How can knowledge and action be unified： reflections on medical humanistic care actions
10.12026/j.issn.1001-8565.2026.10.15
- VernacularTitle:知行何以统一：关于医学人文关怀行动的思考
- Author:
Yan LIU
1
;
Shuyue HE
1
;
Xingyu LIU
1
;
Tingjuan HUANG
2
;
Xin LIU
3
;
Junjie REN
4
Author Information
1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences， Shanxi Medical University， Taiyuan 030001， China
2. Graduate School， Shanxi Medical University， Taiyuan 030001， China
3. Department of Human Resources， First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University， Taiyuan 030001， China
4. Department of Gastroenterology， First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University， Taiyuan 030001， China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
medical humanistic care;
unification of knowledge and action;
collaborative realization
- From:
Chinese Medical Ethics
2026;39(10):1394-1401
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Enhancing medical humanistic care has become an important management issue for the high-quality development of the healthcare sector. The actions and processes of medical humanistic care represent the result of mutual selection and negotiation between the contextual system and the subject. Therefore， it is necessary to explain the deep mechanisms of the mismatch between the concept and actions through both the macro and micro levels. The structural contradictions， such as the disconnection between medical humanities education theory and practice， the alienation of medical evaluation mechanisms， and the imbalance in resource allocation， as well as the subjective obstacles， such as technical rationality and parametrization of diseases， insufficient understanding of humanistic care by medical professionals， and their cognitive deviations in realizing self-identity， jointly influence the specific practice of medical humanistic care actions. Modern medicine emphasizes patient-centeredness. Thus， it is essential to collaboratively realize medical humanistic care that unifies knowledge and actions through the coupled development of education training and clinical practice， the dual orientation of evaluation systems and institutional incentives， the dynamic balance of resource allocation and demand response， and the symbiotic evolution of individual professional identity and value rationality.
