ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Academic-practice partnerships in public health workforce development in China: a comparative analysis of 12 purposively selected cases.
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: Academic-practice partnerships (APPs) are increasingly used in public health workforce development, but evidence on their institutional drivers and varied development pathways in China remains limited. This study examines how institutional pressures, interorganizational resource relationships, and boundary-spanning practices are reflected in the development of APPs in China. Methods: An exploratory multiple-case comparative design was adopted. Twelve APP cases were purposively selected across Chinese regions with diverse resource endowments. Drawing on institutional isomorphism, Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), and boundary-spanning theory, framework analysis was used to compare policy documents, authorized internal institutional records, and publicly available materials across documentary sources. Results: Cross-case analysis identified four forms of integration and boundary-spanning: institutional arrangements, spatial or practice-setting integration, collaborative training mechanisms, and educational-to-professional development pathways. Dual-mentor arrangements were a recurring mechanism in the documentary evidence. Variation among cases was observed in resource strategies, driving forces, and stated training objectives, including technology integration versus contextual resource activation, administratively initiated versus demand-driven development, and research-oriented versus applied workforce preparation. Conclusion: APPs within China's public health workforce development constitute dynamic institutional arrangements shaped by macro-level institutional pressures, meso-level resource interdependence and collaborative governance, and micro-level boundary-spanning practices. Sustaining these partnerships appears to require institutionalized governance structures, competency-oriented training systems, and incentives that move collaboration beyond formal alignment toward substantive integration.
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.