ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Policy text analysis on inheritance and innovation of Mongolian medicine culture in China.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the focuses and shortcomings of policies for the inheritance of and innovations in traditional Chinese medicine (Mongolian medicine) culture in China and to provide a reference for the subsequent optimization of relevant policies. Methods: The classification method of policy tools proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld was adopted. The policy objective dimensions were integrated, Nvivo15 software was used to conduct a coding analysis of 30 policy texts in the field of the inheritance of and innovations in traditional Chinese medicinal (Mongolian medicinal) culture from 2016-2024, and a two-dimensional analysis framework was constructed on the basis of policy tools and objectives. Results: In the X dimension (policy tools), supply-type policy tools accounted for the greatest proportion (40.92%), followed by the environment type (39.28%), and the demand type accounted for the least (19.80%). In the Y dimension (policy objectives), the construction of talent teams accounted for the greatest proportion (25.63%). Relatively fewer policy tools were available regarding the collation of ancient medical books and theoretical innovation research (6.88%) and standardization projects (6.25%). Conclusion: The configuration of policy instruments is structurally imbalanced, showing a "supply-prioritized and demand-neglected" pattern, with insufficient support for basic policy objectives (e.g., financial support, standardization projects). Implementation Suggestions A phased framework with explicit time nodes and prioritized steps is proposed for policymakers: [1] Short-term horizon (1-2 years): Filling supply-side gaps by increasing financial support to 8-10% (focusing on Mongolian medicine ancient document collation and digital platforms) and launch demand-side pilots (e.g., integrating into regional medical insurance, establishing 2-3 inheritance demonstration bases). [2] Medium-term (3-5 years): Optimize supply-side structure, raise demand-side instrument proportion to 25-30%, and promote the standardization of Mongolian medicine hospital preparations. [3] Long-term (more than 5 years): Establish a dynamic matching matrix between policy instruments and objectives, conduct annual evaluations, and improve multi-departmental collaboration. Prioritized steps: supplement financial gaps → launch demand-side pilots → optimize supply structure and promote standardization → establish long-term adjustment mechanisms. These measures aim to maximize policy effectiveness and promote the sustainable inheritance and innovation of Mongolian medicine culture.
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.