key benefits of literature review in research

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which 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.

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].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

• 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

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 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. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• 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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• 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 . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• 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.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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

• To familiarize 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.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

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

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Book an Appointment

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review surveys and synthesizes the scholarly research literature related to a particular topic. Literature reviews both explain research findings and analyze the quality of the research in order to arrive at new insights.

Literature reviews may describe not only the key research related to a topic of inquiry but also seminal sources, influential scholars, key theories or hypotheses, common methodologies used, typical questions asked, or common patterns of inquiry.

There are different types of literature reviews.  A narrative literature review summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous research articles, but the purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely. The term "literature review" is most commonly used to refer to narrative literature reviews, and these are the types of works that are described in this guide. 

Some types of literature reviews that use prescribed methods for identifying and evaluating evidence-based literature related to specific questions are known as systematic reviews or meta-analyses . Systematic reviews or meta-analyses are typically conducted by at least two scholars working in collaboration as prescribed by certain guidelines, but narrative literature reviews may be conducted by authors working alone.

Purpose of a Literature Review

Literature reviews serve an important function in developing the scholarly record. Because of the vast amount of scholarly literature that exists, it can be difficult for readers to keep up with the latest developments related to a topic, or to discern which ideas, themes, authors, or methods are worthy of more attention. Literature reviews help readers to understand and make sense of a large body of scholarship.

Literature reviews also play an important function in assessing the quality of the evidence base in relation to a particular topic. Literature reviews contain assessments of the evidence in support of particular interventions, policies, programs, or treatments.

The literature that is reviewed may include a variety of types of research, including empirical research, theoretical works, and reports of practical application. The scholarly works that are considered for inclusion in a literature review may appear in a variety of publication types, including scholarly journals, books, conference proceedings, reports, and others. 

Steps in the Process

Follow these steps to conduct your literature review:

• Select a topic and prepare for searching.  Formulate a research question and establish inclusion and exclusion criteria for your search.
• Search for and organize the research. Use tools like the library website, library-subscription databases, Google Scholar, and others to locate research on your topic.
• Organize your research, read and evaluate it, and take notes. Use organizational and note-taking strategies to read sources and prepare for writing. 
• Write and edit the paper. Synthesize information from sources to arrive at new insights.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

View the video below for an overview of the process of writing literature review papers.

Video:  Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  by  libncsu

• Next: Searching for Literature >>

Explore Academics

Literature Review in Research: 14 key benefits

• X (Twitter)

Last updated on July 26th, 2024 at 06:20 am

A literature review in research forms the foundation of your study and provides a framework to build your research. By reviewing existing research, you get a well-rounded understanding of the field, which helps enhance your study.

What is a Literature Review in Research

A literature review in research gives a detailed summary of studies in a specific field. It involves a critical analysis of these studies, focusing on their depth and the effectiveness of their methodologies, and is crucial for enhancing your research work.

Key Benefits of a Literature Review

A literature review will benefit experienced researchers and beginners alike to write more effective research papers based on strong principles and maintain the highest levels of academic integrity and ethicality.

1. Analyzing Theories and Concepts

The literature review in research helps you understand the key theories and concepts in your field. It broadens your knowledge and helps you position your research within the existing body of knowledge.

2. Evaluating Existing Research

By evaluating existing research, you can identify the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies. This helps establish the credibility of your research and shows where improvements can be made.

3. Identifying Research Gaps

By writing a literature review in research helps you see what has already been researched and what hasn’t. Identifying these gaps allows you to find areas where more research is needed, providing opportunities to explore new topics for your research paper.

4. Providing a Detailed Roadmap

Understanding the gaps in existing research gives you a clear direction for your study. You can use this roadmap to position your research to fill these gaps or to develop new concepts.es you a clear direction for your study.

5. Choosing a Research Topic

Reviewing literature can inspire new research topics. It helps you find areas that are impactful and worth exploring further.

6. Expanding The Methodology Base

As you evaluate different studies, you’ll learn about various methodologies used for data collection and analysis. This knowledge can help you choose the best research methodology for your research.

7. Analyzing Strengths and Weaknesses

After reviewing multiple papers, you’ll gain a better perspective on what makes a study strong or weak. This insight is crucial for improving the quality of your research.

8. Assessing The Research Processes

By examining the methodology sections of other studies, you can learn about different research processes and how they can be applied to your work.

9. Refining Your Research Questions and Objectives

A literature review in research helps you refine your research questions and objectives. By synthesizing key concepts and theoretical frameworks, you can develop well-informed research questions.

10. Designing a Robust and Effective Study

With the insights gained from your literature review, you can make informed decisions about data collection and sampling techniques, ensuring a robust methodology for your study.

11. Staying Abreast with Latest Developments

A literature review in research keep you updated on the latest trends and emerging theories in your field, helping you stay relevant and informed.

12. Defending or Challenging Existing Concepts

Reviewing existing research allows you to critically assess the evidence supporting or challenging current concepts. This can guide you in deciding whether further research is needed.

13. Providing Practical Insights

While composing a literature review in research, you gain practical insights into the best practices and methodologies used by other researchers, which you can apply to your study.

14. Preventing Duplication

A thorough literature review in research ensures that your study is original and not a duplication of existing studies. This is crucial to maintaining academic integrity and avoiding plagiarism.

FAQ’s

What is the meaning of literature review in research.

A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources.

What is a good literature review in research?

A good review should critically examine the methodological problems, and identify research gaps. After reading a literature review in research, a reader should have a decent idea of the important components in the reviewed field,

What is the format for a literature review in research?

Most literature reviews must include a few sentences in the introduction section, a detailed analysis in the body section, and a few sentences in the conclusion

In conclusion, a literature review in research is like a roadmap for your research journey. It helps you understand the existing landscape, identify gaps in knowledge, and refine your research question. By learning from previous studies and methodologies, you can develop a more focused and impactful research project.

So, the next time you embark on a research project, remember – a thorough literature review is the key to building a strong foundation for your work!

My journey in academia began as a dedicated researcher, specializing in the fascinating world of biochemistry. Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of mentoring Master’s and PhD students, collaborating on research papers that pushed the boundaries of knowledge. Now, post-retirement, I’ve embarked on a new chapter, sharing my academic expertise through freelance work on platforms like YouTube and Upwork. Here, I delve into the finer points of academic research, guiding aspiring writers through the intricacies of formatting, crafting compelling narratives, and navigating the publication process.

You May Also Like

How to write a literature review using chatgpt.

How To Write A Research Paper Outline Expertly

Importance of Research Methodology: With Examples

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. 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.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

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: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

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 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: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Why Is Literature Review Important? (3 Benefits Explained)

by  Antony W

June 26, 2024

Every research project needs a literature review. And while it’s one of the most challenging parts of the assignment, in part because of the intensity of the research involved, it’s by far the most important section of a research paper.

Many students fail to write comprehensive literature reviews because they see the assignment as a formality.

For the most part, they’ll vaguely create a list of existing studies and consider the assignment complete. But such an approach overlooks why a literature review is important.

We need to take a step back and look beyond the definition of a literature review.

In particular, the goal of this guide is to help you explore the significance of the review of the existing literature.

Once you understand the role that literature reviews play in research projects, you’ll give the assignment the full attention that it deserves.

Key Takeaways

Writing a literature review is important for the following reasons:

• It demonstrates that you understand the issue you’re investigating.
• A literature review allows you to develop a more theoretical framework for your research. 
• It justifies your research and shows the gaps present in the current literature.

Get Literature Review Writing Help

Do you find the workload involved in writing a literature review for your thesis, research paper, or standalone project overwhelming? We understand how involving the writing process can be, and we are here to help you with writing if you currently feel stuck.

You can hire a  professional literature review writer   from Help for Assessment to get the writing done for you. Whether you have a flexible deadline or the submission date for the literature is almost due, you can count on our team to help you get the paper done fast. 

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a study of the already existing research in a given area of study.

While it’s common in physical and social sciences, instructors may also request student to complete the assignment within the humanities space.

The review can be a standalone project or a part of an academic assignment.

If your professor or instructor asks you to write the review as a standalone project, your focus will be on exploring how a specific field of inquiry has developed over the course of time.

In the case where you have to include the review as part of your academic paper, the goal will be to set the background for the topic (or issue) you’re currently investigating.

How is Literature Review Different from an Essay?

In an education setting whether students are used to writing tons of essays every month, it’s likely for many to wonder whether an essay could be the same as a literature review.

While a literature review and an essay both require research before writing, there are a number of differences between them that you need to know.

Types of Literature Review

We’ll look at the significance of a literature review in a moment.

For now let’s look at the types of literature reviews that your instructor may ask you to write.

As of this writing, there are 6 types of reviews that you need to know about. These are:

1. Argumentative Review

Examines a literature review with the intention to support or refuse an argument, with the aim being to develop a body of literature that can establish a contrarian point of view.

2. Integrative Literature Review

This type of review critiques and synthesizes related literature to generate a new framework and perspective on a topic.

Researchers have to address identical and/or related hypotheses or research problems to comply with research standards with regards to replication, vigor, and clarity.

3. Historical Literature

The focus of the review is to examine research within a given period, and usually starts from the time a research problem or issue emerged.

Then, you have to trace its evolution throughout the suggested timeframe within the scholarship of that particular discipline.

4. Methodological Literature Review

The focus shifts from what someone said to how they ended up saying what they said.

Since the focus here is on the method of analysis , methodological reviews gives a better framework that help one to understand exactly how a researcher draws their conclusion from a wide range of knowledge.

5. Systematic Literature

A systematic review focuses on the existing evidence related to a specific research question.

You will need to use a pre-specified and standardized approach to identify, evaluate, and appraise research, not to mention collect, analyze, and report data collected from the review.

Understand that the goal of a systematic review is to evaluate, summarize, and document research that focuses on a specific (or clearly defined) research problem.

6. Theoretical Literature Review

Theoretical review focuses on examining theories that resulted from an issue, a concept, or a situation.

It’s through this type of review that a researcher can easily establish the kind of theories that already formulated, the degree to what researchers have investigated them, and the relationship between them.

It’s through theoretical review that one can develop new hypotheses for testing and can therefore help to determine what theories aren’t sufficient to explain emerging research problems.

Why Is Literature Review Important?

Now that you know the difference between an essay and a review as well as the different types of literature review, it’s important to look at why it’s important to examine existing literature in your research.

There are a number of reasons why instructors ask you to write a review , and they’re as follow:

1. Demonstrate a Clear Understanding of the Subject

Writing a literature review demonstrates that you have a clear understanding of the subject you’re investigating.

It also means that you can easily identify, evaluate, and summarize existing research that’s relevant to your work. 

2. Justify Your Research

There’s more to writing a research paper than just identifying topic and generating your research question from it.

You also have to go as far as to justify your research, and the only way to do that is by including a literature review in your work.

It’s important to understand that looking at past research is the only way to identify gaps that exist in the current literature.

That can go a long way to help fill in the gap by addressing them in your own research work.

3. Helps to Set a Resourceful Theoretical Framework

Because a research paper assignment builds up on the ideas of already existing research, doing a literature review can help you to set a resourceful theoretical framework on which to base your study.

The theoretical framework will include concepts and theories that you will base your research on. And keep in mind that it’s this framework that professors will use to judge the overall quality of your work. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what are the benefits of literature review in research.

A literature review in research allows you to discover exiting knowledge in your field and the boundaries and limitations that exists within that field.

Moreover, doing a review of existing literature helps you to understand the theories that drive an area of investigation, making it easy for you to place your research question  into proper context. 

2. What is the Effect of a Good Literature Review?

In addition to providing context, reducing research redundancy, and informing methodology, a well-written literature review can maximize relevance, enhance originality, and ensure professional standards in writing.

3. What is a Strength of a Literature Review?

The strength of a literature review is the ability to improve your information seeking skills and enhancing your knowledge about the topic under investigation.

As you can see, a review is quite a significant part of a research project, so you should treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.

At the end of the day, you want to create a good connection between you and your readers, and the best way to do that is to pack just as much value as you can in your literature review project.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

Home of Mass Communication Project Topics in Nigeria

No.1 Mass Communication Research Topics and Materials

BENEFITS OF LITERATURE REVIEW TO RESEARCH

Introduction.

Literature review offers lots of benefits to researcher. However, for the purpose of this post I will like to be direct. Below are few benefits of Literature review to researchers:

• A thorough exploration of the literature review will help to articulate our own research problems, objectives, as well as formulating our research questions or hypothesis.
• It helps to know the existing GAPS
• It helps to notices the important concepts and variables and how they were operationalized
• It widens the researcher knowledge of the problem
• It gives researchers detailed knowledge of the method and design that he can adopt or use new ones.
• It helps the researcher to arrive at picking a suitable scope
• It suggested theories previously used

Related Project Topics:

Influence of artificial intelligence on practice of public relations in nigeria.

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: This study explores the influence of Artificial Intelligence on the practice of public relations in Nigeria, employing a cross-sectional survey

PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF AI ON JOURNALISM ETHICS PRACTICE IN NIGERIA

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: This study explores the perceived effects of Ai on journalism ethics in Nigeria, employing a cross-sectional survey research method. The

INFLUENCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN JOURNALISM INDUSTRY IN NIGERIA

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: This study investigates the transformative influence of Artificial Intelligence in journalism industry in Nigeria. Employing a quantitative research method, the

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNET AS A TOOL FOR RESEARCH AND ASSIGNMENT AMONG STUDENTS

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: This study investigates the effectiveness of the Internet as a tool for research and assignments among students. Guided by the

UTILIZATION OF INTERNET AS RESEARCH TOOL AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: The study was to investigate the utilization of internet as research tool among undergraduate students. The study was anchored on

Impact of ChatGPT on Writing Skills among Nigerian University Students

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: This study examines the impact of ChatGPT on writing skills among University students, framed within the context of the Technological

IMPACT OF PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS ON THE KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND PRACTICES (KAP) AMONG MALE LECTURERS

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: Prostate cancer, a leading cause of cancer mortality among men, is significantly prevalent in Nigeria. Despite its high incidence, awareness

USE OF NEW MEDIA AS A BUSINESS TOOL AMONG UNDERGRADUATES IN NIGERIA

(Last Updated On: ) ABSTRACT: This study examined the use of new media as a business tool among undergraduates in Nigeria. This research project specifically

PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: The core objective of the study is to examine the perception of social media on the 2023 presidential election with a

ASSESSMENT OF IMPLICATION OF OPEN DEFECATION ON HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS

(Last Updated On: ) Abstract: The core objective of the study is assesses implications of open defecation on health of people living in rural areas:

Influence of Social Media on Social Capital

(Last Updated On: ) ABSTRACT: The study is on the thrust to examined the influence of social media on  social capital. This study was anchored

INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON LIFESTYLE OF YOUTH

(Last Updated On: ) ABSTRACT: This study explores the influence of social media on lifestyle of youth. Given the pervasive use of platforms such as

Call : 08033061386,  Whatsapp : 07033401559,  Email : [email protected] 

Address: No. 2, His Grace Shopping Complex, Ramat Junction, Ayeekale, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria.

• Open access
• Published: 25 July 2024

Strategies to strengthen the resilience of primary health care in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

• Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad 1 ,
• Mahnaz Afshari 2 ,
• Parvaneh Isfahani 3 ,
• Farahnaz Ezzati 4 ,
• Mahdi Abbasi 4 ,
• Shahrzad Akhavan Farahani 4 ,
• Maryam Zahmatkesh 5 &
• Leila Eslambolchi 4  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  841 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Primary Health Care (PHC) systems are pivotal in delivering essential health services during crises, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. With varied global strategies to reinforce PHC systems, this scoping review consolidates these efforts, identifying and categorizing key resilience-building strategies.

Adopting Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, this study synthesized literature across five databases and Google Scholar, encompassing studies up to December 31st, 2022. We focused on English and Persian studies that addressed interventions to strengthen PHC amidst COVID-19. Data were analyzed through thematic framework analysis employing MAXQDA 10 software.

Our review encapsulated 167 studies from 48 countries, revealing 194 interventions to strengthen PHC resilience, categorized into governance and leadership, financing, workforce, infrastructures, information systems, and service delivery. Notable strategies included telemedicine, workforce training, psychological support, and enhanced health information systems. The diversity of the interventions reflects a robust global response, emphasizing the adaptability of strategies across different health systems.

Conclusions

The study underscored the need for well-resourced, managed, and adaptable PHC systems, capable of maintaining continuity in health services during emergencies. The identified interventions suggested a roadmap for integrating resilience into PHC, essential for global health security. This collective knowledge offered a strategic framework to enhance PHC systems' readiness for future health challenges, contributing to the overall sustainability and effectiveness of global health systems.

Peer Review reports

The health system is a complex network that encompasses individuals, groups, and organizations engaged in policymaking, financing, resource generation, and service provision. These efforts collectively aim to safeguard and enhance people health, meet their expectations, and provide financial protection [ 1 ]. The World Health Organization's (WHO) framework outlines six foundational building blocks for a robust health system: governance and leadership, financing, workforce, infrastructure along with technologies and medicine, information systems, and service delivery. Strengthening these elements is essential for health systems to realize their objectives of advancing and preserving public health [ 2 ].

Effective governance in health systems encompasses the organization of structures, processes, and authority, ensuring resource stewardship and aligning stakeholders’ behaviors with health goals [ 3 ]. Financial mechanisms are designed to provide health services without imposing financial hardship, achieved through strategic fund collection, management and allocation [ 4 , 5 ]. An equitable, competent, and well-distributed health workforce is crucial in delivering healthcare services and fulfilling health system objectives [ 2 ]. Access to vital medical supplies, technologies, and medicines is a cornerstone of effective health services, while health information systems play a pivotal role in generating, processing, and utilizing health data, informing policy decisions [ 2 , 5 ]. Collectively, these components interact to offer quality health services that are safe, effective, timely, affordable, and patient-centered [ 2 ]

The WHO, at the 1978 Alma-Ata conference, introduced primary health care (PHC) as the fundamental strategy to attain global health equity [ 6 ]. Subsequent declarations, such as the one in Astana in 2018, have reaffirmed the pivotal role of PHC in delivering high-quality health care for all [ 7 ]. PHC represents the first level of contact within the health system, offering comprehensive, accessible, community-based care that is culturally sensitive and supported by appropriate technology [ 8 ]. Essential care through PHC encompasses health education, proper nutrition, access to clean water and sanitation, maternal and child healthcare, immunizations, treatment of common diseases, and the provision of essential drugs [ 6 ]. PHC aims to provide protective, preventive, curative, and rehabilitative services that are as close to the community as possible [ 9 ].

Global health systems, however, have faced significant disruptions from various shocks and crises [ 10 ], with the COVID-19 pandemic being a recent and profound example. The pandemic has stressed health systems worldwide, infecting over 775 million and claiming more than 7.04 million lives as of April 13th, 2024 [ 11 ]. Despite the pandemic highlighting the critical role of hospitals and intensive care, it also revealed the limitations of specialized medicine when not complemented by a robust PHC system [ 12 ].

The pandemic brought to light the vulnerabilities of PHC systems, noting a significant decrease in the use of primary care for non-emergency conditions. Routine health services, including immunizations, prenatal care, and chronic disease management, were severely impacted [ 13 ]. The challenges—quarantine restrictions, fears of infection, staffing and resource shortages, suspended non-emergency services, and financial barriers—reduced essential service utilization [ 14 ]. This led to an avoidance of healthcare, further exacerbating health inequalities and emphasizing the need for more resilient PHC systems [ 15 , 16 , 17 ].

Resilient PHC systems are designed to predict, prevent, prepare, absorb, adapt, and transform when facing crises, ensuring the continuity of routine health services [ 18 ]. Investing in the development of such systems can not only enhance crisis response but also foster post-crisis transformation and improvement. This study focuses on identifying global interventions and strategies to cultivate resilient PHC systems, aiding policymakers and managers in making informed decisions in times of crisis.

In 2023, we conducted a scoping review to collect and synthesize evidence from a broad spectrum of studies addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. A scoping review allows for the assessment of literature's volume, nature, and comprehensiveness, and is uniquely inclusive of both peer-reviewed articles and gray literature—such as reports, white papers, and policy documents. Unlike systematic reviews, it typically does not require a quality assessment of the included literature, making it well-suited for rapidly gathering a wide scope of evidence [ 19 ]. Our goal was to uncover the breadth of solutions aimed at bolstering the resilience of the PHC system throughout the COVID-19 crisis. The outcomes of this review are intended to inform the development of a model that ensures the PHC system's ability to continue delivering not just emergency services but also essential care during times of crisis.

We employed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, which consists of six steps: formulating the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting the pertinent studies, extracting data, synthesizing and reporting the findings, and, where applicable, consulting with stakeholders to inform and validate the results [ 20 ]. This comprehensive approach is designed to capture a wide range of interventions and strategies, with the ultimate aim of crafting a robust PHC system that can withstand the pressures of a global health emergency

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Our scoping review was guided by the central question: "Which strategies and interventions have been implemented to enhance the resilience of primary healthcare systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?" This question aimed to capture a comprehensive array of responses to understand the full scope of resilience-building activities within PHC systems.

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

To ensure a thorough review, we conducted systematic searches across multiple databases, specifically targeting literature up to December 31st, 2022. The databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Magiran, and SID. We also leveraged the expansive reach of Google Scholar. Our search strategy incorporated a bilingual approach, utilizing both English and Persian keywords that encompassed "PHC," "resilience," "strategies," and "policies," along with the logical operators AND/OR to refine the search. Additionally, we employed Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to enhance the precision of our search. The results were meticulously organized and managed using the Endnote X8 citation manager, facilitating the systematic selection and review of pertinent literature.

Stage 3: selecting studies

In the third stage, we meticulously vetted our search results to exclude duplicate entries by comparing bibliographic details such as titles, authors, publication dates, and journal names. This task was performed independently by two of our authors, LE and MA, who rigorously screened titles and abstracts. Discrepancies encountered during this process were brought to the attention of a third author, AMM, for resolution through consensus.

