ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Motivating Medical Innovators: A Qualitative COM-B Analysis of Physician-Scientists Engagement in Biomedical Advancement in Chinese Academic Medical Centers.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physician-scientists connect clinical care with knowledge generation, yet sustained engagement in medical innovation after entering clinical practice remains insufficiently understood. This study explored how motivation, capability, and contextual opportunity shape innovation engagement and how physician-scientists navigate dual clinical and research roles in Chinese academic medical centers. Methods: We conducted a constructivist exploratory qualitative study involving 27 MD-PhD physician-scientists recruited through purposive sampling from six academic medical centers in Beijing, China, between March 2024 and February 2025. Data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis informed by Braun and Clarke's framework. The COM-B model was applied as an interpretive framework to examine how capability, opportunity, and motivation shaped innovation behaviors. Conceptual saturation was achieved after analysis of the 27 interviews. Results: Four interconnected themes emerged: (1) dual professional roles, characterized by dynamic movement between role accumulation and role conflict as physicians negotiated clinical and research responsibilities; (2) evolving motivational mechanisms, including prosocial goals, achievement orientation, status-related aspirations, and impression management; (3) innovation ecosystems, including institutional policies, organizational support, and collaborative networks that enabled or constrained engagement; and (4) capability development, including self-efficacy, resilience, knowledge, and research experience. These findings indicate that physician-scientists' innovation engagement was shaped by continuous interactions among personal motivation, professional capability, and environmental opportunity rather than by any single determinant. Conclusion: These context-specific findings support coordinated educational and institutional strategies rather than reliance on individual motivation alone. Priorities include formally protected research time, career and evaluation pathways that recognize dual clinical-research contributions, longitudinal mentorship and continuing research training, and transparent interdisciplinary collaboration mechanisms.
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.