The development of creativity in the area of economics and business administration and management at the university level and searches for possible programs or interventions have increased exponentially in recent years. However, no reviews analyzing interventions have been published. The objective of this review was to analyze systematically the development of creativity through the different intervention programs carried out at the university level in the area of economics and business administration and management. A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Of the 375 studies initially identified, 15 were fully reviewed, and all interventions were extracted and analyzed. It has been shown that the development of creativity in relation to economics and business administration and management can be promoted in different contexts, and interventions can vary, making it a perfect field for creating and innovating.
TopMethod
The systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2015).
Design
A systematic search was conducted to identify articles published before February 9th, 2023 in PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus. The search was performed on title, abstract and keywords and the search strategy combined terms covering the topics of (1) population, (2) intervention, (3) words related to outcomes. The keywords were connected with AND to combine the three groups and with OR to link the words in each group: population - “university”, “higher education”, “high education”; intervention - “intervention”, “program”, and outcomes - “creativity”, “economy”, “business administration”.
Screening Strategy and Study Selection
Once the search was completed, duplicate records were eliminated and then, based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the remaining records were reviewed to verify that they met the following criteria.
Regarding the population, the inclusion criterion was that they should be university students, thus excluding all non-university students.
In relation to the intervention, the inclusion criteria were programs to promote creativity in relation to the area of economics and business administration, and those that did not have this objective were excluded.
Regarding the results, programs that reported on the development of creativity were included, discarding those that did not.
Finally, in terms of study design, only original and full-text studies written in English or Spanish were included, and other languages were discarded, as well as other types of articles in addition to the original, such as reviews, letters to the editors, trial (e.g., reviews, letters to editors, trial registrations, proposals for protocols, editorials, book chapters and conference abstracts).
Data Collecting
The information extracted from the original articles included the sample, country, degree or master, and intervention.
Methodological Assessment
The methodological evaluation process was conducted using an adapted version of the STROBE evaluation criteria (O'Reilly et al., 2018), seeking eligible studies for inclusion. Each article was evaluated based on 10 specific criteria. Each item was assessed by numerical characterization (1 = completed and 0 = not completed). As suggested by O'Reilly et al. (2018), the rating of each study was qualitatively interpreted according to the following law: the study is at risk of bias or low quality with a score below 7 points, whereas those studies with higher scores are considered to be at low risk of bias or high quality.