ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Dynamic interactions of facilitators and barriers in palliative care in China: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina is experiencing rapid population ageing and increasing demand for palliative care. However, development remains uneven because of fragmented policies, workforce shortages, limited public understanding, and sociocultural barriers. Existing studies have typically described these factors separately, offering limited insight into how they interact within complex health systems. This study aimed to examine the dynamic interactions among facilitators and barriers shaping palliative care development in China, informed by Wu-Xing theory.
methodsWe conducted a multi-method qualitative study across hospitals, palliative care institutions, and community settings in multiple regions of China between January 2024 and November 2025. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 49 stakeholders. Focus group discussions involved 38 stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, policymakers, researchers, volunteers, and service-sector representatives, while field observations captured the experiences of 6 patients and 5 family members in palliative care settings. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, with Wu-Xing theory used as an interpretive framework to examine relationships among themes.
resultsFive interdependent factors shaped palliative care development in China: policy standards, professional development, promotion and outreach, public awareness, and ethical culture. Analysis suggested two linked cycles. The Generating Cycle described how policy standards supported professional development, professional development enabled promotion and outreach, promotion and outreach improved public awareness, public awareness nurtured ethical culture, and ethical culture in turn updated policy standards. The Controlling Cycle described how policy standards regulated promotion and outreach, promotion and outreach reshaped ethical culture, ethical culture rectified professional development, professional development recalibrated public awareness, and public awareness in turn updated policy standards, contributing to mutual adjustment across the system.
conclusionsPalliative care development in China may be better understood as a dynamic health-system process rather than as a linear effort to address isolated barriers. The Wu-Xing framework provides a culturally grounded lens for examining how policy, workforce capacity, communication, public attitudes, and ethical norms interact. These findings highlight the need for more integrated and context-sensitive strategies to strengthen palliative care in China.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481982What 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.