Subsequently, full-text articles were evaluated by four team members—LE, MA, PI, and SHZ—to ascertain their relevance to our research question. The selection hinged on identifying articles that discussed strategies aimed at bolstering the resilience of PHC systems amidst the COVID-19 pandemic Table 1 .

We have articulated the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that guided our selection process in Table 2 , ensuring transparency and replicability of our review methodology

Stage 4: charting the data

Data extraction was conducted by a team of six researchers (LE, MA, PI, MA, FE, and SHZ), utilizing a structured data extraction form. For each selected study, we collated details including the article title, the first author’s name, the year of publication, the country where the study was conducted, the employed research methodology, the sample size, the type of document, and the PHC strengthening strategies described.

In pursuit of maintaining rigorous credibility in our study, we adopted a dual-review process. Each article was independently reviewed by pairs of researchers to mitigate bias and ensure a thorough analysis. Discrepancies between reviewers were addressed through discussion to reach consensus. In instances where consensus could not be reached, the matter was escalated to a third, neutral reviewer. Additionally, to guarantee thoroughness, either LE or MA conducted a final review of the complete data extraction for each study.

Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results

In this stage, authors LE, MZ, and MA worked independently to synthesize the data derived from the selected studies. Differences in interpretation were collaboratively discussed until a consensus was reached, with AMM providing arbitration where required.

We employed a framework thematic analysis, underpinned by the WHO's health system building blocks model, to structure our findings. This model categorizes health system components into six foundational elements: governance and leadership; health financing; health workforce; medical products, vaccines, and technologies; health information systems; and service delivery [ 2 ]. Using MAXQDA 10 software, we coded the identified PHC strengthening strategies within these six thematic areas.

Summary of search results and study selection

In total, 4315 articles were found by initial search. After removing 397 duplicates, 3918 titles and abstracts were screened and 3606 irrelevant ones were deleted. Finally, 167 articles of 312 reviewed full texts were included in data synthesis (Fig.  1 ). Main characteristics of included studies are presented in Appendix 1.

PRISMA Flowchart of search process and results

Characteristics of studies

These studies were published in 2020 (18.6%), 2021 (36.5%) and 2022 (44.9%). They were conducted in 48 countries, mostly in the US (39 studies), the UK (16 studies), Canada (11 studies), Iran (10 studies) and Brazil (7 studies) as shown in Fig.  2 .

Distribution of reviewed studies by country

Although the majority of the reviewed publications were original articles (55.1 %) and review papers (21 %), other types of documents such as reports, policy briefs, analysis, etc., were also included in this review (Fig.  3 ).

An overview of the publication types

Strengthening interventions to build a resilient PHC system

In total, 194 interventions were identified for strengthening the resilience of PHC systems to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. They were grouped into six themes of PHC governance and leadership (46 interventions), PHC financing (21 interventions), PHC workforce (37 interventions), PHC infrastructures, equipment, medicines and vaccines (30 interventions), PHC information system (21 interventions) and PHC service delivery (39 interventions). These strategies are shown in Table 3 .

This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize the range of interventions employed globally to strengthen the resilience of primary healthcare (PHC) systems in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our comprehensive search yielded 194 distinct interventions across 48 countries, affirming the significant international efforts to sustain healthcare services during this unprecedented crisis. These interventions have been classified according to the WHO’s six building block model of health systems, providing a framework for analyzing their breadth and depth. This review complements and expands upon the findings from Pradhan et al., who identified 28 interventions specifically within low and middle-income countries, signaling the universality of the challenge and the myriad of innovative responses it has provoked globally [ 178 ].

The review highlights the critical role of governance and leadership in PHC resilience. Effective organizational structure changes, legal reforms, and policy development were crucial in creating adaptive healthcare systems capable of meeting the dynamic challenges posed by the pandemic. These findings resonate with the two strategies of effective leadership and coordination emphasized by Pradhan et al. (2023), and underscore the need for clear vision, evidence-based policy, and active community engagement in governance [ 178 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges for PHC systems globally. A pivotal response to these challenges was the active involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process. This inclusivity spanned across the spectrum of general practitioners, health professionals, health managers, and patients. By engaging these vital contributors, it became possible to address their specific needs and to design and implement people-centered services effectively [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

The development and implementation of collaborative, evidence-informed policies and national healthcare plans were imperative. Such strategies required robust leadership, bolstered by political commitment, to ensure that the necessary changes could be enacted swiftly and efficiently [ 41 , 45 ]. Leaders within the health system were called upon to foster an environment of good governance. This entailed promoting increased participation from all sectors of the healthcare community, enhancing transparency in decision-making processes, and upholding the principles of legitimacy, accountability, and responsibility within the health system [ 10 ]. The collective aim was to create a more resilient, responsive, and equitable healthcare system in the face of the pandemic's demands.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments were compelled to implement new laws and regulations. These were designed to address a range of issues from professional accreditation and ethical concerns to supporting the families of healthcare workers. Additionally, these legal frameworks facilitated the integration of emerging services such as telemedicine into the healthcare system, ensuring that these services were regulated and standardized [ 38 , 40 , 61 ]. A key aspect of managing the pandemic was the establishment of effective and transparent communication systems for patients, public health authorities, and the healthcare system at large [ 60 , 61 ]. To disseminate vital information regarding the pandemic, vaccination programs, and healthcare services, authorities leveraged various channels. Public media, local online platforms, and neighborhood networks were instrumental in keeping the public informed about the ongoing situation and available services [ 53 , 60 , 86 ]. For health professionals, digital communication tools such as emails and WhatsApp groups, as well as regular meetings, were utilized to distribute clinical guidelines, government directives, and to address any queries they might have had. This ensured that healthcare workers were kept up-to-date with the evolving landscape of the pandemic and could adapt their practices accordingly [ 60 , 144 ].

Healthcare facilities function as complex socio-technical entities, combining multiple specialties and adapting to the ever-changing landscape of healthcare needs and environments [ 179 ]. To navigate this dynamic, policy makers must take into account an array of determinants—political, economic, social, and environmental—that influence health outcomes. Effective management of a health crisis necessitates robust collaboration across various sectors, including government bodies, public health organizations, primary healthcare systems, and hospitals. Such collaboration is not only pivotal during crisis management but also during the development of preparedness plans [ 63 ]. Within the health system, horizontal collaboration among departments and vertical collaboration between the Ministry of Health and other governmental departments are vital. These cooperative efforts are key to reinforce the resilience of the primary healthcare system. Moreover, a strong alliance between national pandemic response teams and primary healthcare authorities is essential to identifying and resolving issues within the PHC system [ 29 ]. On an international scale, collaborations and communications are integral to the procurement of essential medical supplies, such as medicines, equipment, and vaccines. These international partnerships are fundamental to ensuring that health systems remain equipped to face health emergencies [ 63 ].

To ensure the PHC system's preparedness and response capacity was at its best, regular and effective monitoring and evaluation programs were put in place. These included rigorous quarterly stress tests at the district level, which scrutinized the infrastructure and technology to pinpoint the system’s strengths and areas for improvement [ 43 ]. Furthermore, clinical audits were conducted to assess the structure, processes, and outcomes of healthcare programs, thereby enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the services provided [ 63 ]. These evaluation measures were crucial for maintaining a high standard of care and for adapting to the ever-evolving challenges faced by the PHC system.

Financial strategies played a critical role in enabling access to essential health services without imposing undue financial hardship. Various revenue-raising, pooling, and purchasing strategies were implemented to expand PHC financing during the pandemic, illustrating the multifaceted approach needed to sustain healthcare operations under strained circumstances [ 9 , 19 ].

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government took decisive action to bolster the country's healthcare infrastructure. By enhancing the financial capacity of states, the government was able to inject more funds into the Primary Health Care (PHC) system. This influx of resources made it possible to introduce schemes providing free medications and diagnostic services [ 50 ]. The benefits of increased financial resources were also felt beyond India's borders, enabling the compensation of health services in various forms. In Greece, it facilitated the monitoring and treatment of COVID-19 through in-person, home-based, and remote health services provided by physicians in private practice. Similarly, in Iran, the financial boost supported the acquisition of basic and para-clinical services from the private sector [ 21 , 65 ]. These measures reflect a broader international effort to adapt and sustain health services during a global health crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a formidable challenge to the PHC workforce worldwide. Healthcare workers were subjected to overwhelming workloads and faced significant threats to both their physical and mental well-being. To build resilience in the face of this crisis, a suite of interventions was implemented. These included recruitment strategies, training and development programs, enhanced teamwork, improved protective measures, comprehensive performance appraisals, and appropriate compensation mechanisms, as documented in Table 3 . To address staffing needs within PHC centers, a range of professionals including general practitioners, nurses, community health workers, and technical staff were either newly employed or redeployed from other healthcare facilities [ 63 ]. Expert practitioners were positioned on the frontlines, providing both in-person services and telephone consultations, acting as gatekeepers in the health system [ 49 , 63 ]. Support staff with technological expertise played a crucial role as well, assisting patients in navigating patient portals, utilizing new digital services, and conducting video visits [ 102 ]. Furthermore, the acute shortage of healthcare workers was mitigated by recruiting individuals who were retired, not currently practicing, or in training as students, as well as by enlisting volunteers. This strategy was key to bolstering the workforce and ensuring continuity of care during the pandemic [ 109 ].

During the pandemic, new training programs were developed to prepare healthcare staff for the evolving demands of their roles. These comprehensive courses covered a wide array of critical topics, including the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), the operation of ventilators, patient safety protocols, infection prevention, teamwork, problem-solving, self-care techniques, mental health support, strategies for managing stress, navigating and applying reliable web-based information, emergency response tactics, telemedicine, and direct care for COVID-19 patients [ 74 , 95 , 100 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 117 ].

Acknowledging the psychological and professional pressures faced by the primary healthcare workforce, health managers took active measures to safeguard both the physical and mental well-being of their employees during this challenging period [ 124 ]. Efforts to protect physical health included monitoring health status, ensuring vaccination against COVID-19, and providing adequate PPE [ 63 , 72 ]. To address mental health, a variety of interventions were deployed to mitigate anxiety and related issues among frontline workers. In Egypt, for instance, healthcare workers benefited from psychotherapy services and adaptable work schedules to alleviate stress [ 126 ]. Singapore employed complementary strategies, such as yoga, meditation, and the encouragement of religious practices, to promote relaxation among staff [ 133 ]. In the United States, the Wellness Hub application was utilized as a tool for employees to enhance their mental health [ 132 ]. In addition to health and wellness initiatives, there were financial incentives aimed at motivating employees. Payment protocols were revised, and new incentives, including scholarship opportunities and career development programs, were introduced to foster job satisfaction and motivation among healthcare workers [ 63 ].

The resilience of PHC systems during the pandemic hinged on several key improvements. Enhancing health facilities, supplying medicines and diagnostic kits, distributing vaccines, providing medical equipment, and building robust digital infrastructure were all fundamental elements that contributed to the strength of PHC systems, as outlined in Table 3 . Safe and accessible primary healthcare was facilitated through various means. Wheelchair routes were created for patients to ensure their mobility within healthcare facilities. , dedicated COVID-19 clinics were established, mass vaccination centers were opened to expedite immunization, and mobile screening stations were launched to extend testing capabilities [ 23 , 33 , 63 , 140 ].

In Iran, the distribution and availability of basic medicines were managed in collaboration with the Food and Drug Organization, ensuring that essential medications reached those in need [ 89 ]. During the outbreak, personal protective equipment (PPE) was among the most critical supplies. Access to PPE was prioritized, particularly for vulnerable groups and healthcare workers, to provide a layer of safety against the virus [ 63 ]. Vaccines were made available at no cost, with governments taking active measures to monitor their safety and side effects, to enhance their quality, and to secure international approvals. Furthermore, effective communication strategies were employed to keep the public informed about vaccine-related developments [ 32 , 83 ].

These comprehensive efforts underscored the commitment to maintaining a resilient PHC system in the face of a global health every individual in the community could access healthcare services. To facilitate this, free high-speed Wi-Fi hotspots were established, enabling patients to engage in video consultations and utilize a range of e-services without the barrier of internet costs crisis. Significant enhancements were made to the digital infrastructure. This expansion was critical in ensuring that [ 30 , 54 ]. Complementing these measures, a variety of digital health tools were deployed to further modernize care delivery. Countries like Nigeria and Germany, for instance, saw the introduction of portable electrocardiograms and telemedical stethoscopes. These innovations allowed for more comprehensive remote assessments and diagnostics, helping to bridge the gap between traditional in-person consultations and the emerging needs for telemedicine [ 141 , 180 ].

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, targeted interventions were implemented to bolster information systems and research efforts, as outlined in Table 3 . Key among these was the advancement of a modern, secure public health information system to ensure access to health data was not only reliable and timely but also transparent and accurate [ 33 , 45 , 49 ]. The "Open Notes" initiative in the United States exemplified this effort, guaranteeing patient access to, and editorial control over, their health records [ 141 ]. Management strategies also promoted the "one-health" approach, facilitating the exchange of health data across various departments and sectors to enhance public health outcomes [ 10 ].

In addition to these information system upgrades, active patient surveillance and early warning systems were instituted in collaboration with public health agencies. These systems played a pivotal role in detecting outbreaks, providing precise reports on the incidents, characterizing the epidemiology of pathogens, tracking their spread, and evaluating the efficacy of control strategies. They were instrumental in pinpointing areas of concern, informing smart lockdowns, and improving contact tracing methods [ 33 , 63 , 72 ]. The reinforcement of these surveillance and warning systems had a profound impact on shaping and implementing a responsive strategy to the health crisis [ 10 ].

To further reinforce the response to the pandemic, enhancing primary healthcare (PHC) research capacity became crucial. This enabled healthcare professionals and policymakers to discern both facilitators and barriers within the system and to devise fitting strategies to address emerging challenges. To this end, formal advisory groups and multidisciplinary expert panels, which included specialists from epidemiology, clinical services, social care, sociology, policy-making, and management, were convened. These groups harnessed the best available evidence to inform decision-making processes [ 30 ]. Consequently, research units were established to carry out regular telephone surveys and to collect data on effective practices, as well as new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches [ 31 , 89 ]. The valuable insights gained from these research endeavors were then disseminated through trusted channels to both the public and policymakers, ensuring informed decisions at all levels [ 36 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for the swift integration of telemedicine into healthcare systems globally. This period saw healthcare providers leverage telecommunication technologies to offer an array of remote services, addressing medical needs such as consultations, diagnosis, monitoring, and prescriptions. This transition was instrumental in ensuring care continuity and mitigating infection risks for both patients and healthcare workers, highlighting an innovative evolution in healthcare delivery [ 170 , 181 ].

Countries adapted to this new model of healthcare with varied applications: Armenia established telephone follow-ups and video consultations for remote patient care, while e-pharmacies and mobile health tools provided immediate access to medical information and services [ 29 ]. In France and the United States, tele-mental health services and online group support became a means to support healthy living during the pandemic [ 147 , 158 ] . New Zealand introduced the Aroha chatbot, an initiative to assist with mental health management [ 139 ].

The implementation and effectiveness of these telehealth services were not limited by economic barriers, as underscored by Pradhan et al. (2023), who noted the key role of telemedicine in low and middle-income countries. These countries embraced the technology to maintain health service operations, proving its global applicability and utility [ 178 ]. The widespread adoption of telemedicine, therefore, represents a significant and perhaps lasting shift in healthcare practice, one that has redefined patient care in the face of a global health crisis and may continue to shape the future of healthcare delivery [ 170 , 178 , 181 ].

The study highlighted PHC strengthening strategies in COVID-19 time . Notably, the adaptations and reforms spanned across governance, financing, workforce management, information system, infrastructural readiness, and service delivery enhancements. These interventions collectively contributed to the robustness of health systems against the sudden surge in demand and the multifaceted challenges imposed by the pandemic and resulted.

Significantly, the findings have broader implications for health policy and system design worldwide. The pandemic has highlighted the critical need for resilient health systems that are capable of not only responding to health emergencies but also maintaining continuity in essential services. The strategies documented in this review serve as a template for countries to fortify their health systems by embedding resilience into their PHC frameworks (Fig.  4 ). Future health crises can be better managed by learning from these evidenced responses, which emphasize the necessity of integrated, well-supported, and dynamically adaptable health care structures.

A model for strengthening the resilience of the primary health care system

Looking ahead, realist reviews could play a pivotal role in refining PHC resilience strategies. By understanding the context in which specific interventions succeed or fail, realist reviews can help policymakers and practitioners design more effective health system reforms, as echoed in the need for evidence-based planning in health system governance [ 9 ] ​​. These reviews offer a methodological advantage by focusing on the causality between interventions and outcomes, aligning with the importance of effective health system leadership and management [ 50 , 182 ] ​​. They take into account the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors, thus providing a nuanced understanding that is crucial for tailoring interventions to meet local needs effectively [ 28 , 86 ] ​​, ultimately leading to more sustainable health systems globally. This shift towards a more analytical and context-sensitive approach in evaluating health interventions, as supported by WHO's framework for action [ 2 , 10 ] ​​, will be crucial for developing strategies that are not only effective in theory but also practical and sustainable in diverse real-world settings.

Limitations and future research

In our comprehensive scoping review, we analyzed 167 articles out of a dataset of 4,315, classifying 194 interventions that build resilience in primary healthcare systems across the globe in response to pandemics like COVID-19. While the review's extensive search provides a sweeping overview of various strategies, it may not capture the full diversity of interventions across all regions and economies. Future research should focus on meta-analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in greater detail and employ qualitative studies to delve into the specific challenges and successes, thus gaining a more nuanced understanding of the context. As the review includes articles only up to December 31, 2022, it may overlook more recent studies. Regular updates, a broader linguistic range, and the inclusion of a more diverse array of databases are recommended to maintain relevance and expand the breadth of literature, ultimately guiding more focused research that could significantly enhance the resilience of PHC systems worldwide.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Primary Health Care

World Health Organization

Sustainable Development Goals

Universal Health Coverage

Personal Protective Equipment

General Practitioner

Mosadeghrad AM. A practical model for health policy making and analysis. Payesh. 2022;21(1):7–24 ([in Persian]).

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Everybody’s Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes. WHO’s Framework for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.

Google Scholar  

Khosravi MF, Mosadeghrad AM, Arab M. Health System Governance Evaluation: A Scoping Review. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(2):265.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mosadeghrad AM, Abbasi M, Abbasi M, Heidari M. Sustainable health financing methods in developing countries: a scoping review. J of School Public Health Inst Public Health Res. 2023;20(4):358–78 ([in Persian]).

Mosadeghrad AM. Health strengthening plan, a supplement to Iran health transformation plan: letter to the editor. Tehran Univ Med J. 2019;77(8):537–8 ([in Persian]).

World Health Organization. Declaration of alma-ata. Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe; 1978. p. 1–4.

Rasanathan K, Evans TG. Primary health care, the Declaration of Astana and COVID-19. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(11):801.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization, UNICEF. Operational framework for primary health care: transforming vision into action. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund; 2020.

Mosadeghrad AM, Heydari M, Esfahani P. Primary health care strengthening strategies in Iran: a realistic review. J School Public Health Inst Public Health Res. 2022;19(3):237–58 ([in Persian]).

Sagan A, Webb E, Azzopardi-Muscat N, de la Mata I, McKee M, Figueras J. Health systems resilience during COVID-19: Lessons for building back better. Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization; 2021.

World Health Organization, Coronavirus (COVID-19) map. Available at https://covid19.who.int/ /. Access date 14/04/2024.

Plagg B, Piccoliori G, Oschmann J, Engl A, Eisendle K. Primary health care and hospital management during COVID-19: lessons from lombardy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021:3987–92.

World Health Organization. Pulse survey on continuity of essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic: interim report, 27 August 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-EHS_continuity-survey-2020.1 .

Mosadeghrad AM, Jajarmizadeh A. Continuity of essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tehran Univ Med J. 2021;79(10):831–2 ([in Persian]).

Splinter MJ, Velek P, Ikram MK, Kieboom BC, Peeters RP, Bindels PJ, Ikram MA, Wolters FJ, Leening MJ, de Schepper EI, Licher S. Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2021;18(11):e1003854.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wangmo S, Sarkar S, Islam T, Rahman MH, Landry M. Maintaining essential health services during the pandemic in Bangladesh: the role of primary health care supported by routine health information system. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2021;10(3):93.

Kumpunen S, Webb E, Permanand G, Zheleznyakov E, Edwards N, van Ginneken E, Jakab M. Transformations in the landscape of primary health care during COVID-19: Themes from the European region. Health Policy. 2022;126(5):391–7.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ezzati F, Mosadeghrad AM, Jaafaripooyan E. Resiliency of the Iranian healthcare facilities against the Covid-19 pandemic: challenges and solutions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(207):1–16.

Mosadeghrad AM, Isfahani P, Eslambolchi L, Zahmatkesh M, Afshari M. Strategies to strengthen a climate-resilient health system: a scoping review. Global Health. 2023;19(1):62.

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

Akrami F, Riazi-Isfahani S, Mahdavi hezaveh A, Ghanbari Motlagh A, Najmi M, Afkar M, et al. Iran’s Status of NCDs Prevention and Management Services during COVID-19 Pandemic at PHC Level. SJKU. 2021;26(5):50–68.

Etienne CF, Fitzgerald J, Almeida G, Birmingham ME, Brana M, Bascolo E, Cid C, Pescetto C. COVID-19: transformative actions for more equitable, resilient, sustainable societies and health systems in the Americas. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(8):e003509.

Tabrizi JS, Raeisi A, Namaki S. Primary health care and COVID-19 Pandemic in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Depict Health. 2022;13(Suppl 1):S1-10.

Danhieux K, Buffel V, Pairon A, Benkheil A, Remmen R, Wouters E, Van Olmen J. The impact of COVID-19 on chronic care according to providers: a qualitative study among primary care practices in Belgium. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:1–6.

Goodyear-Smith F, Kidd M, Oseni TIA, Nashat N, Mash R, Akman M, Phillips RL, van Weel C. Internationalexamples of primary care COVID-19 preparedness and response: a comparison of four countries. Fam MedCommunity Health. 2022;10(2):e001608.

