ArticleBMC medical education2025
Textual quantitative research and implications of China's medical education policies-analysis based on the "tool-development-intensity" three-dimensional framework.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emotional vulnerability and research capacity in medical postgraduates: toward understanding the reciprocal relationship and proposing targeted interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The evolution and improvement of medical-vocational education policies: a perspective based on the IAD framework.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze China's "medical education" policies issued in the past three decades using the "tool-development-intensity" framework, explore the focus and deficiencies of policy texts, and propose recommendations.
methodsBased on content analysis and quantitative analysis, construct the three-dimensional framework of "tool-development-intensity," classify and conduct cross-comparative analysis on national-level medical education policy provisions.
resultsEnvironmental policy instruments dominate medical education policies (57.76%, intensity 0.585), primarily comprising "coordination mechanisms" (intensity 0.248) and "enhanced safeguards" (intensity 0.181), reflecting the government's governance approach centered on top-level design and institutional safeguards. Supply-oriented (20.69%, intensity 0.200) and demand-oriented tools (21.55%, intensity 0.215) are notably underutilized. Across medical education dimensions, "guarantee mechanisms" exhibit the highest policy intensity (0.312), followed by "training models" (0.228), while "schooling formats" receive the least attention (0.136). Three-dimensional cross-analysis reveals structural imbalances in policy tools across different developmental dimensions, such as the "guarantee mechanism" heavily relying on environmental tools.
conclusionChina's medical education policies exhibit a characteristic "environment-dominated, safeguarding-priority" pattern, reflecting strong state mobilization and institutional regulation. However, significant shortcomings remain in stimulating grassroots innovation, promoting diversified institutional models, and supporting international research collaboration. Future efforts should optimize the policy tool structure, increase investment in supply-demand policies for critical weak links, and advance the coordinated, high-quality development of the medical education system.
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.