<![CDATA[Intensive bootcamp programmes are used in medical, technological and academic training, yet evidence about them is scattered across domain-specific literature. This review maps how bootcamps are defined, for whom and why they are used, how they are designed and what outcomes are reported, and interprets these patterns through an educational management lens. A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and JBI guidance, reported according to PRISMA-ScR. Scopus was searched once, through the Watase application, on 7 February 2024 (titles, abstracts and keywords; English-language journal articles, 2019 to early 2024); reliance on this single database is a key limitation. After screening and re-application of clarified eligibility criteria, 61 studies were charted and analysed through descriptive numerical summary and thematic synthesis, with management implications labelled as interpretive. Health professions education dominated the corpus (42 of 61 studies, 68.9%), and most bootcamps were embedded in formal education or training pathways (48, 78.7%); only four studies examined bootcamps as alternatives to formal education. Forty studies (65.6%) targeted participants at a role transition. Hands-on practice or simulation was the most frequently reported design feature (41, 67.2%). Evidence came mainly from single-group pre-post and descriptive studies; eight studies used a comparison group and 11 measured behaviour or results, with mixed findings. The review makes two distinct contributions: a cross-domain map of bootcamp provision that earlier single-specialty reviews do not provide, and an operationalised educational management reading (purposes, people and resources, processes, and institutional context) that frames bootcamps as transition-focused programmes whose evaluation remains underdeveloped. Implications for Indonesia are presented as policy options that require local evidence.]]>
