ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2026
From Legal Indeterminacy to Risk-Governed Continuity: Operationalizing Risk Governance for China's Family Doctor Contract Services.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
China's family doctor contract services (FDCS) are an important instrument for strengthening Primary Health Care, chronic disease management and continuity of care, but their legal and institutional foundations remain uneven. This Perspective treats legal indeterminacy not simply as a drafting defect but as a governable source of risk. It uses a structured narrative and legal-policy synthesis of Chinese FDCS policy and implementation materials and peer-reviewed studies principally from 2016-2025, relevant current Chinese laws and administrative rules, and limited functional reference points from the United Kingdom and Australia. The analysis distinguishes legal indeterminacy from regulatory fragmentation and implementation failure and develops an event-level qualitative risk-governance framework across five domains: contracting status and liability, rights, obligations and service packages, financing and evaluation, supervision and dispute resolution, and digital and data governance. Specific risk events are prioritized by qualitative likelihood and severity, with exposure and persistence recorded as potential escalation factors, and are then matched to proportionate regulatory responses. A worked example of remote diabetes follow-up illustrates the approach. The framework moves beyond catalogues of legal gaps by providing a transparent method for deciding where legal clarification and regulatory attention are most urgent, while remaining a conceptual tool that requires empirical validation.
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.