ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Internationalizing Chinese Medicine Education Across Selected Settings: A Critical Integrative Review and Six-Domain Framework for Curriculum Negotiation.
Review 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: Chinese medicine education increasingly crosses national, institutional and regulatory boundaries, yet its evidence base remains fragmented across empirical studies, historical accounts, programme descriptions, policy analyses and technology-supported teaching reports. The central curriculum challenge is to preserve epistemic and cultural identity while demonstrating patient safety, educational quality and public accountability. Methods: We conducted a critical integrative review using targeted searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, journal websites, institutional repositories and backward citation tracking, updated through 16 July 2026. Empirical, policy, historical and conceptual sources were charted across regional context, curriculum architecture, clinical education, regulation and accreditation, research literacy, and digital pedagogy. The synthesis was interpretive rather than exhaustive and used iterative comparison to identify recurrent curriculum tensions and derive a theory-informed framework. Results: Across China, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and selected additional settings, the literature indicates shared commitments to safe and competent practice but marked differences in learner backgrounds, clinical resources, regulation, research expectations and public legitimacy. Recurrent tensions concern heritage knowledge vs external accountability, contact-hour equivalence vs demonstrated competence, clinical exposure vs local scope-of-practice restrictions, and digital innovation vs pedagogical governance. Conclusions: Internationalization is better understood as curriculum negotiation than curriculum export. We propose six linked domains: epistemic and cultural foundations; biomedical and safety literacy; clinical competence and entrustment; research and evidence translation; intercultural and interprofessional competence; and responsible digital and AI-enabled pedagogy. The framework is a theory-informed design tool that requires empirical validation through curriculum audits, consensus studies, assessment validation and graduate outcome research.
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.