Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35637471›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

The red packet phenomenon from the perspective of young Chinese doctors: a questionnaire study.

Hanhui Xu, Mengci Yuan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hanhui Xu *School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.
Mengci Yuan *School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China. 018116@nankai.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn China, informal payments in the medical profession, which workers in the public health care system receive from patients in the course of performing profession-related activities, are usually referred to as "red packets" (Hongbao ). The phenomenon of red packets is widespread and has become one of the most negative factors affecting the doctor-patient relationship in China. Our study aims to explore the situation concerning the phenomenon of red packets in China after the "Red Packet Ban".

methodsA questionnaire was developed including general demographic characteristics, asking whether they had ever been offered red packets, whether they had ever accepted red packets, their reasons for accepting the first red packet and so on. We recruited a total of 413 doctors to complete this questionnaire and conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 18 doctors from the initial group.

resultsOur data shows that 73 doctors claimed to have accepted red packets, accounting for 17.7% (73/413) of all respondents and 27.8% (73/263) of doctors who had been provided with red packets. 23.2% of red packets were offered after the operation and 67.1% of the doctors declared that the main reason for accepting the red packet was that they "refused the red packets more than once, but the patients/family members were sincere and it was difficult to refuse." The total amount of the red packets they received each month accounted for no more than 5% of their income.

conclusions(1) The acceptance of red packets does exist among young doctors in China, but shows a significant decrease compared to previous studies. (2) There has been a sharp rise in the proportion of gratitude red packets. (3) Patients should also be educated regarding their behaviour in providing red packets.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansChinaHumansIncomeSurveys and QuestionnairesChinese young doctorsMedical ethicsRed packetsUnethical behavior

Identifiers

PMID35637471
PMCPMC9153131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.