ArticleBMC public health2026
Workplace violence against healthcare workers in China: a systematic legal analysis with reference to international labour standards.
Article in BMC 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWorkplace violence against healthcare workers (HCWPV) is a global public health and occupational hazard, endangering staff physical/psychological well-being and public health security. China faces strained doctor-patient relations and frequent HCWPV yet its legal framework lacks occupational safety and health (OSH) oriented regulations. The International Labour Organization (ILO)'s Violence and Harassment Convention (C190) and Recommendation (R206) provide an internationally recognized normative benchmark, structured around a three-pillar approach: defining and prohibiting violence, establishing enforcement and remedies, and mandating preventive measures. This study conducted a systematic legal analysis of legally binding national-level documents to examine how HCWPV is addressed in China. By comparing China's national legal framework with the ILO three-pillar model, this study aims to identify regulatory gaps and inform improvements in the governance of HCWPV.
methodsThis study conducted a systematic legal analysis of legally binding national-level legal and policy instruments in China to examine how HCWPV is addressed. Documents were identified through comprehensive database searches and supplementary legal screening, and analyzed using a structured analytical framework informed by international standards.
resultsChina's relevant legal framework includes the Constitution, 10 laws, 3 administrative regulations, 3 departmental rules, and 33 other normative documents. Provisions are scattered and focusing on post-incident punishment and public order maintenance, while excluding psychological violence and failing to define HCWPV as an occupational hazard. When mapped against the C190& R206 framework, substantial gaps were observed across all 3 pillars, including narrow and incident-based definitions of violence, reliance on post-incident punitive enforcement, and limited preventive obligations for healthcare institutions.
conclusionChina's "public order-first" legislative paradigm prioritizes punishment over prevention, creating systemic gaps in HCWPV governance. These findings suggest that reframing HCWPV as a psychosocial occupational hazard and aligning national legislation with the preventive, worker-centered principles of C190&R206 may strengthen the coherence and public health effectiveness of China's regulatory framework.
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.