ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Fairness evaluation of collaborative governance of food safety in Jilin Province based on AHP-FCE model: multi-dimensional difference analysis and policy implications research.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
The distribution of food safety risks and their associated health impacts constitute a significant societal cause of health inequalities. As a major agricultural and food production base in China, Jilin Province has seen limited research on the fairness of collaborative food safety governance from a health equity perspective, despite its critical necessity. This study integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) to establish an evaluation framework. Following a "structure-process-outcome" analytical approach and the DPSIR model, a multidimensional indicator system was constructed. Comprehensive data from multiple sources-including policy documents, regulatory enforcement records, sampling inspection data, and questionnaire surveys-were synthesized with expert consultation results from 33 specialists to conduct a quantitative assessment of the fairness in Jilin Province's collaborative food safety governance. Results indicate that the comprehensive score for local collaborative food safety governance is 3.63/5, reflecting an overall upper-middle level. However, significant urban-rural and socio-economic disparities in governance fairness were identified. Key findings include: (1) Distinct urban-rural and regional gradients in governance resource allocation (e.g., regulatory density, testing coverage) and significant differences in public information awareness, participation convenience, and satisfaction. (2) Multi-dimensional performance is uneven-government regulatory capacity scored highest (4.0), corporate responsibility implementation lowest (3.0), while third-party testing and public participation both scored 3.5, indicating insufficient depth of social force involvement. (3) Structural equity and process equity are key determinants of outcome equity, with groups possessing higher socioeconomic capital demonstrating stronger capacity to benefit from the governance system. (4) The overall coordination of the governance system remains inadequate, exhibiting characteristics of "strong government, weak society and enterprises," with insufficient information sharing and collaboration mechanisms. The study indicates that Jilin Province's food safety governance exhibits partial inequities in benefit distribution. Based on these findings, this paper proposes corresponding policy implications to serve as a reference for improving food management and alleviating related challenges.
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.