Quantitative analysis reveals regulatory authorities' impact on rehabilitation policies in China, highlighting coverage gaps.
Purpose Rehabilitation policies constitute a critical guiding framework for national and regional development. This study aims to use policy tools to analyze the specific content and structural characteristics of China’s rehabilitation-related policies from 2010 to 2023, and provide a new reference perspective for international rehabilitation policy research. Materials and methods A three-dimensional analytical framework of “policy tool type–policy theme characteristic–stakeholder” was developed. Data were drawn from nation-level policies on rehabilitation medical services issued by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China and the National Health Commission. Based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 41 valid policy documents were selected. NVivo (release 14.23.1) was used for four-level coding, and reliability and validity tests were conducted. Policy texts were first quantified, followed by descriptive analysis. Results A total of 298 codes were identified. Among policy tool types, environmental tools accounted for the highest proportion (58.05%), followed by supply-side tools (32.98%), while demand-side tools had the lowest proportion (9.06%). From the stakeholder perspective, provider organizations (42.95%) were the core target, followed by regulatory authorities (19.13%) and rehabilitation service recipients (19.80%). Clinical practitioners and the rehabilitation capital market each accounted for 9.06%, with most of the policies related to passive response-type policies. Conclusion China’s current rehabilitation medical service policies have insufficient use of supply-side and demand-side tools, and uneven policy coverage among stakeholders. The structural application of policy tools should be optimized, particularly by strengthening the role of demand-side policy tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: