SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Bridging research and practice: a systematic review of Academic entrepreneurship in healthcare and its emerging research agenda.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global healthcare system is confronting significant structural challenges and urgently requires innovative solutions. Academic entrepreneurship has emerged as a critical response by translating medical discoveries into practical solutions. While research on academic entrepreneurship in healthcare is rapidly growing, the existing literature remains fragmented and lacks a comprehensive synthesis of its progress and future directions. This review addresses this gap by conducting a framework-based systematic literature review of 85 peer-reviewed articles sourced from Scopus and Web of Science. Guided by the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, the review employs two organizing frameworks. The antecedents-phenomenon-consequences (APC) framework uncovers the enabling and constraining factors,diverse entrepreneurial pathways, and both the positive and negative effects associated with academic entrepreneurship in healthcare. Complementing this, the theory-context-method (TCM) framework provides structured insights into the theoretical foundations, research contexts, and methodological strategies applied in the field. Additionally, the review identifies the major gaps in the existing literature and offers a few recommendations for future investigation on academic entrepreneurship in healthcare across three key dimensions: new theoretical perspectives, expanded research settings, and diversified methodological approaches. By integrating these perspectives, the study offers a synthesized understanding of existing research, identifies critical knowledge gaps, and provides actionable insights for scholars, institutional leaders, and policy stakeholders committed to advancing academic entrepreneurship in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.