ArticleBMJ open2023
Does medical education reform change who is selected? A national cross-sectional survey from China.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the Flipped Classroom Teaching Model Integrated with the Feynman Learning Method in Cardiovascular Ultrasound Postgraduate Teaching: An Action Research.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Parental medical background and pre-admission preparedness in China's medical student selection.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Medical school selection is a sociohistorical embedded activity: A comparison of five countries.Medical education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesApproximately 10 years ago, China introduced an education plan to improve the overall quality of medical education and to better serve the population's health needs. Many medical schools were then recognised and financed by China's Ministry of Education to develop and operationalise new pilot programmes (PPs) aligned with this plan. These ran in parallel with the traditional programmes (TPs). One way to achieve the plan's first aim, improving the quality of medical education, is to select academically stronger candidates. We, thus, examined and compared who were selected into PPs and TPs.
designCross-sectional study.
settingData were collected from 123 medical schools across China via the 2021 China Medical Student Survey.
participantsParticipants were undergraduate clinical medicine students across all year groups. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical school selection was via the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE). Medical students' NCEE performance and their sociodemographics were used as the primary and secondary outcome measures. Mann-Whitney or χ
resultsOf the 204 817 respondents, 194 163 (94.8%) were in a TP and 10 654 (5.2%) a PP. PP respondents (median=75.2, IQR=69.5-78.8) had significantly higher NCEE scores than their TP counterparts (median=73.9, IQR=68.5-78.7). Holding constant their NCEE score, PP respondents were significantly more likely to come from urban areas, not be first-generation college students, and have parents with higher occupational status and income.
conclusionsAssuming quality can be indicated by prior academic achievement at the point of selection, PPs achieved this mission. However, doing so limited medical students' diversity. This may be unhelpful in achieving the Education Plan's goal to better serve China's health needs.
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.