Most students looking for an APA literature review example want one thing: a concrete sample showing how the pieces actually fit together. This guide walks through an annotated APA-formatted literature review section so you can see the structure, citation conventions, and synthesis style in action.
APA Literature Review Structure
An APA-formatted literature review uses Level 1, 2, and 3 headings to organise content thematically (not paper-by-paper). The typical structure:
1. Introduction paragraph — purpose, scope, organisation of the review (1 paragraph).
2. Theme 1 (Level 1 heading) — synthesis of literature relevant to first sub-topic, with sub-themes as Level 2 headings.
3. Theme 2 (Level 1 heading) — second sub-topic, same structure.
4. Theme 3+ as needed.
5. Summary / synthesis paragraph — what the literature collectively shows, what gaps remain.
6. Reference list (separate page, Level 1 heading "References").
Annotated Sample
Below is a 600-word annotated sample showing thematic organisation, APA 7th in-text citation, and synthesis. Comments in *italics* show what each move accomplishes.
> Workplace Wellbeing Interventions: A Critical Review
> Research on workplace wellbeing interventions has expanded rapidly since 2015, driven by employer interest in productivity returns and rising rates of clinical burnout (World Health Organization, 2019). This review synthesises empirical evaluations of three intervention categories — mindfulness-based programmes, structural job-design changes, and digital wellbeing platforms — to identify what current evidence supports and where significant gaps remain.
> *— Sets scope (three categories), establishes context with WHO citation, signals critical orientation.*
> Mindfulness-Based Workplace Interventions
> Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are the most-studied category, with three meta-analyses published since 2020 (Bartlett et al., 2019; Lomas et al., 2019; Vonderlin et al., 2020). Effects on self-reported stress are consistently moderate (Hedges' g ≈ 0.45), but effects on objective performance outcomes are smaller and more variable. Bartlett et al. (2019) and Vonderlin et al. (2020) both report substantial heterogeneity across studies, attributable largely to wide variation in intervention length (4–12 weeks) and delivery format (in-person vs digital).
> *— Synthesises three meta-analyses, reports an effect size, identifies the source of heterogeneity. Note plural citation format.*
> Notably, almost all MBI studies measure outcomes immediately post-intervention; only Lomas et al. (2019) report any long-term follow-up, and effects had attenuated to non-significance by 12 months. This durability question is largely unexamined in the wider literature.
> *— Identifies a gap (long-term durability) — gap statements are essential.*
> Structural Job-Design Interventions
> A smaller body of work examines structural interventions — flexible scheduling, reduced workloads, autonomy-enhancing redesign. Findings here are more equivocal. While early case studies of four-day-week trials reported large wellbeing gains (Lewis & Stronge, 2022), the only randomised evaluation to date (Smith, 2024) found smaller and less durable effects. The gap between case-study optimism and controlled-trial findings is a recurring theme in the wellbeing intervention literature.
> *— Notes methodological-design influence on findings — critical engagement, not summary.*
> Digital Wellbeing Platforms
> Digital platforms (e.g. Headspace for Work, Calm Business) have proliferated since 2020, yet rigorous evaluations remain rare. Two recent reviews (Aikens et al., 2023; Howarth et al., 2022) found that fewer than 15% of platform vendors had published any peer-reviewed efficacy data on their products. This represents a substantial evidence-to-marketing gap.
> Synthesis
> Across all three categories, three patterns emerge. First, short-term self-report effects are reliably present; long-term and objective-outcome effects are weaker. Second, controlled-trial designs consistently report smaller effects than case studies. Third, digital interventions — the fastest-growing category — have the thinnest evidence base. The present study contributes to this literature by examining 24-month outcomes of a structural job-design intervention using a controlled design.
> *— Synthesises across themes (not paper-by-paper), then explicitly bridges to your own study.*
APA 7th In-Text Citations
- One author: (Smith, 2024).
- Two authors: (Lewis & Stronge, 2022) — both names every time.
- Three or more authors: (Bartlett et al., 2019) — "et al." from the first mention.
- Multiple citations same parenthesis: (Aikens et al., 2023; Howarth et al., 2022) — alphabetical, separated by semicolons.
- Page numbers for direct quotes only: (Smith, 2024, p. 47).
Synthesis vs Summary
The sample above synthesises — it reports what the three meta-analyses *collectively* showed, identifies heterogeneity, and flags the durability gap. A summary version would have listed each meta-analysis paragraph by paragraph ("Bartlett et al. found X. Lomas et al. found Y. Vonderlin et al. found Z."). Examiners reject summary; they reward synthesis.
Reference List Formatting
On a separate page after your conclusion, headed "References" (centred, bold, Level 1). Hanging indent (0.5" / 1.27 cm). Alphabetical by first author surname. DOIs as URLs (https://doi.org/...). Example:
> Bartlett, L., Martin, A., Neil, A. L., Memish, K., Otahal, P., Kilpatrick, M., & Sanderson, K. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace mindfulness training. *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24*(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000146
For a deeper walkthrough of writing a review like this from scratch, see our companion guide [How to Write a Literature Review](/blog/how-to-write-a-literature-review). For expert help, our [literature review writing service](/services/literature-review-writing-service) pairs you with a PhD researcher in your field.