Abstract
OBJECTIVE: National health planning is the cornerstone of health system governance, yet comparative analyses between China and ASEAN member states remain fragmented. This study quantitatively evaluates and compares the national health planning documents of China and ASEAN countries to identify structural consistencies, strategic divergences, and areas for cross-border cooperation. METHODS: Text mining and the Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) index model were used to analyze 12 national health planning documents. A multi-dimensional evaluation system comprising 9 primary variables and 40 secondary indicators was constructed. Policies were scored using binary logic to generate PMC index and surface visualizations, revealing the structural strengths and weaknesses of each nation’s planning architecture.The health planning and policy documents were sourced from the WHO Country Planning Cycle Database and the government official websites of ASEAN member states. RESULTS: The region demonstrates a high degree of policy isomorphism and maturity, with PMC indices ranging from 7.56 to 8.33. Ten countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, and China achieved an “Excellent’ grade, while Vietnam and Timor-Leste were rated “Good”. Text mining revealed a shared transition from infrastructure expansion to quality, systemic integration and digital governance. However, structural heterogeneity exists: while all nations excelled in defining stakeholders, significant gaps were found in X9 Policy Period, where China demonstrated superior long-term strategic depth compared to the static timelines of many ASEAN plans. Additionally, variances in alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were observed in policy prioritization. CONCLUSION: China and ASEAN countries exhibit strong structural convergence in health governance, characterized by clear objectives and stakeholder delineation. However, optimizing long-term temporal resilience and explicitly aligning domestic priorities with global sustainability targets remain critical areas for improvement. The findings advocate for a “Digital Health Interoperability” mechanism and a “Cross-Border Policy Evaluation” framework to deepen regional health community building. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.