This systematic review examines the use of communities of practice (CoPs) in the business and healthcare sectors. CoPs, originally developed by Lave and Wenger, emphasize social interaction, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building. The review identifies four key characteristics of CoPs: social interaction, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building. However, these characteristics are not consistently present in all CoPs. In the business sector, CoPs vary widely, ranging from informal networks to formal education sessions. They often involve mentorship, knowledge sharing, and professional development. In healthcare, CoPs are used to improve professional performance, organizational performance, and patient outcomes. However, the review found limited evidence on the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, with no studies meeting the eligibility criteria for quantitative analysis. The review highlights the lack of clarity in the responsibilities of CoP facilitators and the handling of power dynamics within CoP groups. In healthcare, CoPs are often used for knowledge management and professional development, but there is a lack of studies on their effectiveness. The review also notes that the concept of CoPs is not consistently operationalized in either sector, making it challenging to define the parameters of CoP groups. The study concludes that further research is needed to clarify the extent to which the four characteristics of CoPs are present in mature and emerging groups, the expectations of facilitators and participants, and the power relationships within CoPs. This research will help improve the usefulness of the CoP concept in the development of groups and teams.This systematic review examines the use of communities of practice (CoPs) in the business and healthcare sectors. CoPs, originally developed by Lave and Wenger, emphasize social interaction, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building. The review identifies four key characteristics of CoPs: social interaction, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building. However, these characteristics are not consistently present in all CoPs. In the business sector, CoPs vary widely, ranging from informal networks to formal education sessions. They often involve mentorship, knowledge sharing, and professional development. In healthcare, CoPs are used to improve professional performance, organizational performance, and patient outcomes. However, the review found limited evidence on the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, with no studies meeting the eligibility criteria for quantitative analysis. The review highlights the lack of clarity in the responsibilities of CoP facilitators and the handling of power dynamics within CoP groups. In healthcare, CoPs are often used for knowledge management and professional development, but there is a lack of studies on their effectiveness. The review also notes that the concept of CoPs is not consistently operationalized in either sector, making it challenging to define the parameters of CoP groups. The study concludes that further research is needed to clarify the extent to which the four characteristics of CoPs are present in mature and emerging groups, the expectations of facilitators and participants, and the power relationships within CoPs. This research will help improve the usefulness of the CoP concept in the development of groups and teams.