ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
A responsive governance path to health equity: the role of state-led public interest litigation in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- China's criminal incidental civil public interest litigation in food safety: practice review and pathways to improvement.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Inclusive legal education as an upstream intervention: building legal governance and capacity for health equity.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Against the backdrop of the "Healthy China 2030" strategy, this paper examines China's unique Public Interest Litigation (PIL) system as an emerging and critical mechanism for safeguarding the health rights of vulnerable populations. The central thesis of this paper is that China's PIL should be understood not as a conventional rights-remedy instrument, but as a state-led innovation in "responsive governance." This system, with the public procuratorate as its core actor, establishes an internal feedback loop designed to identify and rectify administrative regulatory failures, primarily through its pre-litigation procedures. The research finds that this system protects health rights through two distinct pathways: first, by providing universal, indirect protection through the regulation of social determinants of health, such as environmental quality and food safety; and second, by offering targeted, direct protection for specific groups, addressing issues like occupational health for migrant workers and accessibility of services for persons with disabilities. Through a systematic comparative analysis with the models of India (society-driven mobilization), South Africa (constitutional adjudication), and Brazil (individual rights realization), this paper illuminates the distinctiveness of the Chinese model. Its objective is focused on procedural administrative correction and enhancing governance efficacy, rather than on fundamental policy challenges. Although constrained by factors such as state-led agenda-setting, the model's emphasis on collective interests and systemic risks may generate more broadly shared public health benefits. This analysis provides a unique institutional case study on enhancing state governance capacity in the public health domain and contributes a nuanced perspective to global discussions on law, governance, and health equity.
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.