The first evidence about conceptual vs analytical lean healthcare research studies.

摘要: Purpose Several authors have examined the lean healthcare literature, but besides all efforts made, articles comparing conceptual and analytical studies were not found. Thus, a systematic review is conducted aiming to understand state of art by investigating how address tools/methods, application fields, implementation barriers facilitators positive negative impacts. Design/methodology/approach Articles in English about healthcare, published journals last ten years (2009-2018) indexed Web Science (WoS) or Scopus assessed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) protocol. A qualitative content analysis on eligible was conducted, results from compared. Findings There literature gap regarding tools/methods both approaches once they prioritize different items. Barriers, impacts are perceived differently within categories might require more extensive analysis. The same items prevail when analyzing fields Originality/value lack concerning healthcare. So, this study's relevance identifying theoretical applied research gaps strengthen integrate theoretical-applied knowledge. For professionals, it provide an overview key factors that can promote implementation.