Kinder K, Bazemore A, Taylor M, Mannie C, Strydom S, George J, Goodyear-Smith F. Integrating primary care and public health to enhance response to a pandemic. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e27.

De Maeseneer J. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e73.

Westfall JM, Liaw W, Griswold K, Stange K, Green LA, Phillips R, Bazemore A, Jaén CR, Hughes LS, DeVoe J, Gullett H. Uniting public health and primary care for healthy communities in the COVID-19 era and beyond. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(Supplement):S203-9.

Johansen AS, Shriwise A, Lopez-Acuna D, Vracko P. Strengthening the primary health care response to COVID-19: an operational tool for policymakers. Prim Health Care ResDev. 2021;22:e81.

Reath J, Lau P, Lo W, Trankle S, Brooks M, Shahab Y, Abbott P. Strengthening learning and research in health equity–opportunities for university departments of primary health care and general practice. Aust J Prim Health. 2022;29(2):131–6.

Ferenčina J, Tomšič V. COVID-19 clinic as a basis of quality primary health care in the light of the pandemic - an observational study. Med Glas (Zenica). 2022;19(1). https://doi.org/10.17392/1437-21 .

Mosadeghrad AH. Promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake: a letter to editor. Tehran Univ Med Sci J. 2022;80(2):159–60.

Chaiban L, Benyaich A, Yaacoub S, Rawi H, Truppa C, Bardus M. Access to primary and secondary health care services for people living with diabetes and lower-limb amputation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):593.

Džakula A, Banadinović M, Lovrenčić IL, Vajagić M, Dimova A, Rohova M, Minev M, Scintee SG, Vladescu C, Farcasanu D, Robinson S. A comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020. Health Policy. 2022;126(5):456–64.

Ghazi Saeedi M, Tanhapour M. Telemedicine System: A Mandatory Requirement in Today’s World. Payavard. 2022;15(5):490–507.

Ferorelli D, Nardelli L, Spagnolo L, Corradi S, Silvestre M, Misceo F, Marrone M, Zotti F, Mandarelli G, Solarino B, Dell’Erba A. Medical legal aspects of telemedicine in Italy: application fields, professional liability and focus on care services during the COVID-19 health emergency. J Prim CareCommun Health. 2020;11:2150132720985055.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Fulmer T, Reuben DB, Auerbach J, Fick DM, Galambos C, Johnson KS. Actualizing better health and health care for older adults: commentary describes six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. Health Aff. 2021;40(2):219–25.

Hernández Rincón EH, Pimentel González JP, Aramendiz Narváez MF, Araujo Tabares RA, Roa González JM. Description and analysis of primary care-based COVID-19 interventions in Colombia. Medwave. 2021;21(3):e8147.

Giannopoulou I, Tsobanoglou GO. COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and opportunities for the Greek health care system. Irish J Psychol Med. 2020;37(3):226–30.

Chow C, Goh SK, Tan CS, Wu HK, Shahdadpuri R. Enhancing frontline workforce volunteerism through exploration of motivations and impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;1(66):102605.

Alboksmaty A, Kumar S, Parekh R, Aylin P. Management and patient safety of complex elderly patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK—Qualitative assessment. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248387.

Savoy A, Patel H, Shahid U, Offner AD, Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN. Electronic Co-design (ECO-design) Workshop for Increasing Clinician Participation in the Design of Health Services Interventions: Participatory Design Approach. JMIR Hum Fact. 2022;9(3):e37313.

Tumusiime P, Karamagi H, Titi-Ofei R, Amri M, Seydi AB, Kipruto H, Droti B, Zombre S, Yoti Z, Zawaira F, Cabore J. Building health system resilience in the context of primary health care revitalization for attainment of UHC: proceedings from the Fifth Health Sector Directors’ Policy and Planning Meeting for the WHO African Region. BMC Proc. 2020;14:1–8 (BioMed Central).

Atoofi MK, Rezaei N, Kompani F, Shirzad F, Sh D. Requirements of mental health services during the COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review. Iran J Psychiatry Clin Psychol. 2020;26(3):264–79.

Mosadeghrad AM, Taherkhani T, Shojaei S, Jafari M, Mohammadi S, Emamzadeh A, Akhavan S. Strengthening primary health care system resilience in COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. sjsph 2022;20(1):13-24.

Fotokian Z, Mohammadkhah F. Primary health care as a strategy to fight COVID-19 pandemic: letter to the editor. J Isfahan Med School. 2021;39(630):470–4. https://doi.org/10.22122/jims.v39i630.14016 .

Li D, Howe AC, Astier-Peña MP. Primary health care response in the management of pandemics: Learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic. Atención Primaria. 2021;1(53):102226.

Chua AQ, Tan MMJ, Verma M, Han EKL, Hsu LY, Cook AR, et al. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(9):e003317.

Eisele M, Pohontsch NJ, Scherer M. Strategies in primary care to face the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic: an online survey. Front Med. 2021;2(8):613537.

Lamberti-Castronuovo A, Valente M, Barone-Adesi F, Hubloue I, Ragazzoni L. Primary health care disaster preparedness: a review of the literature and the proposal of a new framework. Int J Dis Risk Reduct. 2022;2:103278.

Piché-Renaud PP, Ji C, Farrar DS, Friedman JN, Science M, Kitai I, Burey S, Feldman M, Morris SK. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of routine childhood immunizations in Ontario Canada. Vaccine. 2021;39(31):4373–82.

Saxenian H, Alkenbrack S, Freitas Attaran M, Barcarolo J, Brenzel L, Brooks A, Ekeman E, Griffiths UK, Rozario S, Vande Maele N, Ranson MK. Sustainable financing for Immunization Agenda 2030. Vaccine. 2024;42 Suppl 1:S73-S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.11.037 .

Saso A, Skirrow H, Kampmann B. Impact of COVID-19 on immunization services for maternal and infant vaccines: results of a survey conducted by imprint—the immunising pregnant women and infants network. Vaccines. 2020;8(3):556.

Sagan A, Thomas S, McKee M, Karanikolos M, Azzopardi-Muscat N, de la Mata I, Figueras J, World Health Organization. COVID-19 and health systems resilience: lessons going forwards. Eurohealth. 2020;26(2):20–4.

Celuppi IC, Meirelles BH, Lanzoni GM, Geremia DS, Metelski FK. Management in the care of people with HIV in primary health care in times of the new coronavirus. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2022;1(56):13.

Denis JL, Potvin L, Rochon J, Fournier P, Gauvin L. On redesigning public health in Québec: lessons learned from the pandemic. Can J Public Health= Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 2020;111(6):912.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson G, Windner Z, Dowell A, Toop L, Savage R, Hudson B. Navigating the health system during COVID-19: primary care perspectives on delayed patient care. N Z Med J. 2021;134(1546):17–27 (PMID: 34855730).

Zhang N, Yang S, Jia P. Cultivating resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a socioecological perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2022;4(73):575–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030221-031857 . (Epub 2021 Sep 27 PMID: 34579547).

Al Ghafri T, Al Ajmi F, Al Balushi L, Kurup PM, Al Ghamari A, Al Balushi Z, Al Fahdi F, Al Lawati H, Al Hashmi S, Al Manji A, Al Sharji A. Responses to the pandemic covid-19 in primary health care in oman: muscat experience. Oman Med J. 2021;36(1):e216.

Adler L, Vinker S, Heymann AD, Van Poel E, Willems S, Zacay G. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care physicians in Israel, with comparison to an international cohort: a cross-sectional study. Israel J Health Policy Res. 2022;11(1):1.

Haldane V, Zhang Z, Abbas RF, Dodd W, Lau LL, Kidd MR, Rouleau K, Zou G, Chao Z, Upshur RE, Walley J. National primary care responses to COVID-19: a rapid review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e041622.

Hussein ES, Al-Shenqiti AM, Ramadan RM. Applications of medical digital technologies for noncommunicable diseases for follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12682.

Desborough J, Dykgraaf SH, Phillips C, Wright M, Maddox R, Davis S, Kidd M. Lessons for the global primary care response to COVID-19: a rapid review of evidence from past epidemics. Fam Pract. 2021;38(6):811–25.

Sandhu HS, Smith RW, Jarvis T, O’Neill M, Di Ruggiero E, Schwartz R, Rosella LC, Allin S, Pinto AD. Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health systems and practice in 3 Canadian provinces from the perspective of public health leaders: a qualitative study. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2022;28(6):702–11.

Farsalinos K, Poulas K, Kouretas D, Vantarakis A, Leotsinidis M, Kouvelas D, Docea AO, Kostoff R, Gerotziafas, Antoniou MN, Polosa R. Improved strategies to counter the COVID-19 pandemic: Lockdowns vs. primary and community healthcare. Toxicol Rep. 2021;8:1–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fitzpatrick K, Sehgal A, Montesanti S, Pianarosa E, Barnabe C, Heyd A, Kleissen T, Crowshoe L. Examining the role of Indigenous primary healthcare across the globe in supporting populations during public health crises. Global Public Health. 2022;24:1–29.

Liaw ST, Kuziemsky C, Schreiber R, Jonnagaddala J, Liyanage H, Chittalia A, Bahniwal R, He JW, Ryan BL, Lizotte DJ, Kueper JK. Primary care informatics response to Covid-19 pandemic: adaptation, progress, and lessons from four countries with high ICT development. Yearbook Med Inform. 2021;30(01):044–55.

Djalante R, Shaw R, DeWit A. Progress in disaster. Science. 2020;6:100080.

Fatima R, Akhtar N, Yaqoob A, Harries AD, Khan MS. Building better tuberculosis control systems in a post-COVID world: learning from Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;1(113):S88-90.

Shin WY, Kim C, Lee SY, Lee W, Kim JH. Role of primary care and challenges for public–private cooperation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An expert Delphi study in South Korea. Yonsei Med J. 2021;62(7):660.

Thompson RN, et al. Key questions for modelling COVID-19exit strategies. Proc R Soc B. 2020;287:20201405. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1405 .

Baral P. Health systems and services during COVID-19: lessons and evidence from previous crises: a rapid scoping review to inform the United Nations research roadmap for the COVID-19 recovery. Int J Health Serv. 2021;51(4):474–93.

Daou M, Helou S, El Helou J, El Hachem C, El Helou E. Ensuring care continuity in extreme crises: A participatory action research approach. InMEDINFO 2021: One World, One Health–Global Partnership for Digital Innovation 2022 (pp. 937-941). IOS Press.

Besigye IK, Namatovu J, Mulowooza M. Coronavirus disease-2019 epidemic response in Uganda: the need to strengthen and engage primary healthcare. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2020;12(1):1–3.

Silva MJ, Santos P. The impact of health literacy on knowledge and attitudes towards preventive strategies against COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105421 . (PMID:34069438;PMCID:PMC8159089).

Sultana A, Bhattacharya S, Hossain MM. COVID-19 and primary care: a critical need for strengthening emergency preparedness across health systems. J Fam Med Primary Care. 2021;10(1):584–5.

Xu RH, Shi LS, Xia Y, Wang D. Associations among eHealth literacy, social support, individual resilience, and emotional status in primary care providers during the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Digit Health. 2022;25(8):20552076221089788. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221089789 . (PMID:35355807;PMCID:PMC8958311).

Bajgain BB, Jackson J, Aghajafari F, Bolo C, Santana MJ. Immigrant Healthcare Experiences and Impacts During COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study in Alberta Canada. J Patient Exp. 2022;9:23743735221112708.

Kim AY, Choi WS. Considerations on the implementation of the telemedicine system encountered with stakeholders’ resistance in COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed e-Health. 2021;27(5):475–80.

Tayade MC. Strategies to tackle by primary care physicians to mental health issues in India in COVId-19 pandemic. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(11):5814–5.

Thomas C. Resilient health and care: Learning the lessons of Covid-19 in the English NHS, IPPR. 2020.  http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/resilient-health-and-care .

Saab MM, O’Driscoll M, FitzGerald S, Sahm LJ, Leahy-Warren P, Noonan B, Kilty C, Lyons N, Burns HE, Kennedy U, Lyng Á. Primary healthcare professionals’ perspectives on patient help-seeking for lung cancer warning signs and symptoms: a qualitative study. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):1–5.

Ma L, Han X, Ma Y, Yang Y, Xu Y, Liu D, Yang W, Feng L. Decreased influenza vaccination coverage among Chinese healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis Pov. 2022;11(05):63–73.

Ismail SA, Lam ST, Bell S, Fouad FM, Blanchet K, Borghi J. Strengthening vaccination delivery system resilience in the context of protracted humanitarian crisis: a realist-informed systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–21.

Litke N, Weis A, Koetsenruijter J, Fehrer V, Koeppen M, Kuemmel S, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M. Building resilience in German primary care practices: a qualitative study. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):1–4.

Den Broeder L, South J, Rothoff A, Bagnall AM, Azarhoosh F, Van Der Linden G, Bharadwa M, Wagemakers A. Community engagement in deprived neighbourhoods during the COVID-19 crisis: perspectives for more resilient and healthier communities. Health promotion international. 2022;37(2):daab098.

Sundararaman T, Muraleedharan VR, Ranjan A. Pandemic resilience and health systems preparedness: lessons from COVID-19 for the twenty-first century. J Soc Econ Dev. 2021;23(Suppl 2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-020-00133-x . (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34720480; PMCID: PMC7786882).

Ferreira NN, Garibaldi PM, Moraes GR, Moura JC, Klein TM, Machado LE, Scofoni LF, Haddad SK, Calado RT, Covas DT, Fonseca BA. The impact of an enhanced health surveillance system for COVID-19 management in Serrana, Brazil. Public Health Pract. 2022;1(4):100301.

Harzheim E, Martins C, Wollmann L, Pedebos LA, Faller LD, Marques MD, Minei TS, Cunha CR, Telles LF, Moura LJ, Leal MH. Federal actions to support and strengthen local efforts to combat COVID-19: Primary Health Care (PHC) in the driver’s seat. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2020;5(25):2493–7.

Smaggus A, Long J, Ellis LA, Clay-Williams R, Braithwaite J. Government actions and their relation to resilience in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(9):1682–94. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.67 .

Tselebis A, Pachi A. Primary mental health care in a New Era. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(10):2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10102025 . (PMID:36292472;PMCID:PMC9601948).

Rieckert A, Schuit E, Bleijenberg N, Ten Cate D, de Lange W, de Man-van Ginkel JM, Mathijssen E, Smit LC, Stalpers D, Schoonhoven L, Veldhuizen JD, Trappenburg JC. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043718. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043718 .

Basu P, Alhomoud S, Taghavi K, Carvalho AL, Lucas E, Baussano I. Cancer screening in the coronavirus pandemic era: adjusting to a new situation. JCO Global Oncol. 2021;7(1):416–24.

Rieckert A, Schuit E, Bleijenberg N, et al. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e043718. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043718 .

Shaikh BT. Strengthening health system building blocks: configuring post-COVID-19 scenario in Pakistan. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e9 Cambridge University Press.

Franzosa E, Gorbenko K, Brody AA, Leff B, Ritchie CS, Kinosian B, Ornstein KA, Federman AD. “At home, with care”: lessons from New York City home-based primary care practices managing COVID-19. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(2):300–6.

Adhikari B, Mishra SR, Schwarz R. Transforming Nepal’s primary health care delivery system in global health era: addressing historical and current implementation challenges. Global Health. 2022;18(1):1–2.

Mas Bermejo P, Sánchez Valdés L, Somarriba López L, Valdivia Onega NC, Vidal Ledo MJ, Alfonso Sánchez I, et al. Equity and the Cuban National Health System's response to COVID-19. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e80. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2021.80 .

Gong F, Hu G, Lin H, Sun X, Wang W. Integrated Healthcare Systems Response Strategies Based on the Luohu Model During the COVID-19 Epidemic in Shenzhen, China. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5628 .

Gomez T, Anaya YB, Shih KJ, Tarn DM. A qualitative study of primary care physicians’ experiences with telemedicine during COVID-19. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(Supplement):S61-70.

Teng K, Russo F, Kanuch S, Caron A. Virtual Care Adoption-Challenges and Opportunities From the Lens of Academic Primary Care Practitioners. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2022;28(6):599–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001548 . (Epub 2022 Aug 27. PMID: 36037465; PMCID: PMC9555588).

Anaya YB, Mota AB, Hernandez GD, Osorio A, Hayes-Bautista DE. Post-pandemic telehealth policy for primary care: an equity perspective. J Am Board Fam Med. 2022;35(3):588–92.

Florea M, Lazea C, Gaga R, Sur G, Lotrean L, Puia A, Stanescu AM, Lupsor-Platon M, Florea H, Sur ML. Lights and shadows of the perception of the use of telemedicine by Romanian family doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:1575.

Selick A, Durbin J, Hamdani Y, Rayner J, Lunsky Y. Accessibility of Virtual Primary Care for Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study. JMIR Form Res 2022;6(8):e38916. https://formative.jmir.org/2022/8/e38916 . https://doi.org/10.2196/38916 .

Frost R, Nimmons D, Davies N. Using remote interventions in promoting the health of frail older persons following the COVID-19 lockdown: challenges and solutions. J Am Med Direct Assoc. 2020;21(7):992.

Suija K, Mard LA, Laidoja R, et al. Experiences and expectation with the use of health data: a qualitative interview study in primary care. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23:159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01764-1 .

Sullivan EE, McKinstry D, Adamson J, Hunt L, Phillips RS, Linzer M. Burnout Among Missouri Primary Care Clinicians in 2021: Roadmap for Recovery? Mo Med. 2022;119(4):397–400 (PMID: 36118800; PMCID: PMC9462904).

Tang C, Chen X, Guan C, Fang P. Attitudes and Response Capacities for Public Health Emergencies of Healthcare Workers in Primary Healthcare Institutions: A Cross-Sectional Investigation Conducted in Wuhan, China, in 2020. Int Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912204 .

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, Chua A, Verma M, Shrestha P, Singh S, Perez T. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964–80.

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, Chua A, Verma M, Shrestha P, Singh S, Perez T, Tan SM, Bartos M, Mabuchi S, Bonk M, McNab C, Werner GK, Panjabi R, Nordström A, Legido-Quigley H. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964-80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01381-y .

Berger Z, De Jesus VA, Assoumou SA, Greenhalgh T. Long COVID and health inequities: the role of primary care. Milbank Q. 2021;99(2):519.

Haldane V, Dodd W, Kipp A, Ferrolino H, Wilson K, Servano D, Lau LL, Wei X. Extending health systems resilience into communities: a qualitative study with community-based actors providing health services during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–2.

Haun JN, Cotner BA, Melillo C, Panaite V, Messina W, Patel-Teague S, Zilka B. Proactive integrated virtual healthcare resource use in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–4.

Kelly F, Uys M, Bezuidenhout D, Mullane SL, Bristol C. Improving Healthcare Worker Resilience and Well-Being During COVID-19 Using a Self-Directed E-Learning Intervention. Front Psychol. 2021;12:748133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748133 .

Thekkur P, Fernando M, Nair D, Kumar AMV, Satyanarayana S, Chandraratne N, Chandrasiri A, Attygalle DE, Higashi H, Bandara J, Berger SD, Harries AD. Primary Health Care System Strengthening Project in Sri Lanka: Status and Challenges with Human Resources, Information Systems, Drugs and Laboratory Services. Healthcare. 2022;10(11):2251. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112251 .

Balogun M, Banke-Thomas A, Gwacham-Anisiobi U, Yesufu V, Ubani O, Afolabi BB. Actions and AdaptationsImplemented for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Service Provision During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Lagos, Nigeria: Qualitative Study of Health Facility Leaders. Ann Glob Health. 2022;88(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3529 .

Llamas S, MP AP, Felipe P. Patient safety training and a safe teaching in primary care. Aten Primaria. 2021;53 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):102199.

Eze-Emiri C, Patrick F, Igwe E, Owhonda G. Retrospective study of COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in Rivers State, Nigeria. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e061826.

Golechha M, Bohra T, Patel M, Khetrapal S. Healthcare worker resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of primary care providers in India. World Med Health Policy. 2022;14(1):6–18.

Gómez-Restrepo C, Cepeda M, Torrey WC, Suarez-Obando F, Uribe-Restrepo JM, Park S, Acosta MP, Camblor PM, Castro SM, Aguilera-Cruz J, González L. Perceived access to general and mental healthcare in primary care in Colombia during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;10:896318.

Nejat N, Borzabadi Farahani Z. COVID-19 pandemic: opportunities for continuing nursing professional development. J Med Educ Dev. 2022;14(44):1–2.

DeVoe JE, Cheng A, Krist A. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(4):e200423.

Hoeft TJ, Hessler D, Francis D, Gottlieb LM. Applying lessons from behavioral health integration to social care integration in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2021;19(4):356–61.

Silsand L, Severinsen GH, Berntsen G. Preservation of Person-Centered care through videoconferencing for patient follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic: case study of a multidisciplinary care team. JMIR Format Res. 2021;5(3):e25220.

Sullivan E, Phillips R.S. Sustaining primary care teams in the midst of a pandemic. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020; 9. 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-020-00434-w .

Abd El Kader AI, Faramawy MA. COVID-19 anxiety and organizational commitment among front line nurses: Perceived role of nurse managers' caring behavior. Nurs Pract Today. 2022;9(1):X.

Croghan IT, Chesak SS, Adusumalli J, Fischer KM, Beck EW, Patel SR, Ghosh K, Schroeder DR, Bhagra A. Stress, resilience, and coping of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2021;12:21501327211008450.

Aragonès E, del Cura-González I, Hernández-Rivas L, Polentinos-Castro E, Fernández-San-Martín MI, López-Rodríguez JA, Molina-Aragonés JM, Amigo F, Alayo I, Mortier P, Ferrer M. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(720):e501-10.

Franck E, Goossens E, Haegdorens F, Geuens N, Portzky M, Tytens T, Dilles T, Beeckman K, Timmermans O, Slootmans S, Van Rompaey B. Role of resilience in healthcare workers’ distress and somatization during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study across Flanders Belgium. Nurs Open. 2022;9(2):1181–9.

DeTore NR, Sylvia L, Park ER, Burke A, Levison JH, Shannon A, et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;146:228–33.

