ArticleGlobalization and health2015
Impact of international experience on research capacity of Chinese health professionals.
Article in Globalization and health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the impact of multinational collaborations on cultural understanding, health disparities, biomedical innovations, and professional development through project-based learning.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Article
- Influence of Tutors' Overseas Experience on Doctoral Medical Students' Skill Development: A Comparative Study in China.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- The association between health professionals' international experience and the academic output of their students in Harbin, China.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- The Characteristics of Human Resources and Related Research Activities among Basic Stem Cell Research Groups in China.Iranian journal of public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIt is common practice worldwide for health professionals to study abroad. However, the outcome of such experience has not been rigorously evaluated in China. Our current study aimed to quantify the impact on research of studying abroad among Chinese health professionals.
methodsA self-administered structured questionnaire was developed among health professionals in Harbin Medical University and its affiliated hospitals who had studied abroad ('returning' professionals) and health professionals who did not have experience abroad ('resident' professionals). 166 'returning' professionals (Group A) and 166 age-, sex- and specialty-matched 'resident' professionals (Group B) were included in the study. SPSS software was used for data entry and analysis.
resultsThe total IF of papers published by Group A and Group B was, respectively, 1933.52 and 629.23 (P<0.01) and the number of NSFC was 154 and 34 (P<0.01), respectively. The total IF of papers published abroad was associated with the duration abroad (P<0.01) and not with the age of going abroad (P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home, and the number of NSFC had no relationship with the duration abroad (both P>0.05) nor the age of going abroad (both P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home and the number of NSFC were positively correlated with the total IF of papers published abroad (both P<0.01).
conclusionsThis study reflects the beneficial experience of working overseas. The opportunity for overseas experience should not be limited by age. Overseas study should be prolonged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.