ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Causes of medical disputes in China and Japan from physicians' perspectives: a qualitative study.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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: Medical disputes and strained doctor-patient relationships (DPRs) remain pressing challenges in China. This comparative qualitative study examined Chinese and Japanese doctors' perspectives on the causes of medical disputes to identify context-specific factors, elucidate causal mechanisms, and inform strategies for improvement. Method: Using purposive sampling, 20 practicing physicians from each country were recruited primarily through the authors' personal networks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis was used to identify categories and subcategories of perceived contributors to medical disputes. Result: Five categories and seventeen subcategories emerged. While both countries' doctors identified similar negative factors affecting DPRs, their manifestations differed, explaining divergence in dispute prevalence. In China, disputes were additionally influenced by inefficiencies in medical insurance and the medical dispute resolution system, poverty, healthcare consumerism, distrust, low social morality, and a "vicious cycle of disputes." In Japan, disputes largely reflected poor communication and mutual distrust rather than broader systemic issues. Discussion: The findings underscore that medical disputes arise from broader social, medical, legal, economic, cultural, and ethical structures. In China, resolving disputes and improving DPRs requires systemic reforms, including strengthened social security, refined healthcare and legal systems, and enhanced ethics and public education. Sustainable trust-building is thus a long-term, structural endeavor rather than a matter of isolated interactions.
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.