Background and Objective: Improving quality of care is one of the primary goals in current Chinese hospital reforms. Teamwork can play an essential role. Characteristics of teamwork and interventions for improving teamwork in hospitals have been widely studied. However, most of these studies are from a Western context; evidence from China is scarce. Because of the contextual differences between China and Western countries, empirical evidence on teamwork from Western hospitals may have limited validity in China. This systematic review aims to advance the evidence base and understanding of teamwork in Chinese hospitals.Methods: Both English (i.e., Embase, Medline, and Web of Science) and Chinese databases (i.e., CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang) were searched for relevant articles until February 6, 2020. We included the studies that empirically researched teamwork in Chinese hospitals. Studies were excluded if they (1) were not conducted in hospitals in Mainland China, (2) did not research teamwork on team interventions, (3) were not empirical, (4) were not written in English or Chinese, (5) were not published in peer-reviewed journals, and (6) were not conducted in teams that provide direct patient care. Both deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze data. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess their methodological quality.Results: A total of 70 articles (i.e., 39 English articles and 31 Chinese articles) were included. The results are presented in two main categories: Teamwork components and Team interventions. The evidence regarding the relationships among inputs, processes, and outcomes is scarce and mostly inconclusive. The only conclusive evidence shows that females perceive better team processes than males. Similar types of training and tools were introduced as can be found in Western literature, all showing positive effects. In line with the Chinese health reforms, many of the intervention studies regard the introduction of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). The evidence on the implementation of MDTs reveals that they have led to lower complication rates, shorter hospital stays, higher diagnosis accuracy, efficiency improvement, and a variety of better disease-specific clinical outcomes. Evidence on the effect on patient survival is inconclusive.Conclusion: The Chinese studies on teamwork components mainly focus on the input-process relationship. The evidence provided on this relationship is, however, mostly inconclusive. The intervention studies in Chinese hospitals predominantly focus on patient outcomes rather than organizational and employee outcomes. The introduction of training, tools, and MDTs generally shows promising results. The evidence from primary hospitals and rural areas, which are prioritized in the health reforms, is especially scarce. Advancing the evidence base on teamwork, especially in primary hospitals and rural areas, is needed and can inform policy and management to promote the health reform implementation.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175069, identifier CRD42020175069.

Background: China has been encouraged to learn from international innovations in the organization and management of health service delivery to achieve the national health reform objectives. However, the success and effectiveness of implementing innovations is affected by the interactions of innovations with the Chinese context. Our aim is to synthesize evidence on factors influencing the implementation of non-Chinese innovations in organization and management of health service delivery in mainland China.Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2009 and 2020. Data were analyzed and combined to generate a list of factors influencing the implementation of foreign innovations in China. The factors were classified in the categories context, system, organization, innovation, users, resources, and implementation process.Results: The 110 studies meeting the inclusion criteria revealed 33 factors. Most supported by evidence is the factor integration in organizational policies, followed by the factors motivation & incentives and human resources. Some factors (e.g., governmental policies & regulations) were mentioned in multiple studies with little or no evidence.Conclusion: Evidence on factors influencing the implementation of foreign innovations in organization and management of health service delivery is scarce and of limited quality. Although many factors identified in this review have also been reported in reviews primarily considering Western literature, this review suggests that extrinsic motivation, financial incentives, governmental and organizational policies & regulations are more important while decentralization was found to be less important in China compare to Western countries. In addition, introducing innovations in rural China seems more challenging than in urban China, because of a lack of human resources and the more traditional rural culture.