ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Clinical laboratory diagnostic stewardship as boundary infrastructure: a multi-stakeholder qualitative study of digital public health governance in two Chinese regional referral hospitals.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital public health within population-serving hospitals depends on governance that connects diagnostic information to accountable action. This study examined how digital systems, interpretive expertise, professional authority, and communication practices jointly organized clinical laboratory diagnostic stewardship. Methods: An interpretive, multi-stakeholder, contrasting-case qualitative study was conducted from May 2025 to January 2026 in two purposefully selected tertiary Grade-A hospitals in Shaoyang, China. A critical realist position combined attention to organizational conditions with a fallibilist, interpretive epistemology. Forty-six stakeholders completed semi-structured interviews; 36 contextual workflow documents supported process mapping. Chinese transcripts were analyzed abductively using reflexive thematic analysis, role- and site-comparison matrices, and discrepant-case analysis. SRQR guided overall reporting and COREQ supplemented interview-specific disclosure. Anatomical pathology was excluded. Results: Four interdependent functions were developed: epistemic qualification; jurisdictional authorization; accountable handoff; and recursive institutionalization and learning. Participants associated Hospital A's accredited, more formalized configuration with traceability and reproducibility, but also with generic comments, alert burden, and procedural closure. Hospital B's more relationship-dependent configuration was associated with contextual responsiveness and access to known experts, but also with person-dependence, weaker after-hours coverage, and limited auditability. Accounts of nurse-mediated relay, ordering friction, contextual interpretation, and rule ownership supported a cross-cutting explanation of how formal arrangements and accessible expertise complemented one another. Proposed evaluation indicators were not measured outcomes. Conclusion: Diagnostic stewardship is interpreted as boundary infrastructure connecting evidentiary limits, advisory authority, action ownership, service coverage, and rule learning. The study provides context-bounded explanatory propositions and a separate prospective evaluation agenda, not estimates of effectiveness or hospital performance.
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.