Shi LS, Xu RH, Xia Y, Chen DX, Wang D. The impact of COVID-19-related work stress on the mental health of primary healthcare workers: the mediating effects of social support and resilience. Front Psychol. 2022;21(12):800183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800183 . (PMID:35126252;PMCID:PMC8814425).

Golden EA, Zweig M, Danieletto M, Landell K, Nadkarni G, Bottinger E, Katz L, Somarriba R, Sharma V, Katz CL, Marin DB. A resilience-building app to support the mental health of health care workers in the COVID-19 era: Design process, distribution, and evaluation. JMIR Format Res. 2021;5(5):e26590.

Chan AY, Ting C, Chan LG, Hildon ZJ. “The emotions were like a roller-coaster”: a qualitative analysis of e-diary data on healthcare worker resilience and adaptation during the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):60.

Ashley C, James S, Williams A, Calma K, Mcinnes S, Mursa R, Stephen C, Halcomb E. The psychological well-being of primary healthcare nurses during COVID-19: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(9):3820–8.

Carmona LE, Nielfa MD, Alvarado AL. The Covid-19 pandemic seen from the frontline. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;27(46):181–94.

Delobelle PA, Abbas M, Datay I, De Sa A, Levitt N, Schouw D, Reid S. Non-communicable disease care and management in two sites of the Cape Town Metro during the first wave of COVID-19: A rapid appraisal. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2022;14(1):e1-e7. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v14i1.3215 .

Luciani S, Agurto I, Caixeta R, Hennis A. Prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the Americas region in the era of COVID-19. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e83. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.83 .

Cabral IE, Pestana-Santos M, Ciuffo LL, Nunes YDR, Lomba MLLF. Child health vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and Portugal. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2021;29:e3422. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4805.3422 . (Published 2021 Jul 2).

Ludin N, Holt-Quick C, Hopkins S, Stasiak K, Hetrick S, Warren J, Cargo T. A Chatbot to support young people during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New Zealand: evaluation of the real-world rollout of an open trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e38743.

Breton M, Deville-Stoetzel N, Gaboury I, Smithman MA, Kaczorowski J, Lussier MT, Haggerty J, Motulsky A, Nugus P, Layani G, Paré G. Telehealth in primary healthcare: a portrait of its rapid implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare Policy. 2021;17(1):73.

Knop M, Mueller M, Niehaves B. Investigating the use of telemedicine for digitally mediated delegation in team-based primary care: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e28151.

Zamiela C, Hossain NUI, Jaradat R. Enablers of resilience in the healthcare supply chain: A case study of U.S healthcare industry during COVID-19 pandemic. Res Transport Econ. 2022;93:101174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101174 . Epub 2021 Dec 24. PMCID: PMC9675944.

Lukong AM, Jafaru Y. Covid-19 pandemic challenges, coping strategies and resilience among healthcare workers: a multiple linear regression analysis. Afr J Health Nurs Midwifery. 2021;4:16–27.

Hearnshaw S, Serban S, Mohammed I, Zubair A, Jaswal D, Grant S. A local dental network approach to the COVID-19 pandemic: innovation through collaboration. Prim Dental J. 2021;10(1):33–9.

Haase CB, Bearman M, Brodersen J, Hoeyer K, Risor T. ‘You should see a doctor’, said the robot: Reflections on a digital diagnostic device in a pandemic age. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49(1):33–6.

Otu A, Okuzu O, Ebenso B, Effa E, Nihalani N, Olayinka A, Yaya S. Introduction of mobilehealth tools to support COVID-19 training and surveillance in Ogun State Nigeria. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. 2021;3:638278:1-9.

Ibragimov K, Palma M, Keane G, Ousley J, Crowe M, Carreño C, Casas G, Mills C, Llosa A. Shifting to Tele-Mental Health in humanitarian and crisis settings: an evaluation of Médecins Sans Frontières experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conflict Health. 2022;16(1):1–5.

Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Hughes G, Shaw SE. The role of information infrastructures in scaling up video consultations during COVID-19: mixed methods case study into opportunity, disruption, and exposure. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e42431. https://doi.org/10.2196/42431 . (PMID:36282978;PMCID:PMC9651004).

Jonnagaddala J, Godinho MA, Liaw ST. From telehealth to virtual primary care in Australia? a rapid scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;1(151):104470.

Tanemura N, Chiba T. The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(1):270. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3 . (Epub 2022 Aug 15. PMID: 35990766; PMCID: PMC9376898).

Zaroushani V. Occupational safety and health and response to COVID-19 using the fourth industrial revolution technologies. J Health Saf Work. 2020;10(4):329–48.

Binagwaho A, Hirwe D, Mathewos K. Health System Resilience: Withstanding Shocks and Maintaining Progress. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(Suppl 1):e2200076. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00076 .

Freed SL, Thiele D, Gardner M, Myers E. COVID-19 evaluation and testing strategies in a federally qualified health center. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S3):S284-7.

Levy P, McGlynn E, Hill AB, Zhang L, Korzeniewski SJ, Foster B, Criswell J, O’Brien C, Dawood K, Baird L, Shanley CJ. From pandemic response to portable population health: a formative evaluation of the Detroit mobile health unit program. Plos One. 2021;16(11):e0256908.

Corwin C, Sinnwell E, Culp K. A mobile primary care clinic mitigates an early COVID-19 outbreak among migrant farmworkers in Iowa. J Agromed. 2021;26(3):346–51.

Mills WR, Buccola JM, Sender S, Lichtefeld J, Romano N, Reynolds K, Price M, Phipps J, White L, Howard S. Home-based primary care led-outbreak mitigation in assisted living facilities in the first 100 days of coronavirus disease 2019. J Am Med Direct Assoc. 2020;21(7):951–3.

Sigurdsson EL, Blondal AB, Jonsson JS, Tomasdottir MO, Hrafnkelsson H, Linnet K, Sigurdsson JA. How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e043151. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043151 . (PMID:33293329;PMCID:PMC7722808).

Mirsky JB, Thorndike AN. Virtual group visits: hope for improving chronic disease management in primary care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(7):904–7.

Lauriola P, Martín-Olmedo P, Leonardi GS, Bouland C, Verheij R, Dückers ML, Van Tongeren M, Laghi F, Van Den Hazel P, Gokdemir O, Segredo E. On the importance of primary and community healthcare in relation to global health and environmental threats: lessons from the COVID-19 crisis. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(3):e004111.

Stengel S, Roth C, Breckner A, et al. Resilience of the primary health care system – German primary care practitioners’ perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01786-9 .

Adu PA, Stallwood L, Adebola SO, Abah T, Okpani AI. The direct and indirect impact of COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child health services in Africa: a scoping review. Global Health Res Policy. 2022;7(1):1–4.

Segal M, Giuffrida P, Possanza L, Bucciferro D. The critical role of health information technology in the safe integration of behavioral health and primary care to improve patient care. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2022;49(2):221–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-021-09774-0 . (Epub 2021 Oct 19. PMID: 34668115; PMCID: PMC8525847).

Gallardo-Rincón H, Gascon JL, Martínez-Juárez LA, Montoya A, Saucedo-Martínez R, Rosales RM, Tapia-Conyer R. MIDO COVID: A digital public health strategy designed to tackle chronic disease and the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Plos One. 2022;17(11):e0277014.

Shah SS, Safa A, Johal K, et al. A prospective observational real world feasibility study assessing the role of app-based remote patient monitoring in reducing primary care clinician workload during the COVID pandemic. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22:248. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01594-7 .

Lu M, Liao X. Access to care through telehealth among US Medicare beneficiaries in the wake of the COVID-pandemic. Front Public Health. 2022;10:946944.

Reges O, Feldhamer I, Wolff Sagy Y, Lavie G. Factors associated with using telemedicine in the primary care clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(20):13207.

Neves AL, Li E, Gupta PP, Fontana G, Darzi A. Virtual primary care in high-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Policy responses and lessons for the future. Eur J Gen Pract. 2021;27(1):241–7.

Fadul N, Regan N, Kaddoura L, Swindells S. A midwestern academic HIV clinic operation during the COVID-19 pandemic: implementation strategy and preliminary outcomes. J International Assoc Provid AIDS Care (JIAPAC). 2021;2(20):23259582211041424.

Gray C, Ambady L, Chao S PharmD, Smith W MPH, Yoon J. Virtual Management of Chronic Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From Primary Care Providers and Clinical Pharmacists. Mil Med. 2023;188(7-8):e2615-e2620. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usac277 .

Hincapié MA, Gallego JC, Gempeler A, Piñeros JA, Nasner D, Escobar MF. Implementation and usefulness of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2020;11:2150132720980612.

Calvo-Paniagua J, Díaz-Arribas MJ, Valera-Calero JA, et al. A tele-health primary care rehabilitation program improves self-perceived exertion in COVID-19 survivors experiencing Post-COVID fatigue and dyspnea: A quasi-experimental study. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0271802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271802 . (Published 2022 Aug 4).

Chen K, Davoodi NM, Strauss DH, Li M, Jiménez FN, Guthrie KM, et al. J Appl Gerontol. 2022;41(11):2282–95.

Murphy M, Scott LJ, Salisbury C, Turner A, Scott A, Denholm R, Lewis R, Iyer G, Macleod J, Horwood J. Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(704):e166-77.

Maria AR, Serra H, Heleno B. Teleconsultations and their implications for health care: a qualitative study on patients’ and physicians’ perceptions. Int J Med Inform. 2022;1(162):104751.

Liddy C, Singh J, Mitchell R, Guglani S, Keely E. How one eConsult service is addressing emerging COVID-19 questions. J Am Board Fam Med. 2022;35(3):601–4.

Schow DC, Thomson A, Trusty WT, Buchi-Fotre L. Use of a research as intervention approach to explore telebehavioral health services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Southeastern Idaho. J Prim Care Commun Health. 2022;13:21501319211073000.

Bruns BE, Lorenzo-Castro SA, Hale GM. Controlling blood pressure during a pandemic: The impact of telepharmacy for primary care patients. J Pharm Pract. 2022;27:08971900221136629.

Pradhan NA, Samnani AA, Abbas K, Rizvi N. Resilience of primary healthcare system across low-and middle-income countries during COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):98.

Esfahani P, Mosadeghrad AM, Akbarisari A. The success of strategic planning in health care organizations of Iran. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018;31(6):563–74.

Otu A, Okuzu O, Ebenso B, Effa E, Nihalani N, Olayinka A, Yaya S. Introduction of mobile health tools to support COVID-19 training and surveillance in Ogun State Nigeria. Front Sustain Cities. 2021;5(3):638278.

Ndayishimiye C, Lopes H, Middleton J. A systematic scoping review of digital health technologies during COVID-19: a new normal in primary health care delivery. Health Technol. 2023;13(2):273–84.

Ghiasipour M, Mosadeghrad AM, Arab M, Jaafaripooyan E. Leadership challenges in health care organizations: The case of Iranian hospitals. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31(1):560–7.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Arshad Altaf for his invaluable comments on the earlier drafts of this work.

Funding for this project was provided by the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health policy and management, Health Economics and Management Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad

Health policy, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Saveh, Iran

Mahnaz Afshari

Health management, School of Public Health, Zabol University of Medical Sciences, Zabol, Iran

Parvaneh Isfahani

Health services management, Health Economics and Management Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Farahnaz Ezzati, Mahdi Abbasi, Shahrzad Akhavan Farahani & Leila Eslambolchi

Health Management, School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK

Maryam Zahmatkesh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LE, MA, MZ and AMM participated in the design of the study. LE, AMM, MA, MZ, PI, FE, MA and SHA undertook the literature review process. All authors drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Eslambolchi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Tehran University of Medical Science (Approval ID: IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1401.0979).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

Mosadeghrad, A.M., Afshari, M., Isfahani, P. et al. Strategies to strengthen the resilience of primary health care in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 841 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11278-4

Download citation

Received : 14 January 2024

Accepted : 03 July 2024

Published : 25 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11278-4

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

• Primary health care system
• Strengthening strategies

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 15 July 2024

Establishing evidence criteria for implementation strategies in the US: a Delphi study for HIV services

• Virginia R. McKay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9299-3294 1 ,
• Alithia Zamantakis 2 , 3 ,
• Ana Michaela Pachicano 3 ,
• James L. Merle 4 ,
• Morgan R. Purrier 3 ,
• McKenzie Swan 1 ,
• Dennis H. Li 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 ,
• Brian Mustanski 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 ,
• Justin D. Smith 3 ,
• Lisa R. Hirschhorn 2 &
• Nanette Benbow 3 , 5 , 6  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  50 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

583 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

There are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommending implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Tool, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting HIV-specific implementation strategies.

We developed the Best Practices Tool from 2022–2023 in three phases. (1) We developed a draft tool and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. We purposively selected and recruited by email interview participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. (2) The tool was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate; and the tool and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the tool to a set of research studies assessing implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of evidence-based HIV interventions to assess reliable application of the tool and criteria.

Our initial literature review yielded existing tools for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level tool, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains – research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity – and four evidence levels – best, promising, more evidence needed, and harmful. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies.

Conclusions

We developed a tool to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although specific to HIV in the US, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

The field of implementation science has not yet established criteria to evaluate the quality of evidence for implementation strategies.

Our Delphi process with experts in implementation science, quality improvement, and HIV services identified criteria that should be used to evaluate evidence for HIV-related implementation research in the US.

Our tool can be applied to cases of HIV-related implementation research to make recommendations to practitioners implementation strategies most likely to be effective. They could also be adapted to other health domains.

Introduction

Implementation science is dedicated to improving the uptake and use of evidence-based interventions, practices, and policies to capitalize on scientific knowledge and impact human health. Central to the goals of implementation research is building the evidence for implementation strategies, defined as techniques or change efforts to promote the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) [ 1 ]. In a recent review, scholars within the field of implementation science recognized that a more robust research agenda related to implementation strategies is needed to yield the promised benefits of improved EBI implementation for practitioners [ 2 ]. Within this agenda is a call for more research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies. Expanding on this priority, criteria on which to evaluate evidence quality are needed to assess whether the evidence supporting the effectiveness of any given strategy is sufficient. Without criteria on which to evaluate implementation research focusing on strategies, it is difficult to recommend strategies that are likely to be the most valuable for practitioners or to identify strategies that may hold initial promise but would benefit from more robust research. Evidence criteria are also an foundational element of the creation of a compendium of evidence-based implementation strategies, which is a key dissemination approach for delivering evidence to implementers.

At the intervention level, criteria and rubrics are available to synthesize research outcomes and evaluate research quality behind the evidence supporting an intervention and make recommendations about their use, such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) or that used by the United States Preventative Services Task Force [ 3 , 4 ]. These guidelines often consider different domains of research outcomes and quality, like the health outcomes, the research design, and potential for bias in the outcomes because of the research design. Based on these guides, health institutions, like the Preventative Services Task Force, make recommendations about the best interventions across a wide set of health conditions to assist providers and organizations in making clinical and policy-level decisions. To our knowledge, no equivalent set of criteria for implementation strategies are available. As such, it is difficult to discern the quality of evidence supporting an implementation strategy and whether strategies should be recommended to practitioners to support the implementation of EBIs.

Existing criteria, like GRADE, may serve as a valuable starting point for building criteria applicable to the field of implementation research [ 5 ]. Effectiveness research and associated evaluation criteria, which heavily emphasizes internal validity, considers the highest quality evidence to be from research designs like double-blind randomized control trials. In implementation research, internal validity tends to be more balanced with external validity so that the results are generalizable to target communities. With external validity in mind, implementation research is typically conducted in practice settings and involves assessment of the organizations and providers who will be impacted by the implementation strategy and subsequently the intervention under consideration. As a result, it is often inappropriate, impractical, and/or undesirable to leverage research designs like randomized controlled trials, because it is not possible to blind practitioners to the strategy and/or intervention or randomize at the unit of analysis [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. These realities make direct application of intervention-level criteria inappropriate—necessitating criteria specific to the field [ 3 ].

HIV and implementation research in the US

We describe our efforts to develop a set of criteria and evaluation process for implementation strategies to address the HIV epidemic in the United States. Improvements in the US HIV epidemic have been modest over the last two decades, with disparities among communities disproportionally affected by HIV increasing [ 9 ]. In an attempt to address HIV incidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have curated a repository of EBIs to support HIV prevention since the early 2000s and supported dissemination and implementation of a subset of these [ 10 ]. Furthermore, major biomedical advancements, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), have proven to be very effective at preventing HIV. Yet many of these interventions have not been widely implemented with equity to yield their intended benefit. Only an estimated 30% of individuals who would benefit from PrEP receive it, with growing disparities by race, gender, income, citizenship status, and intersectional marginalization [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Uptake and adherence remain suboptimal along the HIV care continuum (i.e., prevention, testing, diagnosis, linkage-to-care, and treatment), indicating, in part, failed implementation and opportunities to develop evidence-informed implementation strategies [ 11 ]. In 2019, the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) Initiative was launched as a coordinated effort among several federal agencies to address HIV-related implementation problems. In alignment with EHE, the National Institutes of Health supported a number of mechanisms and projects to conduct research on implementation strategies [ 15 ]. With the growing mass of HIV-related implementation research has come an equally growing knowledge base of implementation strategies targeting multiple aspects of the HIV care continuum, in a wide scope of settings, evaluating various implementation outcomes [ 16 ].

In an effort to create, synthesize, and disseminate generalizable knowledge, the Implementation Science Coordination Initiative (ISCI) was funded by the National Institutes of Health to provide technical assistance in implementation research funded by the EHE Initiative, coordinate research efforts, synthesize literature through systematic reviews, develop tools to assist researchers, and disseminate research findings to researchers, policymakers, providers, and more [ 17 , 18 ]. As part of this effort, we developed a tool to evaluate the quality of evidence of HIV-related implementation strategies to identify best-practice strategies that can promote effective implementation and uptake of EBIs. The long-term goal of this particular project is to accumulate, warehouse, and disseminate a collection of effective strategies that can be used by HIV practitioners nationwide to support the EHE Initiative.

We conducted the project in three phases: 1) a literature review in tandem with key informant interviews to generate initial criteria for our tool, 2) a modified Delphi to evaluate and revise our initial tool and criteria; 3) a pilot application of our rubric to a set of implementation research studies. Delphi data were collected from March 2022 to June 2023. Piloting occurred in the fall of 2023. Our data collection protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University and determined to be non-human subjects research. All data collection instruments have been included as a supplemental file (Supplemental File A), and data are available in a de-identified format from the first author on reasonable request. Methods and results are reported according to STROBE reporting guidelines (Supplemental File B).

Key informant interviews and literature review

We first conducted a review of the scientific and grey literature of existing compilations of criteria for assessing EBIs. Google scholar was used to search for tools or criteria published in academic journals. To identify tools within the grey literature, we focused on federal institutions that frequently provide evidence-recommendations such as the US Preventative Task Force, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Health Services and Resources Administration. We utilized this literature to identify commonalities across tools, to review current debate on the philosophy of science as it relates specifically to implementation science, and to construct an interview guide for key informant experts with questions to elicit information about key differences between implementation research and existing tools. We also used the literature to identify experts who we then recruited for key informant interviews and our Delphi.

We recruited and interviewed a range of experts, including implementation scientists, HIV providers and implementers, representatives from related fields of public health research (e.g., quality improvement), and public health agency officials. All interviews were scheduled in the Spring of 2022, were approximately 30–45 min long, and were conducted by either VM or az. Briefly, the three main questions were: 1. Do you think existing criteria apply to implementation research studies? 2. What are essential indications of generalizability in implementation research? 3. What are ways to evaluate strategies with multiple components? Each question included follow up probes. Interviews were recorded and transcribed via Zoom. Participants were not given an incentive for participation. Two Ph.D.-level researchers with expertise in qualitative and mixed methods research performed an inductive, thematic process of analysis to explore patterns and categorize responses. Based on their responses, we iteratively developed a preliminary tool and criteria.

Modified Delphi

Identification and recruitment of delphi participants.

We conducted an asynchronous, modified eDelphi with participants of similar expertise as our key informants in two rounds. Participants were recruited using snowball recommendations from those that were interviewed as key informants. Our eligibility criteria included fluent English speakers and those working in either HIV services research or those working in implementation research but in another field that may intersect with HIV, for example, mental health, substance misuse, social services, primary care, or women’s health. If participants were unable to complete the survey, an alternative contact could be recommended. After this first invitation, we sent semiweekly reminder emails for six weeks. A $10 gift card was given to participants for completing the first survey, and a $50 gift card was given to participants for completing the second survey.

Data collection and measures

The surveys were implemented using Qualtrics. The surveys were piloted with members of the ISCI research team to ensure question clarity. Each survey took participants approximately 45–75 min to complete.

First-round Delphi instrument

This survey consisted of 71 items. Participants were first introduced to the purpose of the project at large, which was to create a tool and set of criteria on which to evaluate HIV-related implementation science, and then to the specific goals of the Delphi, which was to generate consensus about which aspects of the tool were most important and least important and whether we had included all the elements that participants felt were necessary. The first portion of the survey gathered demographic and basic information about the participant (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, gender), characteristics of the participant’s work (e.g., I work primarily in… select all areas that apply”), as well as the participant’s experience in implementation research (e.g., How would you describe your knowledge level of implementation science?).

The second portion of the survey evaluated proposed domains for the tool (Overall Evidence of Effectiveness, Study Design Quality, Implementation Outcomes, Equity Impact, Strategy Specification, and Bundled Strategies) and corresponding criteria. Participants were asked to agree or disagree (Yes/No) with the adding/dropping/combining of domains; this was followed by an open-ended question asking why they agreed to said addition/dropping/combining (if applicable). This portion also contained two 5-point Likert-type scales asking participants to rank the domains in order from most important to least important. The third portion of the survey was aimed at gaining the participant’s opinion on the specific criteria (e.g., effect size and effect direction for implementation outcomes) within each domain. For each domain, the participant was asked if there were any criteria that needed to be added/dropped (Yes/No), followed by an open-ended question asking why they would like these items added/dropped (if applicable). The participant was then provided a 5-point Likert scale in which they ranked each item from “Very unimportant” to “Very important”. These questions were repeated for all criteria in all domains.

