ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
What determines the success or failure of policy experiments?-A qualitative field study of China's healthcare reform pilots.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Policy experimentation has become a central strategy for governments seeking to navigate complexity in healthcare reform. In China, extensive rounds of county-level healthcare reform pilots aim to strengthen primary care and improve service equity. However, while some pilots expand successfully, others stagnate or are suspended. The underlying mechanisms that generate these divergent outcomes remain insufficiently examined. Objectives: This study investigates how healthcare reform pilots evolve in practice by identifying the key actors involved in pilot management, analyzing the driving forces that shape pilot performance, and explaining the different developmental trajectories of pilots within China's county medical service community (CMSC) reform. Methods: Drawing on large-scale fieldwork across 23 CMSCs, we collected qualitative data through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with 127 internal and external stakeholders. Using grounded theory, the data were analyzed through open, axial, and selective coding, and subsequently integrated to construct a typological framework explaining variations in policy pilot outcomes. Results: Drawing on the coding framework, the analysis identifies two overarching forces shaping CMSC pilot implementation: institutional compatibility and policy potential energy. Institutional compatibility reflects the alignment of CMSC policy design, healthcare insurance payment rules, interdepartmental coordination, incentive structures, and resource-benefit allocation. Policy potential energy derives from the redistribution of administrative power, political momentum from higher-level governments, the capacity of policy entrepreneurs, and the contextual foundations of social capital and trust. Mapping these dynamics reveals four pilot trajectories: upscaling, adjustment, suspension, and autonomy.
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.