Physician Multi-Site Practice in China: Doctor practices, public views and legitimacy based on a controversial case

IF 0.6 Q4 Health Professions Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.24083/apjhm.v17i3.1351
Wayne Tsien, J. Nie, R. Gauld
{"title":"Physician Multi-Site Practice in China: Doctor practices, public views and legitimacy based on a controversial case","authors":"Wayne Tsien, J. Nie, R. Gauld","doi":"10.24083/apjhm.v17i3.1351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Physician multi-site practice (PMP), or dual practice, is commonplace worldwide. Since the mid-2000s, the Chinese government has issued a series of laws and regulations to promote PMP with a goal of improving access to high-quality medical services. However, PMP is widely conducted illegally in China, i.e., without official registration of practicing doctors. This article provides a more nuanced understanding of PMP in China. \nApproach: This article takes a case study approach. It presents a high-profile case exposed through Chinese social media as well as public perceptions through the lens of online comments given by over thirty thousand netizens on a nationally controversial case. \nFindings: Netizens saw benefits to PMP despite being illegal. A culturally-rooted Chinese construction of the triple concepts of ‘Qing’ (sensibility, feeling or sentiment), ‘Li’ (propriety, norm or reason) and ‘Fa’ (rule, regulation or law) is employed to explore the issue of legitimacy of PMP in the Chinese context and explain why PMP has not yet been implemented effectively, and why members of the general public strongly support illegal PMP. \nConclusion: While doctors and the public support illegal PMP, it will be challenging for the Chinese government to gain traction with official PMP policy.","PeriodicalId":42935,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24083/apjhm.v17i3.1351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Physician multi-site practice (PMP), or dual practice, is commonplace worldwide. Since the mid-2000s, the Chinese government has issued a series of laws and regulations to promote PMP with a goal of improving access to high-quality medical services. However, PMP is widely conducted illegally in China, i.e., without official registration of practicing doctors. This article provides a more nuanced understanding of PMP in China. Approach: This article takes a case study approach. It presents a high-profile case exposed through Chinese social media as well as public perceptions through the lens of online comments given by over thirty thousand netizens on a nationally controversial case. Findings: Netizens saw benefits to PMP despite being illegal. A culturally-rooted Chinese construction of the triple concepts of ‘Qing’ (sensibility, feeling or sentiment), ‘Li’ (propriety, norm or reason) and ‘Fa’ (rule, regulation or law) is employed to explore the issue of legitimacy of PMP in the Chinese context and explain why PMP has not yet been implemented effectively, and why members of the general public strongly support illegal PMP. Conclusion: While doctors and the public support illegal PMP, it will be challenging for the Chinese government to gain traction with official PMP policy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国医师多点执业:基于争议案例的医师执业、公众观点与合法性
目的:医师多点执业(PMP),或双重执业,在世界范围内很常见。自2000年代中期以来,中国政府颁布了一系列促进PMP的法律法规,旨在改善获得高质量医疗服务的机会。然而,PMP在中国被广泛地非法进行,即没有执业医生的正式注册。这篇文章提供了对中国PMP更细致的理解。方法:本文采用案例研究的方法。它展示了一个通过中国社交媒体曝光的备受瞩目的案件,以及通过三万多网民对一个全国性争议案件的在线评论,公众的看法。调查结果:尽管PMP是非法的,但网民们看到了它的好处。本文运用“情”、“理”、“法”三重概念的中国文化建构,探讨了PMP在中国语境中的合法性问题,并解释了为什么PMP尚未得到有效实施,以及为什么公众强烈支持非法PMP。结论:虽然医生和公众支持非法PMP,但中国政府要想通过官方PMP政策获得支持将是一项挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management
Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
51
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Gap Analysis of Providing Primary Health Care in Comprehensive Rural Health Centers of Iran Leading for Sustainable Health Systems Welcome to the final issue of the College’s Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management for 2023 Australian Health Services Management Courses: A discussion on syllabus Performance of Primary Health Centres, Provider’s Perspective of Wellbeing, and Patient’s Assessment of the Centres Using a New Tool in Bangalore, India: An empirical study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1