ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Research on Vertical Professional Collaborative Evaluation Tools of Healthcare System Based on the Tight County Healthcare Alliance in China.
Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: To develop the vertical professional collaborative evaluation tools to promote the establishment of integrated healthcare system in China. Method: Based on the previous theoretical framework, the evaluation system was developed and 450 doctors and other health professionals in tight county healthcare alliance in D county of H province were selected and interviewed. Through stratified cluster equal proportion random sampling method with an effective recovery rate of 93.33%, reliability and validity were tested with exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's α and structural equation model method. Results: The cumulative contribution rate of the five common factors was 72.23%, the Cronbach's α of whole is 0.846. Except for the common factor F4, the Cronbach's α of other common factors were greater than 0.7. The component reliability (CR) of 5 common factors were all greater than 0.7 and the average coefficients of variation extraction (AVE) were all greater than 0.6. In the revised model (M1), the P values of the standard regression coefficients of F1, F2, F3, F4 and those of the corresponding items and factors were all smaller than 0.05, and the model fitting indexes of were all better than those of the initial model (M0). Conclusions: The vertical professional collaborative evaluation tools of healthcare system constructed in this paper contain 4 dimensions: (1) Value compatibility and trust, defined as the alignment of health-related values, cultural norms, and behavioral expectations across different provider levels (e.g., primary vs. tertiary care) and specialties (e.g., physicians vs. nurses), operationalized through shared decision-making and perceived reliability; (2) Communication and coordination mechanisms, encompassing systems for bidirectional information flow (e.g., standardized referral protocols, interoperable IT platforms) and procedural safeguards to enable cross-disciplinary collaboration; (3) Incentive and constraint mechanisms, referring to policy tools (financial/non-financial rewards, accountability metrics) designed to motivate or regulate collaborative behaviors; and (4) Structure and strength of collaborative relationships, characterized by the topology (e.g., network centrality) and resilience of inter-provider connections, measured through interaction frequency and resource-sharing patterns.,; 8 factors and 15 items whose overall reliability and validity were good and has certain applicability in China. Given regional sociocultural diversity, the findings require validation through broader case studies.
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.