ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A quantitative content analysis of Chinese policies on fertility-friendly hospital development: a three-dimensional framework.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study examined the characteristics of Chinese policy documents on fertility-friendly hospital development using a policy-tool lens, identified patterns of policy emphasis and areas receiving comparatively less attention, and provided evidence for further policy improvement. Methods: A three-dimensional analytical framework encompassing policy tools, stakeholders, and policy objectives was developed and applied to a quantitative content analysis of 52 national- and provincial-level policy documents on fertility-friendly hospital development issued between April 2016 and February 2026. Results: The distribution of policy tools was uneven, with supply-side and environmental tools accounting for 53.29 and 34.69% of policy-tool coded references, respectively, whereas demand-side tools accounted for 12.02%. Maternity care institutions were the most frequently represented stakeholder group, accounting for 42.12% of stakeholder-related coded references. Among the policy objectives, the promotion of institutional friendliness and the establishment of supportive mechanisms received the greatest emphasis, accounting for 36.44% of policy-objective coded references. Conclusion: The included policies were characterized by greater emphasis on supply-side and environmental tools, maternity care institutions, and selected policy objectives, whereas demand-side tools and broader stakeholder participation received comparatively less attention. Future policy development may consider broadening the use of demand-side tools, increasing explicit policy attention to primary healthcare institutions and social organizations, and promoting broader stakeholder participation. Such changes may support a more comprehensive, multidimensional, and collaborative governance framework spanning the continuum of care.
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.