Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42724231›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2026

Causes of medical disputes in China and Japan from physicians' perspectives: a qualitative study.

Hua Xu, Atsushi Asai, Masao Tabata, Yasuhiro Kadooka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hua XuTohoku Daigaku Daigakuin Igakukei Kenkyuka Igakubu, Sendai, Japan.
Atsushi AsaiTohoku Daigaku Daigakuin Igakukei Kenkyuka Igakubu, Sendai, Japan.
Masao TabataTohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Yasuhiro KadookaKumamoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kumamoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

causal network of medical disputescauses for medical disputesChinacross-cultural studydistrustdoctor-patient relationshipsJapan

Identifiers

PMID42724231
PMCPMC13558398

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.