## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Authors** & **Agility Construct** & **Agility Instrument** & **Paper Findings** & **Quality Score** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. (2016) & Organizational agility & Developed based on ([PERSON] et al., 2017) & Three subdimensions of organizational agility (sensing agility, decision-making agility, and acting agility) have a positive effect on four dimensions of organizational performance (leadership excellence, subordinates’ excellence, culture excellence, and strategies excellence) for medical practitioners in the United Arab Emirates. & 31 \\ [PERSON] et al. (2017) & Hospital agility & Developed based on ([PERSON] et al., 2017; [PERSON] et al., 2018; [PERSON] et al., 2018) & Business intelligence system maturity, a hospital agility enabler, has a positive effect on medical decision quality. & 31 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. (2019) & Patient agility & Newly developed instrument & Information technology ambidexterity has a positive effect on patient agility. Then, patient agility has a positive effect on patient service performance. & 35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 2: Distribution of papers’ publication date by year. tively. Next, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey each have two studies. The remaining countries have contributed only one study each. Table 3 presents a list of the healthcare organizations where the authors chose to collect data in each study. The authors used a mix of different institutions and did not consistently report the specific types of hospitals or clinics they visited. Nine studies collected data from hospitals, six studies collected data from diverse healthcare organizations, two studies collected data from teaching hospitals, two studies collected data from emergency centers, one study collected data from tertiary care hospitals, and one from intensive care units. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Study Reference**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Data Collection Site**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Institution Type (Public or**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Participants**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample Size**} \\  & & **Private Funding)** & & \\ \hline
[34] & Hospitals & Public & Medical and Administrative & 260 \\
[35] & Healthcare & Public and private & Medical and Administrative & 581 \\
[37] & Hospitals & Private & Administrative & 220 \\
[38] & Hospitals & Public and private & Medical and Administrative & 150 \\
[8] & Teaching hospitals & Not specified & Medical and Administrative & 370 \\
[40] & Hospitals & Private & Administrative & 164 \\
[44] & Hospitals organizations & Not specified & Medical & 221 \\
[45] & Emergency centers & Not specified & Medical & 221 \\
[48] & Tertiary care hospitals & Private & Medical and Administrative & 154 \\
[49] & Emergency centers & Not specified & Medical & 285 \\
[9] & Teaching hospitals & Public & Medical and Administrative & 316 \\
[50] & Hospitals & Not specified & Administrative & 212 \\
[53] & Healthcare & Not specified & Administrative & 159 \\
[25] & organizations & Not specified & Administrative & 279 \\
[55] & Intensive care units & Public & Medical & 248 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Participants of selected studies. Figure 3: Distribution of published studies by country. In terms of funding type, five studies included only private institutions, four studies included public institutions, and two studies included both private and public institutions. Ten studies did not specify the institution funding type. The participants selected for the studies were divided into two groups: medical personnel and administrative staff. Six studies obtained responses from medical personnel, six other studies obtained responses from administrative staff, and the remaining nine studies obtained responses from both medical and administrative staff. The study sample size ranged from 90 to 581 participants.