# Literature Review: [Topic]

> Literature review template for a stand-alone review article, a thesis
> chapter or the background of a proposal: scope and review questions, a
> documented search strategy, screening summary, thematic synthesis, a
> synthesis matrix, gaps and conclusions. Based on common academic practice
> for narrative and structured reviews. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and
> every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Decide the review type first: narrative, scoping, integrative or
  systematic. Systematic reviews also need a registered protocol and should
  follow PRISMA 2020 reporting.
- Record the search as you run it (date, database, exact string, hits). It
  cannot be reconstructed reliably later.
- Fill the synthesis matrix (section 5) before writing the themes; the
  themes come from patterns across the matrix rows.
- Synthesise, do not summarise: each paragraph should compare at least two
  sources.
-->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Review title | [Title] |
| Review type | [Narrative / Scoping / Integrative / Systematic] |
| Author(s) | [@name] |
| Purpose | [Thesis chapter 2 / Journal article / Proposal background] |
| Search period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Citation style | [APA 7 / Harvard / Vancouver] |
| Version / status | [0.1, Draft] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 1. Introduction, scope and review questions

<!-- Guidance: Explain why the review is needed, define the key concepts and set the boundaries. The review questions decide what counts as relevant. Common mistake: a scope so broad that the review becomes a list. -->

[Introduce the topic and why a review is needed now: a growing but scattered
literature, conflicting findings, or a new policy question.]

**Key concepts.** [Define the central terms as used in this review.
*Example:* "Remote work: paid work performed away from the employer's
premises for at least one full day per week."]

| ID | Review question |
|---|---|
| RQ1 | *Example:* What effects of remote work on employee well-being have been reported in empirical studies since 2015? |
| RQ2 | *Example:* Which organisational practices moderate those effects? |
| RQ3 | [Question] |

**Scope.** [Population, context, time period, study designs and languages
included, with reasons for each boundary.]

## 2. Search strategy

<!-- Guidance: Document the search well enough for another person to repeat it. Include every database, the date searched and the exact query. A librarian can help design search strings. -->

### 2.1 Sources searched

| Source | Type | Date searched | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Scopus | Bibliographic database | YYYY-MM-DD | 842 |
| *Example:* PsycINFO | Bibliographic database | YYYY-MM-DD | 516 |
| *Example:* Web of Science Core Collection | Bibliographic database | YYYY-MM-DD | 611 |
| *Example:* Google Scholar (first 200 results) | Search engine | YYYY-MM-DD | 200 |
| *Example:* Reference lists of included studies | Citation chasing | YYYY-MM-DD | 37 |
| [Source] | [Type] | YYYY-MM-DD | [n] |

### 2.2 Search terms

Combine concept blocks with AND and synonyms within a block with OR.
Adapt the syntax for each database and record each version.

| Concept | Terms |
|---|---|
| *Example:* Remote work | "remote work*" OR telework* OR "work from home" OR "home-based work" OR "hybrid work*" |
| *Example:* Well-being | wellbeing OR "well-being" OR burnout OR stress OR "job satisfaction" OR "mental health" |
| [Concept] | [Terms] |

*Example full string (Scopus):* `TITLE-ABS-KEY(("remote work*" OR telework*
OR "work from home") AND (wellbeing OR "well-being" OR burnout OR stress))
AND PUBYEAR > 2014`

### 2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

| Criterion | Include | Exclude |
|---|---|---|
| Population | *Example:* Employed adults | Students, self-employed freelancers |
| Exposure / topic | *Example:* Remote or hybrid work arrangements | Gig work platforms |
| Outcomes | *Example:* Any measured well-being outcome | Productivity only |
| Study design | *Example:* Empirical quantitative, qualitative or mixed | Opinion pieces, editorials |
| Publication | *Example:* Peer-reviewed, 2015 onwards, English | Conference abstracts without full text |
| [Criterion] | [Include] | [Exclude] |

