Healthcare education is increasingly moving beyond the biomedical paradigm to incorporate medical humanities, highlighting a person-centred approach. Integrative medicine encompasses biomedical sciences as well as social and cultural factors to treat the whole person, focusing on optimal health and healing. These shifts are evident in the rise of competency-based frameworks that aim to integrate ethical values, cultural sensitivity and interdisciplinary knowledge. Despite these developments, limited research has examined how such frameworks differ across countries and health professions based on distinct academic traditions and conceptual emphases. To address this research gap, this study conducted a comparative analysis of seven national-level health professional competency frameworks for six countries: the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, South Korea and China. Using Mayring’s structured content analysis method, documents were analysed across four categories: competency domains, keyword mapping, structural features and sociocultural characteristics. To support interpretive depth, the Health Systems Science (HSS) framework was applied as a lens for understanding conceptual convergence and divergence in the person-centred approach. While all seven frameworks highlighted core areas such as communication, professionalism and patient-centred care, their structures and value orientations varied. The frameworks for the UK and Australia focused on moral accountability, while those for the USA and Canada emphasised functional and systems-based competencies. Frameworks for China and South Korea reflected traditional philosophies and professional identity formation. The HSS framework offered a valuable structure for aligning both topic-based domains and personal attributes across diverse educational systems, especially highlighting a person-centred approach to consolidate integrative medicine. The findings suggest that while each framework has distinct strengths, gaps remain—particularly in addressing social competencies, such as advocacy and cultural sensitivity. These areas warrant further integration, education and validation to support socially accountable and systems-oriented professional development.
Lee et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: