Research methodology

01 · Define the question

Start with the decision the reader actually faces

Research begins with a practical question: which organization controls the next step, what documents may be requested, which route is national or local, and what must be confirmed before acting. The draft should distinguish navigation from diagnosis, treatment selection, legal advice and outcome prediction.

Each question is assigned a topic, jurisdiction, intended reader, likely time-sensitivity and editorial risk level. A national rule is not presented as proof of one city's implementation, and a hospital page is not presented as a general rule for every provider.

02 · Select sources

Use the body responsible for the claim

The preferred source is the organization with authority or direct operational responsibility for the fact being described.

Search snippets, copied aggregators, anonymous posts, unsourced rankings and AI-generated summaries are not treated as evidence. A translated or archived copy may help locate material, but the current controlling source should be checked where available.

03 · Extract and scope

Record what the source says—and what it does not establish

Guide evidence records the source title, publisher, URL, access date and a scope note where needed. Research should preserve distinctions between law, policy, service notice, provider statement and practical editorial suggestion.

• Record the responsible publisher and page, not only a search result.
• Note geographic scope, affected group, effective date and known exceptions.
• Preserve exact numbers, units, telephone routes, eligibility terms and deadlines for separate checking.
• Label an editorial preparation tip as guidance rather than attributing it to a source that did not say it.
• Escalate contradictions, inaccessible sources and unclear supersession instead of silently choosing one version.

04 · Draft with AI assistance

AI helps organize research; it is not an authority

The current corpus is AI-assisted. AI may help generate search terms, organize source notes, identify missing fields, prepare plain-English drafts and run consistency checks. Its output is a draft to verify, not a source, professional opinion or publication approval.

The workflow must not invent a source, quotation, reviewer, credential, hospital service or legal conclusion. Where no qualified human reviewer is recorded, the page must not imply clinician or lawyer review. See the separate AI use policy for technology-specific limits.

05 · Map claims to evidence

Critical claims need a traceable source path

The intended standard is claim-level traceability for emergency routes, numeric thresholds, prices, deadlines, eligibility, regulated medicine rules, legal-process statements and other claims that may materially affect a decision.

High-impact claims should be linked to stable source identifiers, and checks should detect unsupported numbers, dates, eligibility rules and legal or clinical conclusions.

06 · Translation and terminology

Keep the Chinese term when it helps the reader act

English explanations should include the useful Chinese institution, department, document or process name where it helps a reader search, call or present the correct item. A literal translation should not replace an established English meaning, and one local label should not be generalized nationwide.

Clinical translation requires qualified bilingual medical review, especially for negation, medicine names, anatomy, dosage, numbers, units and emergency language. No named bilingual medical editor is currently recorded, so content crossing that gate is not described as professionally reviewed.

07 · Hospital and service profiles

Describe observable access—not unsupported quality

A hospital profile may report its official name, location, provider type, published appointment routes, stated language support, international-service information and emergency access. Each operational field should point to provider or responsible public evidence and carry a review date.

Inclusion is not endorsement. The directory does not infer clinical quality from brand recognition, advertising, building size, international branding or payment. Unsupported “best,” “safest” and guaranteed-outcome claims are excluded.

08 · Review, expiry and correction

A publication decision is separate from drafting

Source compilation, editorial approval, professional review and technical publication eligibility are separate records. The applicable risk level determines which records must exist. An overdue review, material source conflict or withdrawn service should trigger rechecking and may require the page to be withdrawn.

A material correction should identify the changed claim, supporting evidence and update date. Safety-critical errors receive priority, and the correction stays tied to the affected page and its source record.

Guide pages display their compilation and review dates. For public R1 navigation material, a passed review date signals rechecking and direct confirmation rather than automatic disappearance. Withdrawal or an unresolved critical source conflict removes the page and its discovery links together, while the emergency-contact route keeps a stricter dated gate. Monitoring and an operational withdrawal procedure support timely removal when a material source changes.

09 · Current limitations

What this methodology does not prove

A well-documented method cannot prove that every source remains current after its access date, that a provider will accept a particular patient, that an insurer will cover a claim, or that a general rule applies to an individual case. It also cannot substitute for named professional review where clinical safety or legal rights are involved.

Reliability also depends on regular source checks, appropriate external review for high-risk topics, privacy safeguards, monitoring and an operational correction and withdrawal process.

Methodology reviewed: 17 July 2026