CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 377Knowledge Management and SharingInnovative Education and Learning PracticesTeam Dynamics and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review

Open access
Li, Linda C, Grimshaw, Jeremy M, Nielsen, Camilla, Judd, Maria, Coyte, Peter C, Graham, Ian D·2009·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-4-27PMC PMC2694761
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since being identified as a concept for understanding knowledge sharing, management, and creation, communities of practice (CoPs) have become increasingly popular within the health sector. The CoP concept has been used in the business sector for over 20 years, but the use of CoPs in the health sector has been limited in comparison. OBJECTIVES: First, we examined how CoPs were defined and used in these two sectors. Second, we evaluated the evidence of effectiveness on the health sector CoPs for improving the uptake of best practices and mentoring new practitioners. METHODS: We conducted a search of electronic databases in the business, health, and education sectors, and a hand search of key journals for primary studies on CoP groups. Our research synthesis for the first objective focused on three areas: the authors' interpretations of the CoP concept, the key characteristics of CoP groups, and the common elements of CoP groups. To examine the evidence on the effectiveness of CoPs in the health sector, we identified articles that evaluated CoPs for improving health professional performance, health care organizational performance, professional mentoring, and/or patient outcome; and used experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational designs. RESULTS: The structure of CoP groups varied greatly, ranging from voluntary informal networks to work-supported formal education sessions, and from apprentice training to multidisciplinary, multi-site project teams. Four characteristics were identified from CoP groups: social interaction among members, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building; however, these were not consistently present in all CoPs. There was also a lack of clarity in the responsibilities of CoP facilitators and how power dynamics should be handled within a CoP group. We did not find any paper in the health sector that met the eligibility criteria for the quantitative analysis, and so the effectiveness of CoP in this sector remained unclear. CONCLUSION: There is no dominant trend in how the CoP concept is operationalized in the business and health sectors; hence, it is challenging to define the parameters of CoP groups. This may be one of the reasons for the lack of studies on the effectiveness of CoPs in the health sector. In order to improve the usefulness of the CoP concept in the development of groups and teams, further research will be needed to clarify the extent to which the four characteristics of CoPs are present in the mature and emergent groups, the expectations of facilitators and other participants, and the power relationship within CoPs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-4-27

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Literature search strategy.
Figure 1 Literature search strategy.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Number of papers about community of practice (N = 303) and number of primary studies (N = 182) by year.
Figure 2 Number of papers about community of practice (N = 303) and number of primary studies (N = 182) by year.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder W: Cultivating Communities of Practice. 2001, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
  2. Henning PH: A qualitative study of situated learning by refrigeration service technicians working for a supermarket chain in northeastern Pennsylvania. 1996, The Pennsylvania State University
  3. Yi JQ: Supporting business by facilitating organizational learning and knowledge creation in the MOT community of practice (CoP). 2000, Indiana University, Bloomington IN
  4. Beers RL: Organizational learning in multidisciplinary teams: Knowledge brokering across communities of practice. 2003, Alliant International University, San Francisco Campus, San Francisco, CA
  5. Kull MD: Stories of knowledge management: Exploring coherence in a community of practice. 2003, The George Washington University
  6. Sinha M: Presence of community of practice: Its effect on social capital and competitive advantage of the firm. 2004, Concordia University
  7. Hudzicki J: The transition from novice to expert within the medical technology community of practice: A phenomenological inquiry. 2004, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS
  8. Lindsay LN: Transformation of learners in a community of practice occupational therapy fieldwork environment. 2000, University of Georgia
  9. Plack MM: Learning communication and interpersonal skills essential for physical therapy practice: A study of emergent clinicians. 2003, Columbia University Teachers College, New York NY
  10. Greenfield D, Travaglia J, Nugus P, Braithwaite J: Health Sector Community of Practice Literature: Final Report. A Content Analysis and Systematic Review of the Health Community of Practice Research Literature. 2007, Sydney, Australia, Center for Clinical Governance Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 377

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • National Board of Health (DK)
  • Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Li, Linda C
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-05-17
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
27-27
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-4-27
PMC
PMC2694761
OpenAlex
W2128821342
Cited by
377
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 13
FWCI
17.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
communities of practice, knowledge sharing, knowledge production, health care organization, business sector, professional mentorship, organizational performance, patient outcomes, social interaction, identity construction, power relations, facilitators, knowledge management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review