## 3. Screening and selection summary

<!-- Guidance: Report the numbers at each stage and the main reasons for exclusion. Two independent screeners improve reliability for structured reviews; report agreement. -->

| Stage | Records | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Identified through database searches | [2,169] | All sources in 2.1 |
| Duplicates removed | [612] | Reference manager plus manual check |
| Titles and abstracts screened | [1,557] | [Two reviewers, kappa = 0.81] |
| Excluded at title/abstract | [1,401] | Off-topic or wrong population |
| Full texts assessed | [156] | |
| Excluded at full text | [98] | No well-being outcome (41), not empirical (33), other (24) |
| Included in review | [58] | [41 quantitative, 12 qualitative, 5 mixed] |

[Describe how study quality was appraised, if at all, and with which tool,
for example the CASP checklists or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.]

## 4. Thematic synthesis

<!-- Guidance: Organise by theme or argument, not by author. For each theme: what the evidence shows, how strong and consistent it is, and why studies disagree. Use sub-headings that state the finding, not just the topic. -->

### 4.1 [Theme 1, stated as a finding]

[*Example heading:* "Remote work reduces commuting stress but increases
boundary strain." Synthesise the studies that support and qualify the
finding, comparing samples, designs and measures. Point to the strongest
evidence and explain inconsistent results.]

### 4.2 [Theme 2]

[Same approach. Note where evidence comes mostly from one country, sector or
method.]

### 4.3 [Theme 3]

[Same approach.]

### 4.4 Methodological observations

[Patterns in how the field studies the topic: dominant designs, common
measures, typical sample sizes and recurring weaknesses such as reliance on
cross-sectional self-report data.]

## 5. Synthesis matrix

<!-- Guidance: One row per included source. The matrix is the working evidence base for section 4 and can be moved to an appendix in the final version. -->

| Source | Context and sample | Design | Key findings | Theme(s) | Quality / notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Example:* [Author, 2021] | 1,240 office workers, Germany | Longitudinal survey, 3 waves | Remote days linked to lower exhaustion, effect fades after 12 months | 4.1 | High; attrition 22% |
| *Example:* [Author, 2022] | 28 managers, UK public sector | Semi-structured interviews | Managers report difficulty spotting distress remotely | 4.2 | Moderate; single organisation |
| *Example:* [Author, 2023] | 3,500 employees, 5 countries | Cross-sectional survey | Hybrid workers report highest job satisfaction | 4.1, 4.3 | Moderate; self-report only |
| [Source] | [Context] | [Design] | [Findings] | [Theme] | [Quality] |

## 6. Gaps and future research

<!-- Guidance: Turn the synthesis into specific gaps. Each gap should name what is missing and why it matters. These gaps justify your own study. -->

| ID | Gap | Evidence from the review | Suggested research |
|---|---|---|---|
| G-01 | *Example:* Few studies follow workers beyond one year | 4 of 58 studies longer than 12 months | Multi-year cohort studies |
| G-02 | *Example:* Low-income and frontline workers under-represented | 49 of 58 samples are knowledge workers | Studies of mixed-role organisations |
| G-03 | [Gap] | [Evidence] | [Research] |

## 7. Conclusion

<!-- Guidance: Answer each review question directly, state the overall strength of the evidence, and link to the next step (your study, policy or practice). No new sources here. -->

[Answer RQ1 to RQ3 in turn in one paragraph each. State how confident one can
be in the conclusions and why, then summarise the implications for research
and practice.]

## References

<!-- Guidance: Include every source cited, in one consistent style. Mark included studies (for example with an asterisk) if your field expects it. -->

- *Example (APA 7):* [Author, A. A.] ([2021]). [Title of article].
  *[Journal]*, *[26]*([4]), [345-360]. https://doi.org/[10.xxxx/xxxxx]
- [Reference]

## Standard and licence note

Based on common academic practice for literature reviews. Systematic reviews
should additionally follow the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting, cited
here as a reference only. Original text written for this collection;
example data are illustrative. Template licence: MIT.