm Jensen N., Bredahl T. (2018). Selective psychological effects of nudging, gamification and rational information in converting commuters from cars to buses: A controlled field experiment. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 55 246–261. 10.1016/j.trf.2018.02.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig V. U., Brown K. W., Brewer J. A. (2020). Self-regulation without force: Can awareness leverage reward to drive behavior change? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15 1382–1399. 10.1177/1745691620931460 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maresova P., Javanmardi E., Barakovic S., Barakovic Husic J., Tomsone S., Krejcar O., et al. (2019). Consequences of chronic diseases and other limitations associated with old age - a scoping review. BMC Public Health 19 : 1431 . 10.1186/s12889-019-7762-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marteau T. M., Hollands G. J., Fletcher P. C. (2012). Changing human behavior to prevent disease: The importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337 1492–1495. 10.1126/science.1226918 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCall C., Singer T. (2012). The animal and human neuroendocrinology of social cognition, motivation and behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 15 681–688. 10.1038/nn.3084 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mertens S., Herberz M., Hahnel U. J. J., Brosch T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119 : e2107346118 . 10.1073/pnas.2107346118 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michaelsen M. M., Esch T. (2021). Motivation and reward mechanisms in health behavior change processes. Brain Res. 1757 : 147309 . 10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147309 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michaelsen M. M., Esch T. (2022). Functional mechanisms of health behavior change techniques: A conceptual review. Front. Psychol. 13 : 725644 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.725644 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Prestwich A. (2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 29 1–8. 10.1037/a0016939 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Johnston M., Abraham C., Lawton R., Parker D., Walker A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. BMJ Qual. Saf. 14 26–33. 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., Richardson M., Johnston M., Abraham C., Francis J., Hardeman W., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 46 81–95. 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michie S., van Stralen M. M., West R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6 : 42 . 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris E., Jebb S., Aveyard P. (2019). Type 2 diabetes: Treating not managing. Lancet Diab. Endocrinol. 7 326–327. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moussavi S., Chatterji S., Verdes E., Tandon A., Patel V., Ustun B. (2007). Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: Results from the world health surveys. Lancet 370 851–858. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61415-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nestler E. J. (2001). Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2 119–128. 10.1038/35053570 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nestler E. J., Malenka R. C. (2004). The addicted brain. Sci. Am. 290 78–85. 10.1038/scientificamerican0304-78 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nestler E. J., Malenka R. C., Hyman S. (2001). Molecular basis of neuropharmacology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical. [ Google Scholar ]
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2021). Health at a glance 2021. Berlin: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/ae3016b9-en [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ornish D., Brown S. E., Billings J. H., Scherwitz L. W., Armstrong W. T., Ports T. A., et al. (1990). Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The lifestyle heart trial. Lancet 336 129–133. 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91656-U [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orr J. A., King R. J. (2015). Mobile phone SMS messages can enhance healthy behaviour: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Health Psychol. Rev. 9 397–416. 10.1080/17437199.2015.1022847 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul-Ebhohimhen V., Avenell A. (2008). Systematic review of the use of financial incentives in treatments for obesity and overweight. Obes. Rev. 9 355–367. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00409.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petry N. M., Cengiz E., Wagner J. A., Hood K. K., Carria L., Tamborlane W. V. (2013). Incentivizing behaviour change to improve diabetes care. Diab. Obes. Metab. 15 1071–1076. 10.1111/dom.12111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T. (2012). “ The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion ,” in Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change , ed. Petty R. E. (Berlin: Springer; ), 1–24. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piwek L., Ellis D. A., Andrews S., Joinson A. (2016). The rise of consumer health wearables: Promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 13 : e1001953 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prestwich A., Sniehotta F. F., Whittington C., Dombrowski S. U., Rogers L., Michie S. (2014). Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 33 465–474. 10.1037/a0032853 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Priesterroth L., Grammes J., Holtz K., Reinwarth A., Kubiak T. (2019). Gamification and behavior change techniques in diabetes self-management apps. J. Diab. Sci. Technol. 13 954–958. 10.1177/1932296818822998 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prochaska J. O., Redding C. A., Evers K. E. (2008). “ The transtheoretical model and stages of change ,” in Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice , 4th Edn, eds Glanz K., Rimer B. K., Viswanath K. (Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass; ), 97–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizzo J. A., Chen J., Gunnarsson C. L., Naim A., Lofland J. H. (2015). Adjusting for comorbidities in cost of illness studies. J. Med. Econ. 18 12–28. 10.3111/13696998.2014.969434 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollnick S., Miller W. R. (1995). What is motivational interviewing? Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 23 325–334. 10.1017/S135246580001643X [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rolls E. T. (2013). What are emotional states, and why do we have them? Emot. Rev. 5 241–247. 10.1177/1754073913477514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman A. J., Baldwin A. S., Hertel A. W. (2004). “ Self-regulation and behavior change: Disentangling behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance ,” in Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications , eds Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 130–148. 10.1186/s12889-020-09111-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotter J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement (No. 1). Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 80 1–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55 68–78. 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainsbury K., Evans E. H., Pedersen S., Marques M. M., Teixeira P. J., Lähteenmäki L., et al. (2019). Attribution of weight regain to emotional reasons amongst European adults with overweight and obesity who regained weight following a weight loss attempt. Eat. Weight Disord. 24 351–361. 10.1007/s40519-018-0487-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sangha S. (2015). Plasticity of fear and safety neurons of the amygdala in response to fear extinction. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9 : 354 . 