ArticlePloS one2016
A Competency Model for Clinical Physicians in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between adverse practice experiences and positional competence among residents: a multicenter cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The pharmacy graduate global competence evaluation scale (PGGCES): a nationwide study in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Study on the construction of a Chinese cardiovascular physician competency model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Construction of competency model for civil aviation flight dispatchers with integrated approach combining grounded theory and structural equation modeling.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transcultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of attitude and confidence with oral healthcare among nursing students scale: a cross-sectional survey in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring the Critical Driving Forces and Strategy Adoption Paths of Professional Competency Development for Various Emergency Physicians Based on the Hybrid MCDM Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A survey of resident physicians' perceptions of competency-based education in standardized resident training in China: a preliminary study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- The ASK-SEAT: a competency-based assessment scale for students majoring in clinical medicine.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Health Promotion Capacity Among Chinese Healthcare Professionals and Its Influence on Preventive Health Service Practices.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Association Between Clinical Competencies and Mental Health Symptoms Among Frontline Medical Staff During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- An Exploration of Medical Education in Central and Southern China: Measuring the Professional Competence of Clinical Undergraduates.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Standardized residency training in China: the new internal medicine curriculum.Perspectives on medical education · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAround the world, regulatory bodies have taken the lead in determining the competencies required to become a physician. As a first step in addressing this project, it was decided to develop a set of core competencies that were unique to China and that might serve as a basis for medical education. The purpose of this paper was to construct a competency model for clinical physicians in China.
methodsData was collected using a cross-sectional survey of 6247 clinicians from seven administrative regions (31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government) in China. The total sample was randomly divided into two sub-samples, an initial sample (Sample 1) and a replication sample (Sample 2). Independent exploratory factor analysis was conducted in each sample and the results were compared to determine the stability. After that the confirmatory factor analysis was used to ascertain the competency model for physicians. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of competency-based instrument were also examined.
results76 items with 8 dimensions were identified, accounting for 68.41% of the construct's total variance in the initial sample and 67.47% in the replication sample. For the two samples, the overall scale reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was both 0.985 with dimensions from 0.905 to 0.954 for the initial sample and from 0.902 to 0.955 for the replication sample after deleting the items. In confirmatory factor analysis, the result showed that all items had acceptable goodness of fit index. RMSEA and SRMR were less than 0.08 (RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.040), while GFI, NFI, IFI, and CFI were higher than 0.9 (GFI = 0.905, NFI = 0.903, IFI = 0.909, CFI = 0.909), leading to acceptable construct validity. All construct reliability values of the factors were higher than 0.70, and all average variance extracted values exceeded 0.50. Thus, we considered the reliability and validity of the 8 dimensions were acceptable.
conclusionsThe instrument was shown to be both valid and reliable for measuring clinical physicians' competency in China. The results of the competency-based instrument can be used by ministry of health and administrators of hospitals to assess physicians' competencies, encourage and guide them to modify their behaviors according to the evaluation criteria, and also cultivate physicians with strong clinical practice, innovation and independent scientific research ability. Through these measurements and understandings, the overall level of clinical physicians will be increased in China.
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.