SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluation of school sports coach position policies in China based on the PMC Index Model.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2023, the General Administration of Sport of China, the Central Institutional Organization Commission Office, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security jointly issued the Implementation Opinions on Establishing Coaching Positions in Schools, positioning school sports coaches as an important mechanism for integrating sports and education. Provincial authorities subsequently introduced supporting measures. This study evaluates the internal structure, completeness, and consistency of these policy documents to identify design strengths and weaknesses and inform future policy refinement. Methods: Twelve formally promulgated policy documents issued between 2022 and 2024 were selected using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Policy text mining, a two-round Delphi consultation with 15 experts, and content analysis were used to construct a Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) index model. Nine of ten conceptual first-level variables, comprising 38 s-level indicators, entered the PMC calculation. Policy texts were coded using a documented coding manual by a single coder, with consistency assessed through blind test-retest re-coding. Descriptive statistics and sensitivity analyses examined indicator discrimination and ranking robustness. Results: The mean PMC index was 6.29 (SD = 0.523; range = 5.57-7.22). Ten policies were classified as good and two as excellent. Policy level (X4) and policy domain (X9) showed zero variance and therefore did not discriminate among policies. Among the seven discriminating variables, mean scores were highest for participating actors (X6 = 0.92) and policy focus (X3 = 0.88), and lowest for policy timeliness (X2 = 0.06), policy evaluation (X8 = 0.73), and guarantee and incentives (X7 = 0.75). Removing X4 and X9 left the ranking unchanged (Spearman ρ = 1.0000), while additionally removing X2 produced only a marginal change (ρ = 0.9926). However, grade classifications varied substantially across specifications. Conclusion: The policies are comparatively complete across the measured design dimensions but remain weak in timeliness, evaluation, and guarantee and incentive mechanisms. Only three documents specify a policy time horizon, few include verifiable objectives, and supervision mechanisms are often insufficiently detailed. The PMC scores should therefore be interpreted as measures of structural completeness rather than implementation effectiveness, which requires separate implementation and outcome data.
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.