The final portion of the survey introduced the Levels of Evidence (Best Practice Strategy, Promising Strategy, Emerging Strategy, Undetermined Strategies, and Not Recommended Strategy) and their definitions. The participant was asked if there should be any adding/dropping/combining of the evidence levels (Yes/No), followed by an open-ended question asking why they would like these evidence levels to be added/dropped/combined (if applicable).

Second-round Delphi instrument

This survey consisted of 52 items. All participants from Round 1 were recruited for Round 2. Again, participants were reminded of the overall purpose of the project and the specific goal of the Delphi, which was to confirm changes to the tool made in response to the results of Round 1 and receive feedback. The first portion of the survey gathered the same demographic and basic information as in the first round. The second portion consisted of an overview of the updated tool, including definitions of the domains, criteria, and levels of evidence, and asked for feedback on changes made from the Round 1 results. For example, in the first round of the Delphi survey, participants responded that they would like for greater specificity within the criteria of the Study Design domain. As a response, we split this domain into two domains for Round 2: “Study Design” and “Study Rigor and Limitations.” We presented this change to the participant and asked them to agree or disagree with this change (Yes/No); if “No” was selected, this prompted an open-response question asking for further explanation. Lastly, we asked respondents to apply the criteria and give an evidence-level rating to a set of fictional cases of implementation research studies, allowing respondents to comment on the application and rating process.

Data analysis and management

Quantitative data were managed and analyzed in Excel. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, primarily as percent agreement or disagreement for domains, evidence levels, and individual criteria within domains. Qualitative data were analyzed in Dedoose software and Excel, using a rapid direct qualitative content analysis approach [ 19 ]. Qualitative data were analyzed by a Ph.D.-level researcher with qualitative research expertise and were intended to confirm or complement quantitative analyses.

Pilot and application to PrEP implementation strategies

To ensure a high-quality process for reviewing literature and consistent application of criteria across the different evidence levels, we piloted and refined the tool with a set of implementation strategies designed to promote the uptake of evidence-based HIV services with members of ISCI, which consists of a mix of faculty, staff, and students holding degrees at the Bachelors, Masters, and PhD levels. VRM led two, hour-long trainings with, four Ph.D.-level members of the ISCI team who were also engaged in systematic reviews of HIV literature on how to apply the criteria. ISCI team members then applied the criteria to an existing set of eight papers reporting on implementation strategies designed to promote PrEP uptake coding a rating for each criteria and domain.  Studies were selected by VRM to represent the full range of evidence ratings and different points of the HIV care continuum (i.e., PrEP delivery, HIV testing, and retention in care for HIV treatment). We calculated agreement as a simple percentage of identical ratings between two coders out of the total number of criteria, domain ratings, and overall rating (40 items). In places where there was high disagreement, the tool was revised and refined to provide better guidance and instruction on how to apply specific criteria. In a final application of the tool, two coders, a Master’s and Ph.D. level member of the ISCI team, applied the criteria to an additional set of 18 implementation strategies designed to improve PrEP uptake and use identified through an existing systematic review [ 20 ] after a single hour-long training.

We report the primary results from each stage of our process as well as significant changes to the tool made at each stage.

Literature review and key informant interviews

Our initial literature review yielded several existing rubrics, tools, criteria and processes for evaluating evidence supporting a specific intervention identified primarily in the grey literature developed by large institutions responsible for disseminating evidence-based interventions [ 5 , 21 ]. Many had a similar structure of grouping criteria by domain (e.g., aspects of the research design or strength of the outcomes) and having different evidence ratings or levels (e.g., low, medium, high evidence strength). For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness outlines six domains (i.e., effect, internal validity, type of evidence/research design, independent replication, implementation guidance, external and ecological validity) and seven evidence levels (harmful, unsupported, undetermined, emerging, promising direction, supported, and well supported) while the US Preventative Task Force has six domains or “factors” considered when generating an evidence level and five evidence levels or “grades” [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Our literature review also yielded several articles relevant to the generalization of evidence generated from implementation trials. For example, key considerations on whether effects are likely to be transferable from one context to another, balancing internal and external validity, and the need to consider equity in impact [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].

We conducted a total of 10 interviews representing a mix of expertise in HIV services research, implementation research, and quality improvement research. Informants reflected on different potential domains (e.g., elements of the research design) and listed specific ways that they felt research and evidence quality differed in implementation research from clinical trials. Among factors highlighted were a need to consider the context and specification of strategies, criteria specific to implementation outcomes, and consideration of the equity impact of implementation strategies on the health outcome under consideration. Again, existing implementation science literature helped support and define domains like Proctor's recommendations for strategy specification to ensure that strategies are appropriately described as well as Proctor's implementation outcomes to define and describe implementation outcomes [ 1 , 48 ].

Based on these collective results, conceptually, we modeled our initial tool by grouping criteria according to domain and having a series of evidence levels similar to many tools and criteria that we reviewed. We also worked to integrate current thinking and perspectives on implementation science, evidence, and generalizability into our tool from both the literature and key informant interviews. Briefly, we structured our initial tool along six domains: overall effectiveness, study design quality, implementation outcomes, equity impact, strategy specification, and a bundled strategies domain. Each domain included a set of criteria. For example, criteria for the implementation outcomes domain included operationalization of implementation outcomes; validity and reliability of measure used; significance and direction of effect for quantitative outcomes; and reported effects as beneficial, neutral, or harmful. We also developed and defined five evidence levels with associated recommendations: best practice strategy, promising strategy, emerging strategy, undetermined strategy, non-recommended strategy. As an example, promising strategies were described as demonstrating mostly positive outcomes that may need more rigorous examination to ensure they are having the intended effect or are generalizable to a wider context. Practitioners would be recommended to take caution when using a promising strategy in practice and ensure it is having a similar outcome as demonstrated in the original research.

For the Delphi Round 1, we recruited from a pool of 68 experts. Two individuals responded stating their inability to participate, with one participant suggesting a replacement. Forty-one participants completed the survey, and two participants partially completed the survey for a total of 43 participants (63% response rate). For the Delphi Round 2, we recruited among the responders from Round 1 with no refusals to participate and no partial responses. Thirty participants in total completed the Round 2 survey (70% response rate). Respondent characteristics are provided in Table  1 for both Delphi Rounds. Briefly, one half of Respondents in both rounds self-identified as women (55.8%; 50% in rounds 1 and 2 respectively), with the majority white (83.7%; 80%) and not Hispanic or Latino (86%; 100%). Most respondents worked in academic settings (81.4%; 80%), with most working in HIV in round 1 but not round 2 (83.7%; 36.7% respectively). The highest number respondents had 11–20 years of experience in their area of expertise (44.2%; 43.3% respectively), and three quarters reported experience with leading implementation research projects (76.7%; 73.3%). Both complete and partially complete responses were included in subsequent analyses.

Delphi round 1

Table 2 presents the quantitative outcomes regarding whether the participant believed that domains should be added, dropped, or combined. More than half (58%) of participants thought no new domains should be added, while 44% of participants thought domains should be dropped or combined. When examining the evidence levels, 79% of individuals felt that no additional evidence levels were needed, while 47% thought one or more of the evidence levels could be dropped or combined.

Table 3 summarizes open-ended responses with example quotes for domains and evidence levels that were commented on most often. When reviewing the qualitative responses of those who indicated a domain should be added, most respondents suggested adding specific criteria or wanted greater clarity in how the domains and criteria within domains were defined. For example, regarding the equity domain, individuals desired greater clarity, operationalization, and description of how equity is being considered and evaluated. Of these, four sought greater clarity of equity-related outcomes, and six recommended inclusion of equity metrics or different ways of operationalizing equity. Three participants felt equity should be examined in combination with implementation outcomes. Three suggested greater consideration of community partnership development and inclusion of the target population in the development of the strategy or design of a study. Finally, participants recommended combining promising, emerging, and/or undetermined as levels of evidence and better specifying and operationalizing the levels.

Briefly, we revised the structure of our tool along five domains: study design, implementation outcomes, study rigor and limitations, strategy specification, and equity impact. These domains each included a revised set of criteria. For example, based on the recommended additions to the study design and rigor domain, we split this domain into two domains: 1) study design; and 2) study rigor and limitations. We considered several of the comments on dropping equity but ultimately opted to keep this domain, relax the criteria, and heavily refine the description. Other cross-cutting changes included combining the criteria for bundled strategies and strategy specification. We combined two of the evidence levels (emerging and undetermined) and revised the definitions to include: best practice, promising practice, needs more evidence, and harmful.

Delphi round 2

For the second round of the Delphi, we asked respondents to confirm major changes to the tool based on the first round of the Delphi (Table  2 ), and have respondents evaluate our proposed process for applying the criteria. Most respondents agreed with changes to the domains and evidence levels although there remained some commentary on the equity domain. When examining the open-ended responses among those disagreeing with the changes to the equity domain, we grouped responses into individuals that did not agree with the domain (i.e., a hard no to the revisions) and others who still had additional suggestions for the domain but approved of the domain overall (i.e., a soft no with suggested revisions; Table  3 ). Based on these responses, we finalized the domains and made several additional adjustments to the definitions of equity including defining which target populations can be considered in determining whether the strategy has a positive equity impact or not. Finally, we revised our process for applying the rubric based on the recommendation to apply the criteria across each domain in addition to giving an overall rating. While this did increase time in the review process, this change allowed us to still provide information on how strategies rate across all domains, enabling researchers and practitioners to compare how strategies rate on different domains or select a strategy that is strong in a specific domain, like equity supporting for example.

Pilot application to PrEP implementation strategies

To ensure a consistent, high-quality process for applying criteria to research studies examining implementation strategies, we initially piloted the rubric with eight existing studies on implementation strategies to promote the uptake of evidence-based HIV services including PrEP, HIV testing, and retention in care [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. At the conclusion, we were able to achieve 90% reliable application of the criteria, resulting in dropping some criteria and clarifying other criteria and their application. Two members of the ISCI team then applied the rubric to a set of 18 implementation strategies identified through an ongoing systematic review designed to promote uptake of PrEP in a second pilot application, achieving 98% reliability and taking approximately 15–30 min per article.

Among the 18 strategy studies, summarized in Table  4 , one was assigned an overall rating as Best Practice and the remaining were assigned as Needs More Evidence. The primary domains where strategies failed to exceed the Needs More Evidence criteria were in Research Design as well as Study Rigor and Limitations. This was largely because these studies only utilized post-implementation assessment, were intended as pilot or feasibility studies, or were conducted only at a single site. Given the early state of the implementation research related to PrEP implementation in the US, we felt that this mix of ratings was relatively appropriate. While the domains that have parallels in other rating systems resulted in relatively low ratings among our studies, we observed a good mix of ratings on domains unique to our tool and implementation research (i.e., strategy specification and equity) at the Best, Promising, and Needs More Evidence levels, suggesting these domains are sufficiently discerning among the existing set of studies.

A summary of major changes to the rubric and criteria are summarized in Table  5 . The final domains and evidence-levels are provided in Table  6 , and a summary of the criteria by domain at each evidence level is provided in Table  7 . The final tool with domains, criteria, evidence levels, and application instructions are available as a supplement (Supplemental file C).

To our knowledge, this is the first set of criteria to evaluate evidence for implementation strategies and serve as a basis for recommendations to practitioners. Our Best Practice tool was initially informed by existing criteria and interviews, refined by a Delphi, and then piloted with implementation strategies. This process yielded a rating scale (i.e., best, promising, needs more evidence, and harmful) and domains (e.g., study design, implementation outcomes, rigor and limitations), which are common to other tools and rubrics. Yet, implementation research’s system-level focus required tailoring to our rubric for some domains, like study design and outcomes, and the development of entirely new domains, specifically strategy specification and equity. To help define the criteria for the domains, we used results from key informant interviews and existing implementation science literature to help ensure appropriateness for the field [ 1 , 6 , 48 ]. As a specific example of tailoring, we have outlined criteria for the research design domain that considers the realities of where implementation research is conducted and does not require blinding or randomization for strategies to be considered the highest rating. While these helped provide structure and specific criteria at each of the evidence levels, in conducting the pilot we noted missing information which sometimes made it difficult to evaluate the research. We recommend using Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) guidelines as well as Proctor’s recommendations for strategy specification when reporting implementation research to help ensure the needed details to evaluate the research are reported and available for potential practitioners to understand what resources and efforts are needed for implementation strategies [ 1 , 49 ].

In addition to being a new resource for implementation science, to our knowledge this is also the first evidence rating criteria that considers the potential to improve equity in a health issue. Because implementation science directly impacts communities with the potential to improve or exacerbate inequities, HIV included, experts reiterated that equity was a critical domain to include. However, our work among participants, who primarily identified as white and non-Latin, demonstrates a lack of consensus in the implementation science field about what equity in implementation science means. We also encourage continued discussion within the implementation science community that includes diverse perspectives to help foster consensus and bring additional attention to this problem.

For the Best Practices Tool, the criteria within the Equity domain emphasizes community engagement in the research process, a research focus on populations experiencing inequities, as well as equity in outcomes for the Best Practice evidence level rating. as a means to These criteria encourage attention to and improvement in HIV-related inequities as many in the field have advocated [ 50 , 51 , 52 ] with additional, more relaxed criteria for lower evidence ratings. However, we recognize that no single implementation strategy (or intervention) is going to adequately address the deeply rooted structural determinants, like racism and homophobia, which keep inequities entrenched. Implementers who are interested in utilizing strategies may wish to consider additional factors that are relevant to their specific contexts, like whether communities they serve are reflected in the strategies they are considering or whether the strategy responds to the determinants driving inequity in their context. However, it is our hope that by including equity improvement as criteria to be considered the highest quality research, we can bring additional attention to and encourage equity in HIV outcomes in the US.

Our tool and criteria are designed to discern among studies for which there is best evidence specific to HIV implementation strategies in the US, which is a rapidly growing field, rather than having an absolute threshold of effectiveness that studies must meet. There are other heath areas, such as cancer and global HIV implementation research, for which there are more studies leveraging more rigorous research designs to evaluate implementation strategies [ 53 , 54 ]. If applied in these areas, it may be more appropriate to have more stringent criteria to adequately discern among studies for which there is relatively good evidence compared to those which would need additional study. We encourage others who may consider using this tool in their area of implementation science to consider adapting the specific criteria within each of the domains and at each of the evidence-levels to ensure that it appropriately discerns among available studies before routine application. Continuing with the example of more rigorous research designs, it may be appropriate to require better replication of results or more diverse settings than we have incorporated into our specific criteria. However, we would suggest that the overall structure of the tool, specifically the domains and recommendation levels could remain the same regardless of the health field. Conversely, we received many suggestions for more stringent criteria that participants felt like should be included that we were not able to include because it would have resulted in few-to-no strategies identified as best practice. US focused HIV implementation science is still in its adolescence, with many pilots and full-fledged trials underway but not yet published. It is our hope that in the future, we will be able to include more stringent criteria within the rubric so that the needed evidence quality improves over time within HIV implementation research.

There are some notable limitations to the processes used to develop the Best Practice Tool and the criteria themselves. We used a modified eDelphi approach to develop the rubric and criteria with some loss to follow up from the first to the second round of the Delphi, particularly among HIV service providers which may mean the results are not sufficiently representative of this context. However, we did retain many individuals working in settings where HIV services intersect, like substance misuse, mental health, and social services. Our use of a modified Delphi method did not result in consensus, but instead resulted in an approximation of consensus. In addition, we were not able to elicit the opinions about the appropriateness of the tool from the perspective of front-line HIV service implementers on balance with those of the research community. We hope to address this in future iterations of this work.

We envision several future directions for this tool with implications for both researchers and practitioners that will advance the goals of ISCI and support the EHE Initiative. Systematic reviews of HIV-related implementation strategies are currently underway through ISCI [ 55 ]. The next phase will entail applying these criteria to implementation strategies identified through these reviews and developing a compendium of strategies. We recognize that a rating and recommendation is not sufficient to support uptake, and we also have a complementary dissemination effort underway to provide the needed information and materials for wide adoption and scale up which will be available on the ISCI website [ 18 ]. Our criteria and rating system will also yield benefits for researchers conducting HIV implementation research. Through our efforts, we will also identify strategies that hold promise but would benefit from additional research and additional evidence supporting their effectiveness. Researchers can also use these criteria in designing studies of new strategies so that they can score better on these criteria.

For practitioners to fully benefit from research developing and testing implementation strategies targeting HIV services, clear evaluation criteria and recommendations are needed to assess which strategies are the most likely to have benefit and impact. We developed domains and criteria appropriate to evaluate evidence quality in HIV-related implementation strategies. This rubric includes recommendations for practitioners about strategies for which there is best evidence and recommendations for research about strategies for which more evidence is needed. Establishing criteria to evaluate implementation strategies advances implementation science by filling a much-needed gap in HIV implementation research which can be extended to other areas of implementation science.

Availability of data and materials

The Delphi dataset generated during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7:3.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

Sawaya GF, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D. for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive services task force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(12):871.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Terracciano L, Brozek J, Compalati E, Schünemann H. GRADE system: new paradigm. Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology. 2010;10(4):377–83.

Kilbourne A, Chinman M, Rogal S, Almirall D. Adaptive designs in implementation science and practice: their promise and the need for greater understanding and improved communication. Annu Rev Public Health. 2024;45(1):69.

Lamont T, Barber N, de Pury J, Fulop N, Garfield-Birkbeck S, Lilford R, et al. New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems. BMJ. 2016;352:i154.

Schliep ME, Alonzo CN, Morris MA. Beyond RCTs: Innovations in research design and methods to advance implementation science. Evid-Based Commun Assess Interv. 2017;11(3–4):82–98.

Google Scholar  

CDC. The State of the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. | Fact Sheets | Newsroom. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/state-of-the-hiv-epidemic-factsheet.html . Accessed 10 Oct 2022.

CDC. Compendium | Intervention Research | Research | HIV. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/research/interventionresearch/compendium/index.html . Accessed 10 Oct 2023.

CDC. Volume 28 Number 4| HIV Surveillance | Reports | Resource Library | HIV/AIDS. 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance/vol-28-no-4/index.html . Accessed 30 Nov 2023.

Zamantakis A, Li DH, Benbow N, Smith JD, Mustanski B. Determinants of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in transgender populations: a qualitative scoping review. AIDS Behav. 2023;27(5):1600–18.

Brooks RA, Landrian A, Lazalde G, Galvan FH, Liu H, Chen YT. Predictors of awareness, accessibility and acceptability of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) among English- and Spanish-speaking Latino men who have sex with Men in Los Angeles California. J Immigr Minor Health. 2020;22(4):708–16.

Namara D, Xie H, Miller D, Veloso D, McFarland W. Awareness and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV among low-income, HIV-negative heterosexuals in San Francisco. Int J STD AIDS. 2021;32(8):704–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Glenshaw MT, Gaist P, Wilson A, Cregg RC, Holtz TH, Goodenow MM. Role of NIH in the ending the HIV epidemic in the US initiative: research improving practice. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022;90(S1):S9.

Queiroz A, Mongrella M, Keiser B, Li DH, Benbow N, Mustanski B. Profile of the portfolio of NIH-Funded HIV implementation research projects to inform ending the HIV epidemic strategies. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022;90(S1):S23.

Mustanski B, Smith JD, Keiser B, Li DH, Benbow N. Supporting the growth of domestic HIV implementation research in the United States through coordination, consultation, and collaboration: how we got here and where we are headed. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022;90(S1):S1.

HIV Implementation Science Coordination Initiative. https://hivimpsci.northwestern.edu/ . Accessed 21 Oct 2023.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Merle JL, Benbow N, Li DH, Zapata JP, Queiroz A, Zamantakis A, McKay V, Keiser B, Villamar JA, Mustanski B, Smith JD. Improving Delivery and Use of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in the US: A Systematic Review of Implementation Strategies and Adjunctive Interventions. AIDS Behav. 2024;28(7):2321–39.

Frieden TR, Degutis LC, Mercy JA, Puddy RW, Wilkins N. Understanding Evidence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/understanding_evidence-a.pdf . Accessed 30 Nov 2023.

United States Preventive Services Taskforce. Methods and Processes. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/procedure-manual/procedure-manual-section-6-methods-arriving-recommendatio . Accessed 24 April 2024.

United States Preventive Services Taskforce. Grade Definitions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/grade-definitions . Accessed 24 April 2024.

Schloemer T, Schröder-Bäck P. Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):88.

Geng EH, Peiris D, Kruk ME. Implementation science: Relevance in the real world without sacrificing rigor. Plos Med. 2017;14(4):e1002288.

Lifsey S, Cash A, Anthony J, Mathis S, Silva S. Building the evidence base for population-level interventions: barriers and opportunities. Health Educ Behav Off Publ Soc Public Health Educ. 2015;42(1 Suppl):133S-140S.

Burns PA, Omondi AA, Monger M, Ward L, Washington R, Sims Gomillia CE, et al. Meet me where i am: an evaluation of an HIV patient navigation intervention to increase uptake of PrEP among black men who have sex with men in the deep south. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022;9(1):103–16.

Clement ME, Johnston BE, Eagle C, Taylor D, Rosengren AL, Goldstein BA, et al. Advancing the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis continuum: a collaboration between a public health department and a federally qualified health center in the Southern United States. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2019;33(8):366–71.

Brant AR, Dhillon P, Hull S, Coleman M, Ye PP, Lotke PS, et al. Integrating HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis into family planning care: a RE-AIM framework evaluation. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2020;34(6):259–66.

Chen A, Dowdy DW. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men: risk calculators for real-world decision-making. Plos One. 2014;9(10):e108742.

Cunningham WE, Ford CL, Kinsler JJ, Seiden D, Andrews L, Nakazono T, et al. Effects of a laboratory health information exchange intervention on antiretroviral therapy use, viral suppression and racial/ethnic disparities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2017;75(3):290–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Havens JP, Scarsi KK, Sayles H, Klepser DG, Swindells S, Bares SH. Acceptability and feasibility of a pharmacist-led human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis program in the Midwestern United States. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(10):ofz365.

