An Analysis of Literature Reviews in the Context of Healthcare Program Assessment

Abstract

When conducting an assessment of existing literature, various types of literature reviews can be utilized. More specifically, each type has its advantages, disadvantages, and ideal circumstances in which it should be used. This paper explores the systematic review, scoping review, and rapid review in the context of research that seeks to assess existing health care programs. Evidence suggests that the systematic review is the most rigorous and in-depth, but often takes a significant amount of time to complete. The scoping review is less rigorous and used to identify what is known about a specific topic in the literature. The rapid review is similar in rigour to the systematic review, but takes less time and is often used in situations where data needs to be obtained quickly. In this paper, strengths and weaknesses, alongside examples of each review are given. They are then analyzed to see which would be best to utilize for the topic of assessing existing health care programs. In closing, it is decided that the rapid review is the best method due to its limited time frame and extensive rigour, which is the most beneficial when assessing health care programs.