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00354 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savoye M., Shaw M., Dziura J., Tamborlane W. V., Rose P., Guandalini C., et al. (2007). Effects of a weight management program on body composition and metabolic parameters in overweight children a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297 2697–2704. 10.1001/jama.297.24.2697 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider K. M., O’Donnell B. E., Dean D. (2009). Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions in the United States’ medicare population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7 : 82 . 10.1186/1477-7525-7-82 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneirla T. C. (1959). “ An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawal ,” in Nebraska symposium on motivation , Vol. 7 ed. Jones M. R. (Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press; ), 1–42. 10.1177/000306517001800210 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultz W. (2015). Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiol. Rev. 95 853–951. 10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwarzer R., Lippke S., Luszczynska A. (2011). Mechanisms of health behavior change in persons with chronic illness or disability: The health action process approach (HAPA). Rehabil. Psychol. 56 161–170. 10.1037/a0024509 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seuring T., Archangelidi O., Suhrcke M. (2015). The economic costs of type 2 diabetes: A global systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 33 811–831. 10.1007/s40273-015-0268-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour B., Singer T., Dolan R. (2007). The neurobiology of punishment. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 300–311. 10.1038/nrn2119 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheeran P., Gollwitzer P. M., Bargh J. A. (2013). Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychol. 32 460–473. 10.1037/a0029203 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheeran P., Maki A., Montanaro E., Avishai A., Bryan A., Klein W., et al. (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 35 1178–1188. 10.1037/hea0000387 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shomaker L. B., Pivarunas B., Annameier S. K., Gulley L., Quaglia J., Brown K. W., et al. (2019). One-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial piloting a mindfulness-based group intervention for adolescent insulin resistance. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1040 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01040 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith K. S., Berridge K. C., Aldridge J. W. (2011). Disentangling pleasure from incentive salience and learning signals in brain reward circuitry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 E255–E264. 10.1073/pnas.1101920108 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart A. L., Greenfield S., Hays R. D., Wells K., Rogers W. H., Berry S. D., et al. (1989). Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 262 907–913. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strack F., Deutsch R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8 220–247. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroebe W., Mensink W., Aarts H., Schut H., Kruglanski A. W. (2008). Why dieters fail: Testing the goal conflict model of eating. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 26–36. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroebe W., van Koningsbruggen G. M., Papies E. K., Aarts H. (2013). Why most dieters fail but some succeed: A goal conflict model of eating behavior. Psychol. Rev. 120 110–138. 10.1037/a0030849 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szaszi B., Palinkas A., Palfi B., Szollosi A., Aczel B. (2018). A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: Toward understanding when and why nudges work. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31 355–366. 10.1002/bdm.2035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• The World Bank (2022). Data - Life expectancy at birth. Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN (accessed January 25, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich S., Holle R., Wacker M., Stark R., Icks A., Thorand B., et al. (2016). Cost burden of type 2 diabetes in Germany: Results from the population-based KORA studies. BMJ Open 6 : e012527 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012527 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Cappellen P., Rice E. L., Catalino L. I., Fredrickson B. L. (2018). Positive affective processes underlie positive health behaviour change. Psychol. Health 33 77–97. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Gestel L. C., Adriaanse M. A., de Ridder D. T. D. (2020). Beyond discrete choices - investigating the effectiveness of a proximity nudge with multiple alternative options. Front. Psychol. 11 : 1211 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01211 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rookhuijzen M., de Vet E., Adriaanse M. A. (2021). The effects of nudges: One-shot only? Exploring the temporal spillover effects of a default nudge. Front. Psychol. 12 : 683262 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.683262 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verplanken B., Aarts H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 10 101–134. 10.1080/14792779943000035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volpp K. G., John L. K., Troxel A. B., Norton L., Fassbender J., Loewenstein G. (2008). Financial incentive–based approaches for weight loss: A randomized trial. JAMA 300 2631–7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner E. H. (2000). The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. BMJ 320 569–572. 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.569 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wansink B., Just D., Smith L. (2011). Move the fruit: Putting fruit in new bowls and new places doubles lunchroom sales. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 43 : S1 . 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.03.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D., Wiese D., Vaidya J., Tellegen A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 820–838. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein N. D., Sandman P. M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption process: Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychol. 11 170–180. 10.1037/0278-6133.11.3.170 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein N. D., Sandman P. M. (2002). “ The precaution adoption process model and its application ,” in Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research , eds DiClemente R. J., Crosby R. A., Kegler Michelle C. (Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass; ), 16–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willett W. C. (2002). Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science 296 695–698. 10.1126/science.1071055 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organisation [WHO] (2022a). Fact sheets - noncommunicable diseases. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases (accessed January 25, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organisation [WHO] (2022b). Fact sheets - aging and health. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (accessed January 25, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• Yom-Tov E., Feraru G., Kozdoba M., Mannor S., Tennenholtz M., Hochberg I. (2017). Encouraging physical activity in patients with diabetes: Intervention using a reinforcement learning system. J. Med. Int. Res. 19 : e338 . 10.2196/jmir.7994 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou B., Lu Y., Hajifathalian K., Bentham J., Di Cesare M., Danaei G., et al. (2016). Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: A pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4⋅4 million participants. Lancet 387 1513–1530. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00618-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]