Horack CL, Newton SL, Vos M, Wolfe BA, Whitaker A. Pre-exposure prophylaxis in a reproductive health setting: a quality improvement project. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(5):687–9.

Ezeanolue EE, Obiefune MC, Ezeanolue CO, Ehiri JE, Osuji A, Ogidi AG, et al. Effect of a congregation-based intervention on uptake of HIV testing and linkage to care in pregnant women in Nigeria (Baby Shower): a cluster randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(11):e692-700.

Buchbinder SP, Havlir DV. Getting to zero San Francisco: a collective impact approach. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;82 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S176-82.

Bunting SR, Saqueton R, Batteson TJ. A guide for designing student-led, interprofessional community education initiatives about HIV risk and pre-exposure prophylaxis. MedEdPORTAL J Teach Learn Resour. 2019;18(15):10818.

Bunting SR, Saqueton R, Batteson TJ. Using a student-led, community-specific training module to increase PrEP uptake amongst at-risk populations: results from an exploratory pilot implementation. AIDS Care. 2020;32(5):546–50.

Coleman M, Hodges A, Henn S, Lambert CC. Integrated pharmacy and PrEP navigation services to support PrEP uptake: a quality improvement project. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care JANAC. 2020;31(6):685–92.

Gregg E, Linn C, Nace E, Gelberg L, Cowan B, Fulcher JA. Implementation of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a homeless primary care setting at the Veterans affairs. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:2150132720908370.

Hoth AB, Shafer C, Dillon DB, Mayer R, Walton G, Ohl ME. Iowa TelePrEP: a public-health-partnered telehealth model for human immunodeficiency virus preexposure prophylaxis delivery in a Rural State. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46(8):507–12.

Khosropour CM, Backus KV, Means AR, Beauchamps L, Johnson K, Golden MR, et al. A pharmacist-led, same-day, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis initiation program to increase PrEP uptake and decrease time to PrEP initiation. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2020;34(1):1–6.

Lopez MI, Cocohoba J, Cohen SE, Trainor N, Levy MM, Dong BJ. Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis at a community pharmacy through a collaborative practice agreement with San Francisco Department of Public Health. J Am Pharm Assoc JAPhA. 2020;60(1):138–44.

Pathela P, Jamison K, Blank S, Daskalakis D, Hedberg T, Borges C. The HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Cascade at NYC sexual health clinics: navigation is the key to uptake. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2020;83(4):357–64.

Roth AM, Tran NK, Felsher M, Gadegbeku AB, Piecara B, Fox R, et al. Integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis with community-based syringe services for women who inject drugs: results from the project SHE demonstration study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021;86(3):e61-70.

Saberi P, Berrean B, Thomas S, Gandhi M, Scott H. A simple Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) optimization intervention for health care providers prescribing PrEP: pilot study. JMIR Form Res. 2018;2(1):e2.

Tung EL, Thomas A, Eichner A, Shalit P. Implementation of a community pharmacy-based pre-exposure prophylaxis service: a novel model for pre-exposure prophylaxis care. Sex Health. 2018;15(6):556–61.

Wood BR, Mann MS, Martinez-Paz N, Unruh KT, Annese M, Spach DH, et al. Project ECHO: telementoring to educate and support prescribing of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by community medical providers. Sex Health. 2018;15(6):601–5.

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

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, Rycroft-Malone J, Meissner P, Murray E, Patel A, Sheikh A. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) statement. bmj. 2017; 356.

Brownson RC, Kumanyika SK, Kreuter MW, Haire-Joshu D. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):28.

Shelton RC, Adsul P, Oh A, Moise N, Griffith DM. Application of an antiracism lens in the field of implementation science (IS): Recommendations for reframing implementation research with a focus on justice and racial equity. Implement Res Pract. 2021;1(2):26334895211049480.

Baumann AA, Shelton RC, Kumanyika S, Haire‐Joshu D. Advancing healthcare equity through dissemination and implementation science. Health services research. 2023;58:327–44. Accessed 19 Feb 2024.

Neta G, Sanchez MA, Chambers DA, Phillips SM, Leyva B, Cynkin L, et al. Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):4.

Hwang S, Birken SA, Melvin CL, Rohweder CL, Smith JD. Designs and methods for implementation research: advancing the mission of the CTSA program. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(3):159–67.

Merle JL, Li D, Keiser B, Zamantakis A, Queiroz A, Gallo CG, et al. Categorising implementation determinants and strategies within the US HIV implementation literature: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(3):e070216.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge members of the ISCI leadership team and Melissa Mongrella who developed the survey instruments within REDCap.

This work was supported by an Ending the HIV Epidemic supplement to the Third​ Coast Center for AIDS Research, an NIH funded center (P30 AI117943). Author az’s time was supported by a training grant from the NIMH (T32MH30325). Author JLM’s time was supported by a post-doctoral training grant from the National Library of Medicine (2 T15 LM 007124–26).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Public Health Systems Science, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Virginia R. McKay & McKenzie Swan

Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Alithia Zamantakis, Brian Mustanski & Lisa R. Hirschhorn

Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Alithia Zamantakis, Ana Michaela Pachicano, Morgan R. Purrier, Dennis H. Li, Brian Mustanski, Justin D. Smith & Nanette Benbow

Department of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health System Innovation and Research, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

James L. Merle

Center for Prevention Implementation Methodology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Dennis H. Li, Brian Mustanski & Nanette Benbow

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Center for Dissemination and Implementation Science, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Dennis H. Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of this project and manuscript. VM and AMP were responsible for drafts on Delphi sections of this manuscript. Az was responsible for qualitative portions of the manuscript. BM, NB, DL, JM, and JS supported research conceptualization and research design for the project. LH, MS, and MP were responsible for drafting the introduction and discussion portions of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, revised, and provided feedback on later drafts of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia R. McKay .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The protocols and data collection were determined to be non-human subjects research by Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., 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.

McKay, V.R., Zamantakis, A., Pachicano, A.M. et al. Establishing evidence criteria for implementation strategies in the US: a Delphi study for HIV services. Implementation Sci 19 , 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01379-3

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2024

Accepted : 28 June 2024

Published : 15 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01379-3

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

• Evidence-based intervention
• Implementation science

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

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

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

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.

• American Job Centers
• Apprenticeship
• Demonstration Grants
• Farmworkers
• Federal Bonding Program
• Foreign Labor Certification
• Indians and Native Americans
• Job Seekers
• Layoffs and Rapid Response
• National Dislocated Worker Grants
• Older Workers
• Skills Training Grants
• Trade Adjustment Assistance
• Unemployment Insurance
• Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
• WIOA Adult Program
• Advisories and Directives
• Regulations
• Labor Surplus Area
• Performance
• Recovery-Ready Workplace Resource Hub
• Research and Evaluation
• ETA News Releases
• Updates for Workforce Professionals
• Regional Offices
• Freedom of Information Act
• Office of Apprenticeship
• Office of Foreign Labor Certification
• Office of Grants Management
• Office of Job Corps
• Office of Unemployment Insurance (1-877-S-2JOBS)

Bridging the Gap for New Americans: Final Report

Publication info, research methodology, country, state or territory, description, other products.

This report, prepared in response to a law (Pub. L. No. 117–210, enacted in October 2022) focuses on immigrants and refugees who are lawfully present in the U.S., arrived during the 5 years prior to the law, and have occupational credentials or academic degrees obtained outside the United States. The report explores the size of the relevant population, the percentage among it that experiences difficulties obtaining employment commensurate with their credentials or academic preparation, the types of difficulties that individuals in this group experience, and the services provided by various organizations and public agencies to aid this group. 

The report is based on a targeted literature review, an exploration of the available data on the relevant population, and a review of public and private programs that aid this population. While the study team found no recent studies or national datasets that cover target population as defined in the statute, it did identify related data and information. Key findings include: 1) the number of immigrants with at least a college degree obtained outside the U.S. was estimated to be approximately 7 million, based on 2019 Census data from the American Community Survey (ACS); 2) based on the 2019 ACS, 24 percent of immigrants who obtained college degrees outside the U.S. accepted a job that did not require a college degree or were unemployed, 3) recredentialing or relicensing for such individuals is complex, expensive, and time-consuming, due to problems navigating licensing systems, lack of English language proficiency, and lack of sufficient funds, and 4) there are nonprofit organizations, state governments, and community colleges (all identified in the report) that have implemented strategies and approaches to address those various challenges.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Vitis vinifera l. leaf extract, a microbiota green ally against infectious and inflammatory skin and scalp diseases: an in-depth update.

