ArticleBMJ global health2021
Research capacity of global health institutions in China: a gap analysis focusing on their collaboration with other low-income and middle-income countries.
Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implications for developing global health education in China: evidence from an undergraduate teamwork with role-play.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- The implications of decolonization on China's academic global health: a dialogue with Stephen Gloyd at the Luhu Global Health Salon.Global health research and policy · 2023Review
- Trends in global health research among universities in China: a bibliometric analysis.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
- Medical education reforms in China.Lancet (London, England) · 2023Article
- Implementation and evaluation of crowdsourcing in global health education.Global health research and policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis paper presented qualitative and quantitative data collected on the research capacity of global health institutions in China and aimed to provide a landscaping review of the development of global health as a new discipline in the largest emerging economy of the world.
methodsMixed methods were used and they included a bibliometric analysis, a standardised survey and indepth interviews with top officials of 11 selected global health research and educational institutions in mainland China.
resultsThe bibliometric analysis revealed that each institution had its own focus areas, some with a balanced focus among chronic illness, infectious disease and health systems, while others only focused on one of these areas. Interviews of key staff from each institution showed common themes: recognition that the current research capacity in global health is relatively weak, optimism towards the future, as well as an emphasis on mutual beneficial networking with other countries. Specific obstacles raised and the solutions applied by each institution were listed and discussed.
conclusionGlobal health institutions in China are going through a transition from learning and following established protocols to taking a more leading role in setting up China's own footprint in this area. Gaps still remain, both in comparison with international institutions, as well as between the leading Chinese institutions and those that have just started. More investment needs to be made, from both public and private domains, to improve the overall capacity as well as the mutual learning and communication within the academic community 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.