ArticleBMJ open2025
Maximising the potential of the National Compulsory Service Programme in rural China: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo alleviate the shortage of qualified physicians in rural areas, since 2010, the Chinese government has launched a National Compulsory Service Programme (NCSP) to enrol medical students for future work in township health centres (THCs) as general practitioners (GPs). The educational background of NCSP GPs is the best at THCs. This study aims to evaluate whether NCSP GPs have contributed to improving the quality of patient care at THCs and in what way.
designThis is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.
settingNCSP GPs are assigned to THCs in the rural areas of central and western China, where assistant physicians are permitted to practice independently as licensed physicians. The contribution of NCSP GPs was defined as the extent to which they were perceived to improve the quality of care at THCs. Job performance was defined as the aggregated value to the organisation of discrete behaviour episodes that an individual performs.
participantsFor the quantitative component, nine provinces were selected by using a stratified random sampling method based on NCSP admission numbers. A total of 2815 THC leaders completed the survey (response rate, 32%). For the qualitative component, 33 NCSP GPs were recruited for semi-structured interviews through purposive and snowball sampling method. OUTCOME MEASURES: The contribution of NCSP GPs to improvements in the quality of care at THCs was assessed as a key outcome measure.
results68% of THC leaders reported that NCSP GPs contributed considerably to improving the quality of care. The contribution of NCSP GPs was significantly and positively associated with the performance of NCSP GPs themselves (β=0.789, 95% CI 0.724 ~ 0.854) and THC remoteness (β=0.144, 95% CI 0.067 ~ 0.222), but negatively associated with the percentage of licensed physicians at the THC (β=-0.340, 95% CI -0.483 ~ -0.197) and with the turnover of NCSP GPs (β=-0.119, 95% CI -0.221 ~ -0.016). The percentage of licensed physicians has a mediating role between THC remoteness and the contribution of NCSP GPs. Interviews revealed that NCSP GPs contributed to the THC as individual clinicians, and a majority also contributed by influencing others or participating in THC management, such as by improving diagnosis and treatment performance of others, standardising patient care, teaching and training and implementing safety processes.
conclusionsNCSP GPs have a positive impact on the quality of care at THCs. In addition to working as individual competent physicians, they can contribute to the THCs in many ways. Adjustments in NCSP curriculum design, more supportive measures and better allocation processes are recommended to maximise this programme's potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.