Published online on February 12, 2026, in ECNU Review of Education , the study was led by Professor Hongbin Wu of Peking University. The research applies policy tools theory to examine how government actors deploy policy instruments across different stages of medical education governance.
The findings show that China's education–healthcare collaboration has undergone a gradual transformation from administratively segmented governance to increasingly coordinated system integration. Early reforms focused primarily on institutional restructuring and the establishment of specialized medical education systems. Over time, policy priorities expanded to include standardized clinical training, residency systems, and interministerial coordination. More recent reforms have placed stronger emphasis on aligning medical education with healthcare service delivery needs, reflecting a systemic shift toward workforce-oriented talent cultivation.
The study finds that the structure of policy tools deployed to promote education–healthcare synergies remains imbalanced. Environmental policy instruments—such as regulatory frameworks, accreditation systems, and governance directives—account for the largest share of policy interventions, followed by supply-side measures such as funding investments and infrastructure development. In contrast, demand-side tools, including workforce incentives, scale forecasting, and institutional motivation mechanisms, are comparatively underutilized. According to the researchers, this imbalance reflects a predominantly state-led governance model that prioritizes regulatory control and resource allocation, which may constrain institutional flexibility and endogenous innovation.
The analysis also highlights coordination challenges among major policy actors. China's SEHS governance is jointly led by the Ministry of Education and the National Health Commission, alongside other central ministries. While this multi-actor framework enables comprehensive policy coverage, differences in institutional mandates and performance priorities create operational tensions. Education authorities tend to emphasize academic training quality and curriculum systems, whereas health authorities focus more heavily on clinical service capacity and workforce deployment.
Another key finding concerns insufficient alignment across the three stages of medical education: undergraduate education, graduate medical education, and continuing professional development. Policies governing these stages often function in parallel rather than as an integrated pipeline, resulting in duplicated training processes, extended certification cycles, and inefficient resource utilization.
"Our analysis shows that education–healthcare collaboration cannot be understood through single policies or isolated reforms," the research team notes. "It is shaped by the interaction of policy tools, institutional actors, and governance stages over time."
The study concludes that optimizing the integration of education and healthcare systems is essential for improving medical talent cultivation and ensuring sustainable healthcare workforce development. The findings offer timely policy insights for China and other countries seeking to strengthen cross-sector collaboration in health professions education.
Reference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311251403495
