高级检索
王高玲, 蒋欣静, 张怡青. 慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系Delphi法构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(1): 71-74. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1113588
引用本文: 王高玲, 蒋欣静, 张怡青. 慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系Delphi法构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(1): 71-74. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1113588
Gao-ling WANG, Xin-jing JIANG, Yi-qing ZHANG. Establishment of an evaluation index system for health literacy among chronic disease patients with Delphi method[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(1): 71-74. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1113588
Citation: Gao-ling WANG, Xin-jing JIANG, Yi-qing ZHANG. Establishment of an evaluation index system for health literacy among chronic disease patients with Delphi method[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(1): 71-74. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1113588

慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系Delphi法构建

Establishment of an evaluation index system for health literacy among chronic disease patients with Delphi method

  • 摘要:
      目的  基于Delphi法构建慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系,为提高慢性病的管理效果提供参考依据。
      方法  采用Delphi专家咨询法构建慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系,应用Fuzzy综合评判法计算各级指标的权重系数。
      结果  2轮专家咨询的积极系数分别为90.0 %和96.3 %,专家权威系数分别为0.802 5和0.868 9;重要性、可操作性和敏感性第1轮专家意见协调系数分别为0.336 5、0.365 3和0.268 9,第2轮专家意见协调系数分别为0.451 8、0.461 8和0.441 9,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05),专家意见的协调性较好;经过2轮专家咨询后建立了慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系,该指标体系包括一级指标4个、二级指标42个,重要性、可操作性和敏感性的权重值分别为0.386、0.325和0.289。
      结论  本研究构建的慢性病患者健康素养评价指标体系具有客观性、可靠性和可取性,可为慢性病患者健康素养的评价提供依据。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To construct an evaluation index system of health literacy for patients with chronic diseases with Delphi method and to provide references for improving the efficiency of chronic disease management.
      Methods  Using Delphi expert consulting method, an evaluation index system of health literacy for patients with chronic diseases was constructed and using Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the weight coefficients of the indexes at all levels were calculated.
      Results  The positive coefficients of the two rounds of expert consultation were 90.0 % and 96.3 % and the expert coefficients were 0.802 5 and 0.868 9, respectively. The coordination coefficient of importance, feasibility, and sensitivity of the expert opinion in the first round consultation were 0.336 5, 0.365 3, and 0.268 9 and those in the second round were 0.451 8, 0.4618, and 0.441 9, respectively, with statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05); the results suggested a good coordination of the experts’ opinions. The evaluation index system of health literacy for patients with chronic diseases was established after the two rounds of expert consultation and the system included 4 indicators of first level and 42 of secondary level; the weight values for importance, feasibility, and sensitivity of the indicator system were 0.386, 0.325, and 0.289, respectively.
      Conclusion  The established evaluation index system of health literacy for chronic disease patients is of objectivity, reliability, and applicability and could be used for health literacy assessment in the patients with chronic diseases.

     

/

返回文章
返回