ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing the quality of gynaecological care in China: protocol for a nationwide survey using mixed-methods.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disparities in gynecological care capacity in China: a national assessment using the structure-process-outcome framework.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe burden of gynaecological diseases is increasing globally, affecting women's health, quality of life and fertility. Improving the quality of gynaecological care will enhance patient recovery and improve outcomes of gynaecological diseases. However, comprehensive evaluation tools and nationwide data on the quality of gynaecological care are lacking. This study aims to develop a framework for evaluating gynaecological care quality in China, analysing disparities and proposing improvement strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This nationwide study employs a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design across three phases: (1) questionnaire development through a literature review, indepth interviews, expert consultation and pilot testing; (2) collection of cross-sectional survey data from gynaecology departments, healthcare providers and patients in public healthcare facilities across 31 provinces in mainland China; and (3) integration and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative results. The study collects data on organisational structure, care processes and outcomes. Analysis of quantitative data will include risk adjustment of key quality indicators, comprehensive evaluation of care quality and exploration of influencing factors using linear regression. Qualitative data will undergo thematic and content analyses. Joint displays will be used to integrate the mixed-method results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Peking Union Medical College Hospital Ethics Committee (I-24ZM0003). All participants provided informed consent. Data were anonymised and participants retained the right to withdraw without penalty. A risk-benefit assessment was conducted, and no vulnerable groups were included without justification. These findings will be disseminated to healthcare policymakers through academic publications, scientific conference presentations and reports. The results are expected to provide methodological guidance for the quality evaluation of gynaecological care and inform policy development 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.