ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2026
Incentive Configuration Pathways for Standardization of Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams in China: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the current implementation of incentive means and schemes in cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in China, and identified configuration pathways that affect the standardization level of MDT implementation. Methods: A questionnaire was constructed drawing upon practical experience with the implementation of MDT and relational incentives theory. A total of 1,332 MDT members were selected to participate in the survey. The fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was used to explore the non-linear and synergistic influence pathways of different incentive means and schemes combinations on the standardization level of cancer MDT implementation. Results: Two pathways of incentive means leading to high standardization were identified: a comprehensive pathway characterized by performance rewards, autonomy, and interpersonal relationships, and an intrinsically driven pathway relying on learning/development, autonomy, and interpersonal relationships. Four pathways of incentive schemes were found, categorized into procedure‑standardized scenarios (with efficiency of performance distribution and performance evaluation standards as core) and result‑oriented scenarios (with level of performance distribution, method of distribution, and perceived team fairness as core). Conclusion: The configuration pathways of incentive means indicate a substitutive effect among factors. Practitioners can flexibly emphasize specific elements based on local resources and stages, and this flexibility has policy implications for hospital governance. The pathways for incentive schemes reveal population applicability differences, so schemes should be tailored to diverse needs, enhance implementation, and prevent ineffectiveness, guiding policy makers in designing flexible regulations.
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.