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. vitis vinifera l. leaves, 3.1. phytochemical profile and bioactive compounds, 3.2. topical and systemic applications in cosmeceutics, 4. skin microbiota and inflammatory skin and scalp disorders, 4.1. skin microbiota and healthy skin, 4.2. skin microbiota and cutaneous diseases, 5. inflammatory skin and scalp disorders and vitis vinifera l. leaf extracts, 6. vitis vinifera l. leaf extracts, microbiota, and skin opportunistic pathogens, 6.1. vitis vinifera l. leaf extracts and bacteria, 6.2. vitis vinifera l. leaf extracts and viruses, 6.3. vitis vinifera l. leaf extracts and fungi, 7. vitis vinifera l. extract prebiotic and postbiotic properties, 8. conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Baroni, A.; Buommino, E.; De Gregorio, V.; Ruocco, E.; Ruocco, V.; Wolf, R. Structure and function of the epidermis related to barrier properties. Clin. Dermatol. 2012 , 30 , 257–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wild, C.P. The exposome: From concept to utility. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2012 , 41 , 24–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Celebi Sozener, Z.; Ozdel Ozturk, B.; Cerci, P.; Turk, M.; Gorgulu Akin, B.; Akdis, M.; Altiner, S.; Ozbey, U.; Ogulur, I.; Mitamura, Y.; et al. Epithelial barrier hypothesis: Effect of the external exposome on the microbiome and epithelial barriers in allergic disease. Allergy 2022 , 77 , 1418–1449. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akdis, C.A. Does the epithelial barrier hypothesis explain the increase in allergy, autoimmunity and other chronic conditions? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021 , 21 , 739–751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weiss, G.A.; Hennet, T. Mechanisms and consequences of intestinal dysbiosis. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2017 , 74 , 2959–2977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hrncir, T. Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis: Triggers, Consequences, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options. Microorganisms 2022 , 10 , 578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balato, A.; Cacciapuoti, S.; Di Caprio, R.; Marasca, C.; Masarà, A.; Raimondo, A.; Fabbrocini, G. Human Microbiome: Composition and Role in Inflammatory Skin Diseases. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 2019 , 67 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pat, Y.; Ogulur, I.; Yazici, D.; Mitamura, Y.; Cevhertas, L.; Küçükkase, O.C.; Mesisser, S.S.; Akdis, M.; Nadeau, K.; Akdis, C.A. Effect of altered human exposome on the skin and mucosal epithelial barrier integrity. Tissue Barriers 2023 , 11 , 2133877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chopra, D.; Arens, R.A.; Amornpairoj, W.; Lowes, M.A.; Tomic-Canic, M.; Strbo, N.; Lev-Tov, H.; Pastar, I. Innate immunity and microbial dysbiosis in hidradenitis suppurativa—Vicious cycle of chronic inflammation. Front. Immunol. 2022 , 13 , 960488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hou, K.; Wu, Z.-X.; Chen, X.-Y.; Wang, J.-Q.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, D.; Koya, J.B.; Wei, L.; Li, J.; et al. Microbiota in health and diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022 , 7 , 135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Tommaso, N.; Gasbarrini, A.; Ponziani, F.R. Intestinal Barrier in Human Health and Disease. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 12836. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Q.; Panchamukhi, A.; Li, P.; Shan, W.; Zhou, H.; Hou, L.; Chen, W. Malassezia and Staphylococcus dominate scalp microbiome for seborrheic dermatitis. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2021 , 44 , 965–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szabó, K.; Bolla, B.S.; Erdei, L.; Balogh, F.; Kemény, L. Are the Cutaneous Microbiota a Guardian of the Skin’s Physical Barrier? The Intricate Relationship between Skin Microbes and Barrier Integrity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 15962. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weidinger, S.; Beck, L.A.; Bieber, T.; Kabashima, K.; Irvine, A.D. Atopic dermatitis. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primer 2018 , 4 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Celoria, V.; Rosset, F.; Pala, V.; Dapavo, P.; Ribero, S.; Quaglino, P.; Mastorino, L. The Skin Microbiome and Its Role in Psoriasis: A Review. Psoriasis 2023 , 13 , 71–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ganju, P.; Nagpal, S.; Mohammed, M.H.; Nishal Kumar, P.; Pandey, R.; Natarajan, V.T.; Mande, S.S.; Gokhale, R.S. Microbial community profiling shows dysbiosis in the lesional skin of Vitiligo subjects. Sci. Rep. 2016 , 6 , 18761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schell, S.L.; Schneider, A.M.; Nelson, A.M. Yin and Yang: A disrupted skin microbiome and an aberrant host immune response in hidradenitis suppurativa. Exp. Dermatol. 2021 , 30 , 1453–1470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinto, D.; Sorbellini, E.; Marzani, B.; Rucco, M.; Giuliani, G.; Rinaldi, F. Scalp bacterial shift in Alopecia areata. PLoS ONE 2019 , 14 , e0215206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, C.; Yi, X.; Long, H.; Zhang, G.; Wu, H.; Zhao, M.; Lu, Q. Disordered cutaneous microbiota in systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Autoimmun. 2020 , 108 , 102391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savoia, P.; Azzimonti, B.; Rolla, R.; Zavattaro, E. Role of the Microbiota in Skin Neoplasms: New Therapeutic Horizons. Microorganisms 2023 , 11 , 2386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, G.; Chen, Z.-M.; Fan, X.-Y.; Jin, Y.-L.; Li, X.; Wu, S.-R.; Ge, W.-W.; Lv, C.-H.; Wang, Y.-K.; Chen, J.-G. Gut-Brain-Skin Axis in Psoriasis: A Review. Dermatol. Ther. 2021 , 11 , 25–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mehta, A.B.; Nadkarni, N.J.; Patil, S.P.; Godse, K.V.; Gautam, M.; Agarwal, S. Topical corticosteroids in dermatology. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2016 , 82 , 371–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Starbek Zorko, M.; Benko, M.; Rakuša, M.; Prunk Zdravković, T. Evaluation of corticophobia in patients with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis using the TOPICOP© score. Acta Dermatovenerol. Alp. Pannonica Adriat. 2023 , 32 , 135–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazici, D.; Ogulur, I.; Pat, Y.; Babayev, H.; Barletta, E.; Ardicli, S.; Bel Imam, M.; Huang, M.; Koch, J.; Li, M.; et al. The epithelial barrier: The gateway to allergic, autoimmune, and metabolic diseases and chronic neuropsychiatric conditions. Semin. Immunol. 2023 , 70 , 101846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belkaid, Y.; Harrison, O.J. Homeostatic Immunity and the Microbiota. Immunity 2017 , 46 , 562–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeshi, K.; Crayn, D.; Ritmejerytė, E.; Wangchuk, P. Plant Secondary Metabolites Produced in Response to Abiotic Stresses Has Potential Application in Pharmaceutical Product Development. Molecules 2022 , 27 , 313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sangiovanni, E.; Dell’Agli, M. Special Issue: Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Plant Polyphenols 2.0. Biomedicines 2021 , 10 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajha, H.N.; Paule, A.; Aragonès, G.; Barbosa, M.; Caddeo, C.; Debs, E.; Dinkova, R.; Eckert, G.P.; Fontana, A.; Gebrayel, P.; et al. Recent Advances in Research on Polyphenols: Effects on Microbiota, Metabolism, and Health. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2022 , 66 , e2100670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Merecz-Sadowska, A.; Sitarek, P.; Zajdel, K.; Kucharska, E.; Kowalczyk, T.; Zajdel, R. The Modulatory Influence of Plant-Derived Compounds on Human Keratinocyte Function. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 12488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moldovan, M.L.; Carpa, R.; Fizeșan, I.; Vlase, L.; Bogdan, C.; Iurian, S.M.; Benedec, D.; Pop, A. Phytochemical Profile and Biological Activities of Tendrils and Leaves Extracts from a Variety of Vitis vinifera L. Antioxidants 2020 , 9 , 373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, J.; Rasane, P.; Kaur, R.; Kaur, H.; Garg, R.; Kaur, S.; Ercisli, S.; Choudhary, R.; Skrovankova, S.; Mlcek, J. Valorization of grape ( Vitis vinifera ) leaves for bioactive compounds: Novel green extraction technologies and food-pharma applications. Front. Chem. 2023 , 11 , 1290619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romani, A.; Campo, M.; Urciuoli, S.; Marrone, G.; Noce, A.; Bernini, R. An Industrial and Sustainable Platform for the Production of Bioactive Micronized Powders and Extracts Enriched in Polyphenols From Olea europaea L. and Vitis vinifera L. Wastes. Front. Nutr. 2020 , 7 , 120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baroi, A.M.; Popitiu, M.; Fierascu, I.; Sărdărescu, I.-D.; Fierascu, R.C. Grapevine Wastes: A Rich Source of Antioxidants and Other Biologically Active Compounds. Antioxidants 2022 , 11 , 393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharafan, M.; Malinowska, M.A.; Ekiert, H.; Kwaśniak, B.; Sikora, E.; Szopa, A. Vitis vinifera (Vine Grape) as a Valuable Cosmetic Raw Material. Pharmaceutics 2023 , 15 , 1372. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sangiovanni, E.; Di Lorenzo, C.; Piazza, S.; Manzoni, Y.; Brunelli, C.; Fumagalli, M.; Magnavacca, A.; Martinelli, G.; Colombo, F.; Casiraghi, A.; et al. Vitis vinifera L. Leaf Extract Inhibits In Vitro Mediators of Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Involved in Inflammatory-Based Skin Diseases. Antioxidants 2019 , 8 , 134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marabini, L.; Melzi, G.; Lolli, F.; Dell’Agli, M.; Piazza, S.; Sangiovanni, E.; Marinovich, M. Effects of Vitis vinifera L. leaves extract on UV radiation damage in human keratinocytes (HaCaT). J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 2020 , 204 , 111810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogdan, C.; Pop, A.; Iurian, S.M.; Benedec, D.; Moldovan, M.L. Research Advances in the Use of Bioactive Compounds from Vitis vinifera By-Products in Oral Care. Antioxidants 2020 , 9 , 502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Piazza, S.; Fumagalli, M.; Khalilpour, S.; Martinelli, G.; Magnavacca, A.; Dell’Agli, M.; Sangiovanni, E. A Review of the Potential Benefits of Plants Producing Berries in Skin Disorders. Antioxidants 2020 , 9 , 542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biniek, K.; Levi, K.; Dauskardt, R.H. Solar UV radiation reduces the barrier function of human skin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 17111–17116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Passeron, T.; Krutmann, J.; Andersen, M.L.; Katta, R.; Zouboulis, C.C. Clinical and biological impact of the exposome on the skin. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2020 , 34 (Suppl. S4), 4–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khmaladze, I.; Leonardi, M.; Fabre, S.; Messaraa, C.; Mavon, A. The Skin Interactome: A Holistic “Genome-Microbiome-Exposome” Approach to Understand and Modulate Skin Health and Aging. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. 2020 , 13 , 1021–1040. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cecchi, L.; D’Amato, G.; Annesi-Maesano, I. External exposome and allergic respiratory and skin diseases. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2018 , 141 , 846–857. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prieux, R.; Eeman, M.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B.; Valacchi, G. Mimicking cigarette smoke exposure to assess cutaneous toxicity. Toxicol. Vitr. 2020 , 62 , 104664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lima, C.; Falcão, M.A.P.; Rosa, J.G.S.; Disner, G.R.; Lopes-Ferreira, M. Pesticides and Their Impairing Effects on Epithelial Barrier Integrity, Dysbiosis, Disruption of the AhR Signaling Pathway and Development of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 12402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belzer, A.; Parker, E.R. Climate Change, Skin Health, and Dermatologic Disease: A Guide for the Dermatologist. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2023 , 24 , 577–593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aşkın, Ö.; Uzunçakmak, T.K.Ü.; Altunkalem, N.; Tüzün, Y. Vitamin deficiencies/hypervitaminosis and the skin. Clin. Dermatol. 2021 , 39 , 847–857. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joshi, M.; Hiremath, P.; John, J.; Ranadive, N.; Nandakumar, K.; Mudgal, J. Modulatory role of vitamins A, B3, C, D, and E on skin health, immunity, microbiome, and diseases. Pharmacol. Rep. PR 2023 , 75 , 1096–1114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kanda, N.; Hoashi, T.; Saeki, H. The Roles of Sex Hormones in the Course of Atopic Dermatitis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 , 20 , 4660. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gratton, R.; Del Vecchio, C.; Zupin, L.; Crovella, S. Unraveling the Role of Sex Hormones on Keratinocyte Functions in Human Inflammatory Skin Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 3132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orion, E.; Wolf, R. Psychological stress and epidermal barrier function. Clin. Dermatol. 2012 , 30 , 280–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Lyga, J. Brain-Skin Connection: Stress, Inflammation and Skin Aging. Inflamm. Allergy Drug Targets 2014 , 13 , 177–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Choe, S.J.; Kim, D.; Kim, E.J.; Ahn, J.-S.; Choi, E.-J.; Son, E.D.; Lee, T.R.; Choi, E.H. Psychological Stress Deteriorates Skin Barrier Function by Activating 11β-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase 1 and the HPA Axis. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 6334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, H.; Wang, M.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Su, J. Role of stress in skin diseases: A neuroendocrine-immune interaction view. Brain Behav. Immun. 2024 , 116 , 286–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, W.; Wang, Z.; Cao, J.; Dong, Y.; Chen, Y. Melatonin improves skin barrier damage caused by sleep restriction through gut microbiota. J. Pineal Res. 2023 , 75 , e12874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Parrish, A.R. The impact of aging on epithelial barriers. Tissue Barriers 2017 , 5 , e1343172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Agrawal, R.; Hu, A.; Bollag, W.B. The Skin and Inflamm-Aging. Biology 2023 , 12 , 1396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, H.-J.; Kim, M. Skin Barrier Function and the Microbiome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 13071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Neveu, V.; Nicolas, G.; Amara, A.; Salek, R.M.; Scalbert, A. The human microbial exposome: Expanding the Exposome-Explorer database with gut microbial metabolites. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 1946. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Irvine, A.D.; McLean, W.H.I.; Leung, D.Y.M. Filaggrin mutations associated with skin and allergic diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 , 365 , 1315–1327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schleimer, R.P.; Berdnikovs, S. Etiology of epithelial barrier dysfunction in patients with type 2 inflammatory diseases. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017 , 139 , 1752–1761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kucuksezer, U.C.; Ozdemir, C.; Yazici, D.; Pat, Y.; Mitamura, Y.; Li, M.; Sun, N.; D’Avino, P.; Bu, X.; Zhu, X.; et al. The epithelial barrier theory: Development and exacerbation of allergic and other chronic inflammatory diseases. Asia Pac. Allergy 2023 , 13 , 28–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wagner, R.N.; Piñón Hofbauer, J.; Wally, V.; Kofler, B.; Schmuth, M.; De Rosa, L.; De Luca, M.; Bauer, J.W. Epigenetic and metabolic regulation of epidermal homeostasis. Exp. Dermatol. 2021 , 30 , 1009–1022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kimball, A.B. Skin differences, needs, and disorders across global populations. J. Investig. Dermatol. Symp. Proc. 2008 , 13 , 2–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andersen, L.K.; Davis, M.D.P. Sex differences in the incidence of skin and skin-related diseases in Olmsted County, Minnesota, United States, and a comparison with other rates published worldwide. Int. J. Dermatol. 2016 , 55 , 939–955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rahrovan, S.; Fanian, F.; Mehryan, P.; Humbert, P.; Firooz, A. Male versus female skin: What dermatologists and cosmeticians should know. Int. J. Womens Dermatol. 2018 , 4 , 122–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lagacé, F.; D’Aguanno, K.; Prosty, C.; Laverde-Saad, A.; Cattelan, L.; Ouchene, L.; Oliel, S.; Genest, G.; Doiron, P.; Richer, V.; et al. The Role of Sex and Gender in Dermatology—From Pathogenesis to Clinical Implications. J. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2023 , 27 , NP1–NP36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cantwell, M.I.; Hong, G.; Albornoz, K.; Berlanga, M. Fresh grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) leaves: Postharvest biology and handling recommendations. Sci. Hortic. 2022 , 292 , 110627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vinci, G.; Prencipe, S.A.; Abbafati, A.; Filippi, M. Environmental Impact Assessment of an Organic Wine Production in Central Italy: Case Study from Lazio. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 15483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, M.C.; Hendrikse, S.I.S.; Sherrell, P.C.; Ellis, A.V. Grapevine waste in sustainable hybrid particleboard production. Waste Manag. 2020 , 118 , 501–509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmad, B.; Yadav, V.; Yadav, A.; Rahman, M.U.; Yuan, W.Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, X. Integrated biorefinery approach to valorize winery waste: A review from waste to energy perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 719 , 137315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lacerda, D.D.S.; Santos, C.F.; Oliveira, A.S.; Zimmermann, R.; Schneider, R.; Agostini, F.; Dani, C.; Funchal, C.; Gomez, R. Antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects of an organic grapevine leaf ( Vitis labrusca L.) extract in diabetic rats. RSC Adv. 2014 , 4 , 52611–52619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonçalves, D.A.; González, A.; Roupar, D.; Teixeira, J.A.; Nobre, C. How prebiotics have been produced from agro-industrial waste: An overview of the enzymatic technologies applied and the models used to validate their health claims. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023 , 135 , 74–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiocchio, I.; Mandrone, M.; Tomasi, P.; Marincich, L.; Poli, F. Plant Secondary Metabolites: An Opportunity for Circular Economy. Molecules 2021 , 26 , 495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kortekamp, A. Expression analysis of defence-related genes in grapevine leaves after inoculation with a host and a non-host pathogen. Plant Physiol. Biochem. PPB 2006 , 44 , 58–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garrido, J.; Borges, F. Wine and grape polyphenols—A chemical perspective. Food Res. Int. 2013 , 54 , 1844–1858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guerriero, G.; Berni, R.; Muñoz-Sanchez, J.A.; Apone, F.; Abdel-Salam, E.M.; Qahtan, A.A.; Alatar, A.A.; Cantini, C.; Cai, G.; Hausman, J.-F.; et al. Production of Plant Secondary Metabolites: Examples, Tips and Suggestions for Biotechnologists. Genes 2018 , 9 , 309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fiume, M.M.; Bergfeld, W.F.; Belsito, D.V.; Hill, R.A.; Klaassen, C.D.; Liebler, D.C.; Marks, J.G.; Shank, R.C.; Slaga, T.J.; Snyder, P.W.; et al. Safety assessment of Vitis vinifera (grape)-derived ingredients as used in cosmetics. Int. J. Toxicol. 2014 , 33 , 48S–83S. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tabeshpour, J.; Mehri, S.; Shaebani Behbahani, F.; Hosseinzadeh, H. Protective effects of Vitis vinifera (grapes) and one of its biologically active constituents, resveratrol, against natural and chemical toxicities: A comprehensive review. Phytother. Res. 2018 , 32 , 2164–2190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katalinić, V.; Mozina, S.S.; Generalic, I.; Skroza, D.; Ljubenkov, I.; Klancnik, A. Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant Capacity, and Antimicrobial Activity of Leaf Extracts from Six Vitis vinifera L. Varieties. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013 , 16 , 45–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anđelković, M.; Radovanović, B.; Anđelković, A.M.; Radovanović, V. Phenolic Compounds and Bioactivity of Healthy and Infected Grapevine Leaf Extracts from Red Varieties Merlot and Vranac ( Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2015 , 70 , 317–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Páscoa, R.N.M.J. In Situ Visible and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Applied to Vineyards as a Tool for Precision Viticulture. In Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 80, pp. 253–279. ISBN 978-0-444-64048-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gülcü, M.; Ghafoor, K.; Al-Juhaimi, F.; Özcan, M.M.; Uslu, N.; Babiker, E.E.; Ahmed, I.A.M.; Azmi, I.U. Effect of grape ( Vitis vinifera L.) varieties and harvest periods on bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity, phenolic composition, mineral contents, and fatty acid compositions of Vitis leave and oils. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020 , 44 , e14890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goufo, P.; Singh, R.K.; Cortez, I. A Reference List of Phenolic Compounds (Including Stilbenes) in Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) Roots, Woods, Canes, Stems, and Leaves. Antioxidants 2020 , 9 , 398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yue, X.; Zhao, Y.; Ma, X.; Jiao, X.; Fang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Ju, Y. Effects of leaf removal on the accumulation of anthocyanins and the expression of anthocyanin biosynthetic genes in Cabernet Sauvignon ( Vitis vinifera L.) grapes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021 , 101 , 3214–3224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Harb, J.; Alseekh, S.; Tohge, T.; Fernie, A.R. Profiling of primary metabolites and flavonols in leaves of two table grape varieties collected from semiarid and temperate regions. Phytochemistry 2015 , 117 , 444–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cui, Z.-H.; Bi, W.-L.; Hao, X.-Y.; Li, P.-M.; Duan, Y.; Walker, M.A.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Q.-C. Drought Stress Enhances Up-Regulation of Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3-Infected in vitro Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera ) Leaves. Plant Dis. 2017 , 101 , 1606–1615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tartaglione, L.; Gambuti, A.; De Cicco, P.; Ercolano, G.; Ianaro, A.; Taglialatela-Scafati, O.; Moio, L.; Forino, M. NMR-based phytochemical analysis of Vitis vinifera cv Falanghina leaves. Characterization of a previously undescribed biflavonoid with antiproliferative activity. Fitoterapia 2018 , 125 , 13–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lima, M.R.M.; Felgueiras, M.L.; Cunha, A.; Chicau, G.; Ferreres, F.; Dias, A.C.P. Differential phenolic production in leaves of Vitis vinifera cv. Alvarinho affected with esca disease. Plant Physiol. Biochem. PPB 2017 , 112 , 45–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Djemaa-Landri, K.; Hamri-Zeghichi, S.; Valls, J.; Cluzet, S.; Tristan, R.; Boulahbal, N.; Kadri, N.; Madani, K. Phenolic content and antioxidant activities of Vitis vinifera L. leaf extracts obtained by conventional solvent and microwave-assisted extractions. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2020 , 14 , 3551–3564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jediyi, H.; Naamani, K.; Ait Elkoch, A.; Dihazi, A.; Lemjiber, N. A comparative study of phenols composition, antioxidant, and antifungal potency of leaves extract from five Moroccan Vitis vinifera L. varieties. J. Food Saf. 2020 , 40 , e12756. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pantelić, M.M.; Zagorac, D.Č.D.; Ćirić, I.Ž.; Pergal, M.V.; Relić, D.J.; Todić, S.R.; Natić, M.M. Phenolic profiles, antioxidant activity and minerals in leaves of different grapevine varieties grown in Serbia. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2017 , 62 , 76–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farhadi, K.; Esmaeilzadeh, F.; Hatami, M.; Forough, M.; Molaie, R. Determination of phenolic compounds content and antioxidant activity in skin, pulp, seed, cane and leaf of five native grape cultivars in West Azerbaijan province, Iran. Food Chem. 2016 , 199 , 847–855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aouey, B.; Samet, A.M.; Fetoui, H.; Simmonds, M.S.J.; Bouaziz, M. Anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic activities of grapevine leaf extract ( Vitis vinifera) in mice and identification of its active constituents by LC–MS/MS analyses. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2016 , 84 , 1088–1098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vrhovsek, U.; Malacarne, G.; Masuero, D.; Zulini, L.; Guella, G.; Stefanini, M.; Velasco, R.; Mattivi, F. Profiling and accurate quantification of trans -resveratrol, trans -piceid, trans -pterostilbene and 11 viniferins induced by Plasmopara viticola in partially resistant grapevine leaves. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2012 , 18 , 11–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Šuković, D.; Knežević, B.; Gašić, U.; Sredojević, M.; Ćirić, I.; Todić, S.; Mutić, J.; Tešić, Ž. Phenolic Profiles of Leaves, Grapes and Wine of Grapevine Variety Vranac ( Vitis vinifera L.) from Montenegro. Foods 2020 , 9 , 138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mattivi, F.; Vrhovsek, U.; Malacarne, G.; Masuero, D.; Zulini, L.; Stefanini, M.; Moser, C.; Velasco, R.; Guella, G. Profiling of Resveratrol Oligomers, Important Stress Metabolites, Accumulating in the Leaves of Hybrid Vitis vinifera (Merzling × Teroldego) Genotypes Infected with Plasmopara viticola . J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011 , 59 , 5364–5375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rätsep, R.; Karp, K.; Maante-Kuljus, M.; Aluvee, A.; Bhat, R. Polyphenols and Resveratrol from Discarded Leaf Biomass of Grapevine ( Vitis sp.): Effect of Cultivar and Viticultural Practices in Estonia. Agriculture 2020 , 10 , 393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, H.; Lin, Q.; Wei, W.; Qin, G. Ultrasound-assisted extraction of resveratrol from grape leaves and its purification on mesoporous carbon. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018 , 27 , 1353–1359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dadáková, K.; Jurasová, L.; Kašparovský, T.; Průšová, B.; Baroň, M.; Sochor, J. Origin of Wine Lignans. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2021 , 76 , 472–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tylewicz, U.; Nowacka, M.; Martín-García, B.; Wiktor, A.; Gómez Caravaca, A.M. 5—Target sources of polyphenols in different food products and their processing by-products. In Polyphenols: Properties, Recovery, and Applications ; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 135–175. ISBN 978-0-12-813572-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, X.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Yuan, K.; Zhang, W.; Cai, D.; Peng, Z.; Hu, Y.; Sun, J.; Bai, W. Bioactivity and application of anthocyanins in skin protection and cosmetics: An extension as a functional pigment. Phytochem. Rev. 2023 , 22 , 1441–1467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aron, P.M.; Kennedy, J.A. Flavan-3-ols: Nature, occurrence and biological activity. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2008 , 52 , 79–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gervasi, T.; Calderaro, A.; Barreca, D.; Tellone, E.; Trombetta, D.; Ficarra, S.; Smeriglio, A.; Mandalari, G.; Gattuso, G. Biotechnological Applications and Health-Promoting Properties of Flavonols: An Updated View. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 1710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vattem, D.A.; Shetty, K. Biological Functionality of Ellagic Acid: A Review. J. Food Biochem. 2005 , 29 , 234–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teka, T.; Zhang, L.; Ge, X.; Li, Y.; Han, L.; Yan, X. Stilbenes: Source plants, chemistry, biosynthesis, pharmacology, application and problems related to their clinical Application-A comprehensive review. Phytochemistry 2022 , 197 , 113128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kasperkiewicz, K.; Erkiert-Polguj, A.; Budzisz, E. Sunscreening and Photosensitizing Properties of Coumarins and their Derivatives. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 2016 , 13 , 465–474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garg, S.S.; Gupta, J.; Sharma, S.; Sahu, D. An insight into the therapeutic applications of coumarin compounds and their mechanisms of action. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020 , 152 , 105424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Osmakov, D.I.; Kalinovskii, A.P.; Belozerova, O.A.; Andreev, Y.A.; Kozlov, S.A. Lignans as Pharmacological Agents in Disorders Related to Oxidative Stress and Inflammation: Chemical Synthesis Approaches and Biological Activities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 6031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• World Health Organization WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014–2023. Available online: http://web.archive.org/web/20220912054716/https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/92455 (accessed on 25 March 2024).
