Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36674353›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Research on the Cooperative Governance Path of Multiple Stakeholders in Doctor-Patient Disputes under the Environment of Information Asymmetry.

Mao-Min Jiang, Zheng-Yu Wu, Ai-Xian Tu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Mao-Min JiangSchool of Public Affairs, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2580-4908
Zheng-Yu WuSchool of Public Affairs, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China.
Ai-Xian TuSchool of Management, Hainan Medical University, Haikou 571199, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of doctor-patient conflicts and disputes in China has been increasing recently. In order to solve the current social problems of the tense doctor-patient relationship and frequent medical disputes, this article, based on grounded theory, uses qualitative analysis software to conduct grounded coding on 622 cases of doctor-patient disputes randomly selected by stratification. After successively adopting open, axial, and selective coding, the relationship structure between the causes and development of medical disputes is summarized. Furthermore, this relationship structure can be used to analyze further and discuss the causes of doctor-patient disputes from the perspective of multiple co-governance and the governance framework of doctor-patient disputes. Finally, it reminds us of the need to standardize government's regulatory responsibilities, promote the equal distribution of medical resources, strengthen the communication awareness between doctors and patients, reduce the information asymmetry between doctors and patients, and build a preventive mechanism-oriented multi-subject collaborative governance path to promote the relationship between doctors and patients in China. We provide relevant countermeasures and suggestions for harmonious development and the smooth resolution of doctor-patient conflicts.

Indexed as

Dissent and DisputesPhysiciansChinaCommunicationHumansPhysician-Patient Relationsdispute governancedoctor–patient disputesgrounded theorymultiple co-governance

Identifiers

PMID36674353
PMCPMC9863217

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.