• Yuan, H.; Ma, Q.; Ye, L.; Piao, G. The Traditional Medicine and Modern Medicine from Natural Products. Molecules 2016 , 21 , 559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, H.; Su, Z.; Pan, X.; Zheng, X.; Li, H.; Ye, Z.; Tang, B.; Lu, Y.; Zheng, G.; Lu, C. Phytochemicals: Targeting autophagy to treat psoriasis. Phytomedicine 2023 , 120 , 155041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fernandes, F.; Ramalhosa, E.; Pires, P.; Verdial, J.; Valentão, P.; Andrade, P.; Bento, A.; Pereira, J.A. Vitis vinifera leaves towards bioactivity. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013 , 43 , 434–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ribeiro, A.S.; Estanqueiro, M.; Oliveira, M.B.; Sousa Lobo, J.M. Main Benefits and Applicability of Plant Extracts in Skin Care Products. Cosmetics 2015 , 2 , 48–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.K.; Hassan, S.; Paniwnyk, L. Polyphenols as Natural Antioxidants: Sources, Extraction and Applications in Food, Cosmetics and Drugs. In Plant Based “Green Chemistry 2.0” ; Li, Y., Chemat, F., Eds.; Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 197–235. ISBN 9789811338090. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castro, M.L.; Ferreira, J.P.; Pintado, M.; Ramos, O.L.; Borges, S.; Baptista-Silva, S. Grape By-Products in Sustainable Cosmetics: Nanoencapsulation and Market Trends. Appl. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 9168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Almeida, C.V.; Antiga, E.; Lulli, M. Oral and Topical Probiotics and Postbiotics in Skincare and Dermatological Therapy: A Concise Review. Microorganisms 2023 , 11 , 1420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Maia, M.; Ferreira, A.E.N.; Laureano, G.; Marques, A.P.; Torres, V.M.; Silva, A.B.; Matos, A.R.; Cordeiro, C.; Figueiredo, A.; Silva, M.S. Vitis vinifera ‘Pinot noir’ leaves as a source of bioactive nutraceutical compounds. Food Funct. 2019 , 10 , 3822–3827. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Filocamo, A.; Bisignano, C.; Mandalari, G.; Navarra, M. In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity and Effect on Biofilm Production of a White Grape Juice ( Vitis vinifera ) Extract. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. ECAM 2015 , 2015 , 856243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cefali, L.C.; Ataide, J.A.; Sousa, I.M.d.O.; Figueiredo, M.C.; Ruiz, A.L.T.G.; Foglio, M.A.; Mazzola, P.G. In vitro solar protection factor, antioxidant activity, and stability of a topical formulation containing Benitaka grape ( Vitis vinifera L.) peel extract. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020 , 34 , 2677–2682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Harris-Tryon, T.A.; Grice, E.A. Microbiota and maintenance of skin barrier function. Science 2022 , 376 , 940–945. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lefèvre-Utile, A.; Braun, C.; Haftek, M.; Aubin, F. Five Functional Aspects of the Epidermal Barrier. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 11676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ley, R.E.; Hamady, M.; Fraser-Liggett, C.M.; Knight, R.; Gordon, J.I. The human microbiome project. Nature 2007 , 449 , 804–810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sanford, J.A.; Gallo, R.L. Functions of the skin microbiota in health and disease. Semin. Immunol. 2013 , 25 , 370–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Callewaert, C.; Ravard Helffer, K.; Lebaron, P. Skin Microbiome and its Interplay with the Environment. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2020 , 21 , 4–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luna, P.C. Skin Microbiome as Years Go By. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2020 , 21 , 12–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Azzimonti, B.; Ballacchino, C.; Zanetta, P.; Cucci, M.A.; Monge, C.; Grattarola, M.; Dianzani, C.; Barrera, G.; Pizzimenti, S. Microbiota, Oxidative Stress, and Skin Cancer: An Unexpected Triangle. Antioxidants 2023 , 12 , 546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinto, D.; Ciardiello, T.; Franzoni, M.; Pasini, F.; Giuliani, G.; Rinaldi, F. Effect of commonly used cosmetic preservatives on skin resident microflora dynamics. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 8695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zanetta, P.; Ballacchino, C.; Squarzanti, D.F.; Amoruso, A.; Pane, M.; Azzimonti, B. Lactobacillus johnsonii LJO02 (DSM 33828) Cell-Free Supernatant and Vitamin D Improve Wound Healing and Reduce Interleukin-6 Production in Staphylococcus aureus -Infected Human Keratinocytes. Pharmaceutics 2023 , 16 , 18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cogen, A.L.; Nizet, V.; Gallo, R.L. Skin microbiota: A source of disease or defence? Br. J. Dermatol. 2008 , 158 , 442–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Betsi, G.I.; Papadavid, E.; Falagas, M.E. Probiotics for the treatment or prevention of atopic dermatitis: A review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2008 , 9 , 93–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rook, G.a.W.; Adams, V.; Hunt, J.; Palmer, R.; Martinelli, R.; Brunet, L.R. Mycobacteria and other environmental organisms as immunomodulators for immunoregulatory disorders. Springer Semin. Immunopathol. 2004 , 25 , 237–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Haahtela, T.; Holgate, S.; Pawankar, R.; Akdis, C.A.; Benjaponpitak, S.; Caraballo, L.; Demain, J.; Portnoy, J.; von Hertzen, L. WAO Special Committee on Climate Change and Biodiversity The biodiversity hypothesis and allergic disease: World allergy organization position statement. World Allergy Organ. J. 2013 , 6 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tsuge, M.; Ikeda, M.; Matsumoto, N.; Yorifuji, T.; Tsukahara, H. Current Insights into Atopic March. Children 2021 , 8 , 1067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, K.; Jang, H.; Kim, E.; Kim, H.; Sung, G.Y. Recent advances in understanding the role of the skin microbiome in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Exp. Dermatol. 2023 , 32 , 2048–2061. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wikramanayake, T.C.; Borda, L.J.; Miteva, M.; Paus, R. Seborrheic dermatitis-Looking beyond Malassezia . Exp. Dermatol. 2019 , 28 , 991–1001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jackson, J.M.; Alexis, A.; Zirwas, M.; Taylor, S. Unmet needs for patients with seborrheic dermatitis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2024 , 90 , 597–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, C.; Zhuo, F.; Han, B.; Li, W.; Jiang, B.; Zhang, K.; Jian, X.; Chen, Z.; Li, H.; Huang, H.; et al. The updates and implications of cutaneous microbiota in acne. Cell Biosci. 2023 , 13 , 113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dreno, B.; Dekio, I.; Baldwin, H.; Demessant, A.L.; Dagnelie, M.-A.; Khammari, A.; Corvec, S. Acne microbiome: From phyla to phylotypes. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2024 , 38 , 657–664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Świerczewska, Z.; Lewandowski, M.; Surowiecka, A.; Barańska-Rybak, W. Microbiome in Hidradenitis Suppurativa-What We Know and Where We Are Heading. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 11280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosi, E.; Guerra, P.; Silvi, G.; Nunziati, G.; Scandagli, I.; Di Cesare, A.; Prignano, F. Consistency of Bacterial Triggers in the Pathogenesis of Hidradenitis Suppurativa. Vaccines 2023 , 11 , 179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rendon, A.; Schäkel, K. Psoriasis Pathogenesis and Treatment. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 , 20 , 1475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benhadou, F.; Mintoff, D.; Schnebert, B.; Thio, H.B. Psoriasis and Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Diseases 2018 , 6 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soleymani, S.; Iranpanah, A.; Najafi, F.; Belwal, T.; Ramola, S.; Abbasabadi, Z.; Momtaz, S.; Farzaei, M.H. Implications of grape extract and its nanoformulated bioactive agent resveratrol against skin disorders. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2019 , 311 , 577–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wen, S.; Zhang, J.; Yang, B.; Elias, P.M.; Man, M.-Q. Role of Resveratrol in Regulating Cutaneous Functions. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. ECAM 2020 , 2020 , 2416837. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Chen, W.-D.; Wang, Y.-D. The Relationship Between Gut Microbiota and Inflammatory Diseases: The Role of Macrophages. Front. Microbiol. 2020 , 11 , 1065. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marko, M.; Pawliczak, R. Resveratrol and Its Derivatives in Inflammatory Skin Disorders-Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis: A Review. Antioxidants 2023 , 12 , 1954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pennesi, C.M.; Neely, J.; Marks, A.G.; Basak, S.A. Use of Isoquercetin in the Treatment of Prurigo Nodularis. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2017 , 16 , 1156–1158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabbrocini, G.; Cameli, N.; Lorenzi, S.; De Padova, M.P.; Marasca, C.; Izzo, R.; Monfrecola, G. A dietary supplement to reduce side effects of oral isotretinoin therapy in acne patients. G Ital. Dermatol. Venereol. 2014 , 149 , 441–445. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, C.K.; Mintie, C.A.; Ndiaye, M.A.; Chhabra, G.; Roy, S.; Sullivan, R.; Longley, B.J.; Schieke, S.M.; Ahmad, N. Protective effects of dietary grape against atopic dermatitis-like skin lesions in NC/NgaTndCrlj mice. Front. Immunol. 2022 , 13 , 1051472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bangash, Y.; Saleem, A.; Akhtar, M.F.; Anwar, F.; Akhtar, B.; Sharif, A.; Khan, M.I.; Khan, A. Pterostilbene reduces the progression of atopic dermatitis via modulating inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers in mice. Inflammopharmacology 2023 , 31 , 1289–1303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nelson, K.; Lyles, J.T.; Li, T.; Saitta, A.; Addie-Noye, E.; Tyler, P.; Quave, C.L. Anti-Acne Activity of Italian Medicinal Plants Used for Skin Infection. Front. Pharmacol. 2016 , 7 , 425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, H.-J.; Kang, S.-H.; Song, Y.-J.; Jeon, Y.-D.; Jin, J.-S. Inhibitory Effect of Quercetin on Propionibacterium acnes -induced Skin Inflammation. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021 , 96 , 107557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Witte, K.; Wolk, K.; Witte-Händel, E.; Krause, T.; Kokolakis, G.; Sabat, R. Targeting Metabolic Syndrome in Hidradenitis Suppurativa by Phytochemicals as a Potential Complementary Therapeutic Strategy. Nutrients 2023 , 15 , 3797. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonetti, G.; D’Auria, F.D.; Mulinacci, N.; Innocenti, M.; Antonacci, D.; Angiolella, L.; Santamaria, A.R.; Valletta, A.; Donati, L.; Pasqua, G. Anti-Dermatophyte and Anti- Malassezia Activity of Extracts Rich in Polymeric Flavan-3-ols Obtained from Vitis vinifera Seeds. Phytother. Res. PTR 2017 , 31 , 124–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mustarichie, R.; Rostinawati, T.; Pitaloka, D.A.E.; Saptarini, N.M.; Iskandar, Y. Herbal Therapy for the Treatment of Seborrhea Dermatitis. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. 2022 , 15 , 2391–2405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Takahashi, T.; Kamiya, T.; Hasegawa, A.; Yokoo, Y. Procyanidin oligomers selectively and intensively promote proliferation of mouse hair epithelial cells in vitro and activate hair follicle growth in vivo. J. Investig. Dermatol. 1999 , 112 , 310–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombardo, G.; Melzi, G.; Indino, S.; Piazza, S.; Sangiovanni, E.; Baruffaldi Preis, F.; Marabini, L.; Donetti, E. Keratin 17 as a Marker of UVB-Induced Stress in Human Epidermis and Modulation by Vitis vinifera Extract. Cells Tissues Organs 2022 , 211 , 611–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Letsiou, S.; Kapazoglou, A.; Tsaftaris, A.; Spanidi, E.; Gardikis, K. Transcriptional and epigenetic effects of Vitis vinifera L. leaf extract on UV-stressed human dermal fibroblasts. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2020 , 47 , 5763–5772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamada, H.; Shimoda, K.; Horio, Y.; Onoa, T.; Hosoda, R.; Nakayama, N.; Uranod, K. Pterostilbene and Its Glucoside Induce Type XVII Collagen Expression. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2017 , 12 , 85–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Ho, C.; Wen, D.; Sun, J.; Huang, L.; Gao, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhang, Y. Targeting the stem cell niche: Role of collagen XVII in skin aging and wound repair. Theranostics 2022 , 12 , 6446–6454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Makarewicz, M.; Drożdż, I.; Tarko, T.; Duda-Chodak, A. The Interactions between Polyphenols and Microorganisms, Especially Gut Microbiota. Antioxidants 2021 , 10 , 188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milutinović, M.; Dimitrijević-Branković, S.; Rajilić-Stojanović, M. Plant Extracts Rich in Polyphenols as Potent Modulators in the Growth of Probiotic and Pathogenic Intestinal Microorganisms. Front. Nutr. 2021 , 8 , 688843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodríguez-Daza, M.C.; Pulido-Mateos, E.C.; Lupien-Meilleur, J.; Guyonnet, D.; Desjardins, Y.; Roy, D. Polyphenol-Mediated Gut Microbiota Modulation: Toward Prebiotics and Further. Front. Nutr. 2021 , 8 , 689456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fraga, C.G.; Croft, K.D.; Kennedy, D.O.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A. The effects of polyphenols and other bioactives on human health. Food Funct. 2019 , 10 , 514–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Sanders, M.E.; Prescott, S.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Salminen, S.J.; Scott, K.; Stanton, C.; Swanson, K.S.; Cani, P.D.; et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017 , 14 , 491–502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corrêa, T.A.F.; Rogero, M.M.; Hassimotto, N.M.A.; Lajolo, F.M. The Two-Way Polyphenols-Microbiota Interactions and Their Effects on Obesity and Related Metabolic Diseases. Front. Nutr. 2019 , 6 , 188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Westfall, S.; Pasinetti, G.M. The Gut Microbiota Links Dietary Polyphenols with Management of Psychiatric Mood Disorders. Front. Neurosci. 2019 , 13 , 1196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chakkalakal, M.; Nadora, D.; Gahoonia, N.; Dumont, A.; Burney, W.; Pan, A.; Chambers, C.J.; Sivamani, R.K. Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study of Oral Pomegranate Extract on Skin Wrinkles, Biophysical Features, and the Gut-Skin Axis. J. Clin. Med. 2022 , 11 , 6724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, E.-Q.; Deng, G.-F.; Guo, Y.-J.; Li, H.-B. Biological activities of polyphenols from grapes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010 , 11 , 622–646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, V.J.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.A.; McConnell, M.; Mros, S.; Zhao, J. Effect of extraction solvent, waste fraction and grape variety on the antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of extracts from wine residue from cool climate. Food Chem. 2012 , 134 , 474–482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krasteva, D.; Ivanov, Y.; Chengolova, Z.; Godjevargova, T. Antimicrobial Potential, Antioxidant Activity, and Phenolic Content of Grape Seed Extracts from Four Grape Varieties. Microorganisms 2023 , 11 , 395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pozzo, L.; Grande, T.; Raffaelli, A.; Longo, V.; Weidner, S.; Amarowicz, R.; Karamać, M. Characterization of Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity and Phenolic Compound Profile of Extracts from Seeds of Different Vitis Species. Molecules 2023 , 28 , 4924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daglia, M. Polyphenols as antimicrobial agents. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012 , 23 , 174–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patangia, D.V.; Anthony Ryan, C.; Dempsey, E.; Paul Ross, R.; Stanton, C. Impact of antibiotics on the human microbiome and consequences for host health. MicrobiologyOpen 2022 , 11 , e1260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Bander, Z.; Nitert, M.D.; Mousa, A.; Naderpoor, N. The Gut Microbiota and Inflammation: An Overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 7618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shabbir, U.; Tyagi, A.; Elahi, F.; Aloo, S.O.; Oh, D.-H. The Potential Role of Polyphenols in Oxidative Stress and Inflammation Induced by Gut Microbiota in Alzheimer’s Disease. Antioxidants 2021 , 10 , 1370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sun, M.; Deng, Y.; Cao, X.; Xiao, L.; Ding, Q.; Luo, F.; Huang, P.; Gao, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhao, H. Effects of Natural Polyphenols on Skin and Hair Health: A Review. Molecules 2022 , 27 , 7832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orhan, D.; Orhan, N.; Özçelik, B.; Ergun, F. Biological Screening of Vitis vinifera L. Leaf Fractions. Turk. J. Biol. 2009 , 33 , 341–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ceyhan Guvensen, N.; Keskin, D.; Zorlu, Z.; Ugur, A. In-vitro antimicrobial activities of different extracts of grapevine leaves ( Vitis vinifera L.) from West Anatolia against some pathogenic microorganisms. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2012 , 6 , 1303–1308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leal, C.; Santos, R.A.; Pinto, R.; Queiroz, M.; Rodrigues, M.; José Saavedra, M.; Barros, A.; Gouvinhas, I. Recovery of bioactive compounds from white grape ( Vitis vinifera L.) stems as potential antimicrobial agents for human health. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020 , 27 , 1009–1015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Radulescu, C.; Buruleanu, L.C.; Nicolescu, C.M.; Olteanu, R.L.; Bumbac, M.; Holban, G.C.; Simal-Gandara, J. Phytochemical Profiles, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Grape ( Vitis vinifera L.) Seeds and Skin from Organic and Conventional Vineyards. Plants 2020 , 9 , 1470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oskay, M.; Oskay, D. Antimicrobial Screening of Some Turkish Medicinal Plants. Pharm. Biol. 2007 , 45 , 176–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katalinić, V.; Možina, S.S.; Skroza, D.; Generalić, I.; Abramovič, H.; Miloš, M.; Ljubenkov, I.; Piskernik, S.; Pezo, I.; Terpinc, P.; et al. Polyphenolic profile, antioxidant properties and antimicrobial activity of grape skin extracts of 14 Vitis vinifera varieties grown in Dalmatia (Croatia). Food Chem. 2010 , 119 , 715–723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Felhi, S.; Baccouch, N.; Ben Salah, H.; Smaoui, S.; Allouche, N.; Gharsallah, N.; Kadri, A. Nutritional constituents, phytochemical profiles, in vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of various solvent extracts from grape seeds ( Vitis vinifera L.). Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2016 , 25 , 1537–1544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brochado, A.R.; Telzerow, A.; Bobonis, J.; Banzhaf, M.; Mateus, A.; Selkrig, J.; Huth, E.; Bassler, S.; Zamarreño Beas, J.; Zietek, M.; et al. Species-specific activity of antibacterial drug combinations. Nature 2018 , 559 , 259–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, J.; Rutherford, S.T.; Silhavy, T.J.; Huang, K.C. Physical properties of the bacterial outer membrane. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022 , 20 , 236–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López, C.; Ayala, J.A.; Bonomo, R.A.; González, L.J.; Vila, A.J. Protein determinants of dissemination and host specificity of metallo-β-lactamases. Nat. Commun. 2019 , 10 , 3617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matilla-Cuenca, L.; Gil, C.; Cuesta, S.; Rapún-Araiz, B.; Žiemytė, M.; Mira, A.; Lasa, I.; Valle, J. Antibiofilm activity of flavonoids on staphylococcal biofilms through targeting BAP amyloids. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 18968. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jensen, G.S.; Cruickshank, D.; Hamilton, D.E. Disruption of Established Bacterial and Fungal Biofilms by a Blend of Enzymes and Botanical Extracts. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023 , 33 , 715–723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kolouchová, I.; Maťátková, O.; Paldrychová, M.; Kodeš, Z.; Kvasničková, E.; Sigler, K.; Čejková, A.; Šmidrkal, J.; Demnerová, K.; Masák, J. Resveratrol, pterostilbene, and baicalein: Plant-derived anti-biofilm agents. Folia Microbiol. 2018 , 63 , 261–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akinwumi, B.C.; Bordun, K.-A.M.; Anderson, H.D. Biological Activities of Stilbenoids. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 , 19 , 792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mattio, L.M.; Dallavalle, S.; Musso, L.; Filardi, R.; Franzetti, L.; Pellegrino, L.; D’Incecco, P.; Mora, D.; Pinto, A.; Arioli, S. Antimicrobial activity of resveratrol-derived monomers and dimers against foodborne pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2019 , 9 , 19525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmidlin, L.; Poutaraud, A.; Claudel, P.; Mestre, P.; Prado, E.; Santos-Rosa, M.; Wiedemann-Merdinoglu, S.; Karst, F.; Merdinoglu, D.; Hugueney, P. A stress-inducible resveratrol O-methyltransferase involved in the biosynthesis of pterostilbene in grapevine. Plant Physiol. 2008 , 148 , 1630–1639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, Y.R.I.; Preshaw, P.M.; Lim, L.P.; Ong, M.M.A.; Lin, H.-S.; Tan, K.S. Pterostilbene complexed with cyclodextrin exerts antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory effects. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 9072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Coenye, T.; Brackman, G.; Rigole, P.; De Witte, E.; Honraet, K.; Rossel, B.; Nelis, H.J. Eradication of Propionibacterium acnes biofilms by plant extracts and putative identification of icariin, resveratrol and salidroside as active compounds. Phytomedicine Int. J. Phytother. Phytopharm. 2012 , 19 , 409–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abbott, C.; Grout, E.; Morris, T.; Brown, H.L. Cutibacterium acnes biofilm forming clinical isolates modify the formation and structure of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, increasing their susceptibility to antibiotics. Anaerobe 2022 , 76 , 102580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tomic-Canic, M.; Burgess, J.L.; O’Neill, K.E.; Strbo, N.; Pastar, I. Skin Microbiota and its Interplay with Wound Healing. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2020 , 21 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vestby, L.K.; Grønseth, T.; Simm, R.; Nesse, L.L. Bacterial Biofilm and its Role in the Pathogenesis of Disease. Antibiotics 2020 , 9 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, S.-C.; Tseng, C.-H.; Wang, P.-W.; Lu, P.-L.; Weng, Y.-H.; Yen, F.-L.; Fang, J.-Y. Pterostilbene, a Methoxylated Resveratrol Derivative, Efficiently Eradicates Planktonic, Biofilm, and Intracellular MRSA by Topical Application. Front. Microbiol. 2017 , 8 , 1103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vaňková, E.; Paldrychová, M.; Kašparová, P.; Lokočová, K.; Kodeš, Z.; Maťátková, O.; Kolouchová, I.; Masák, J. Natural antioxidant pterostilbene as an effective antibiofilm agent, particularly for gram-positive cocci. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020 , 36 , 101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zannella, C.; Giugliano, R.; Chianese, A.; Buonocore, C.; Vitale, G.A.; Sanna, G.; Sarno, F.; Manzin, A.; Nebbioso, A.; Termolino, P.; et al. Antiviral Activity of Vitis vinifera Leaf Extract against SARS-CoV-2 and HSV-1. Viruses 2021 , 13 , 1263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berardi, V.; Ricci, F.; Castelli, M.; Galati, G.; Risuleo, G. Resveratrol exhibits a strong cytotoxic activity in cultured cells and has an antiviral action against polyomavirus: Potential clinical use. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. CR 2009 , 28 , 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Friedman, M. Antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal properties of wines and winery byproducts in relation to their flavonoid content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014 , 62 , 6025–6042. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Y.-S.; Chen, H.-J.; Huang, J.-P.; Lee, P.-C.; Tsai, C.-R.; Hsu, T.-F.; Huang, W.-Y. Kinetics of Tyrosinase Inhibitory Activity Using Vitis vinifera Leaf Extracts. BioMed Res. Int. 2017 , 2017 , 5232680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sil, A.; Panigrahi, A.; Chandra, A.; Pramanik, J.D. “COVID nose”—A unique post-COVID pigmentary sequelae reminiscing Chik sign: A descriptive case series. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2022 , 36 , e419–e421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ma, Y.; Madupu, R.; Karaoz, U.; Nossa, C.W.; Yang, L.; Yooseph, S.; Yachimski, P.S.; Brodie, E.L.; Nelson, K.E.; Pei, Z. Human Papillomavirus Community in Healthy Persons, Defined by Metagenomics Analysis of Human Microbiome Project Shotgun Sequencing Data Sets. J. Virol. 2014 , 88 , 4786–4797. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, X.; Fu, P.; Xie, L.; Chai, S.; Xu, Q.; Zeng, L.; Wang, X.; Jiang, N.; Sang, M. Resveratrol inhibits the progression of cervical cancer by suppressing the transcription and expression of HPV E6 and E7 genes. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2021 , 47 , 335–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Houillé, B.; Papon, N.; Boudesocque, L.; Bourdeaud, E.; Besseau, S.; Courdavault, V.; Enguehard-Gueiffier, C.; Delanoue, G.; Guérin, L.; Bouchara, J.-P.; et al. Antifungal activity of resveratrol derivatives against Candida species. J. Nat. Prod. 2014 , 77 , 1658–1662. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Simonetti, G.; Palocci, C.; Valletta, A.; Kolesova, O.; Chronopoulou, L.; Donati, L.; Di Nitto, A.; Brasili, E.; Tomai, P.; Gentili, A.; et al. Anti- Candida Biofilm Activity of Pterostilbene or Crude Extract from Non-Fermented Grape Pomace Entrapped in Biopolymeric Nanoparticles. Molecules 2019 , 24 , 2070. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Simonetti, G.; Brasili, E.; Pasqua, G. Antifungal Activity of Phenolic and Polyphenolic Compounds from Different Matrices of Vitis vinifera L. against Human Pathogens. Molecules 2020 , 25 , 3748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Navarro-Martínez, M.D.; García-Cánovas, F.; Rodríguez-López, J.N. Tea polyphenol epigallocatechin-3-gallate inhibits ergosterol synthesis by disturbing folic acid metabolism in Candida albicans . J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006 , 57 , 1083–1092. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomes, C.; Silva, A.C.; Marques, A.C.; Sousa Lobo, J.; Amaral, M.H. Biotechnology Applied to Cosmetics and Aesthetic Medicines. Cosmetics 2020 , 7 , 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kordi, M.; Salami, R.; Bolouri, P.; Delangiz, N.; Asgari Lajayer, B.; van Hullebusch, E.D. White biotechnology and the production of bio-products. Syst. Microbiol. Biomanuf. 2022 , 2 , 413–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thorakkattu, P.; Khanashyam, A.C.; Shah, K.; Babu, K.S.; Mundanat, A.S.; Deliephan, A.; Deokar, G.S.; Santivarangkna, C.; Nirmal, N.P. Postbiotics: Current Trends in Food and Pharmaceutical Industry. Foods 2022 , 11 , 3094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez-Rivero, C.; López-Gómez, J.P. Unlocking the Potential of Fermentation in Cosmetics: A Review. Fermentation 2023 , 9 , 463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salminen, S.; Collado, M.C.; Endo, A.; Hill, C.; Lebeer, S.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Sanders, M.E.; Shamir, R.; Swann, J.R.; Szajewska, H.; et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021 , 18 , 649–667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duarte, M.; Oliveira, A.L.; Oliveira, C.; Pintado, M.; Amaro, A.; Madureira, A.R. Current postbiotics in the cosmetic market—An update and development opportunities. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022 , 106 , 5879–5891. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oliveira, A.L.S.; Seara, M.; Carvalho, M.J.; de Carvalho, N.M.; Costa, E.M.; Silva, S.; Duarte, M.; Pintado, M.; Oliveira, C.; Madureira, A.R. Production of Sustainable Postbiotics from Sugarcane Straw for Potential Food Applications. Appl. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 3391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ciardiello, T.; Pinto, D.; Marotta, L.; Giuliani, G.; Rinaldi, F. Effects of Fermented Oils on Alpha-Biodiversity and Relative Abundance of Cheek Resident Skin Microbiota. Cosmetics 2020 , 7 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cortés-Martín, A.; Selma, M.V.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; González-Sarrías, A.; Espín, J.C. Where to Look into the Puzzle of Polyphenols and Health? The Postbiotics and Gut Microbiota Associated with Human Metabotypes. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2020 , 64 , 1900952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nataraj, B.H.; Ali, S.A.; Behare, P.V.; Yadav, H. Postbiotics-parabiotics: The new horizons in microbial biotherapy and functional foods. Microb. Cell Fact. 2020 , 19 , 168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, F.; Cao, H.; Cover, T.L.; Whitehead, R.; Washington, M.K.; Polk, D.B. Soluble proteins produced by probiotic bacteria regulate intestinal epithelial cell survival and growth. Gastroenterology 2007 , 132 , 562–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, F.; Liu, L.; Dempsey, P.J.; Tsai, Y.-H.; Raines, E.W.; Wilson, C.L.; Cao, H.; Cao, Z.; Liu, L.; Polk, D.B. A Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG-derived soluble protein, p40, stimulates ligand release from intestinal epithelial cells to transactivate epidermal growth factor receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 2013 , 288 , 30742–30751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sadgrove, N.J. Honest nutraceuticals, cosmetics, therapies, and foods (NCTFs): Standardization and safety of natural products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022 , 62 , 4326–4341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Antignac, E.; Nohynek, G.J.; Re, T.; Clouzeau, J.; Toutain, H. Safety of botanical ingredients in personal care products/cosmetics. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011 , 49 , 324–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goyal, N.; Jerold, F. Biocosmetics: Technological advances and future outlook. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023 , 30 , 25148–25169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herman, A.; Herman, A.P. Biological Activity of Fermented Plant Extracts for Potential Dermal Applications. Pharmaceutics 2023 , 15 , 2775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Armari, M.; Zavattaro, E.; Trejo, C.F.; Galeazzi, A.; Grossetti, A.; Veronese, F.; Savoia, P.; Azzimonti, B. Vitis vinifera L. Leaf Extract, a Microbiota Green Ally against Infectious and Inflammatory Skin and Scalp Diseases: An In-Depth Update. Antibiotics 2024 , 13 , 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13080697

Armari M, Zavattaro E, Trejo CF, Galeazzi A, Grossetti A, Veronese F, Savoia P, Azzimonti B. Vitis vinifera L. Leaf Extract, a Microbiota Green Ally against Infectious and Inflammatory Skin and Scalp Diseases: An In-Depth Update. Antibiotics . 2024; 13(8):697. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13080697

Armari, Marta, Elisa Zavattaro, Cesar Francisco Trejo, Alice Galeazzi, Alessia Grossetti, Federica Veronese, Paola Savoia, and Barbara Azzimonti. 2024. " Vitis vinifera L. Leaf Extract, a Microbiota Green Ally against Infectious and Inflammatory Skin and Scalp Diseases: An In-Depth Update" Antibiotics 13, no. 8: 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13080697

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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