高级检索

县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估指标体系构建

Construction of an evaluation index system for development level of county-level chronic disease management centers: a Delphi study

  • 摘要:
    目的 构建县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估指标体系,为评价和比较县域慢病管理中心建设情况提供依据。
    方法 围绕县域慢病管理中心建设重点,结合相关文献,构建候选指标库。遴选29名慢病管理领域专家进行2轮德尔菲咨询确定县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估指标体系,并应用层次分析法确定指标权重。
    结果 2轮德尔菲咨询专家积极程度分别为90.91%和96.67%,专家权威系数分别为0.85和0.84,Kendall′s W分别为0.15和0.20(均P < 0.001)。经过2轮咨询,最终构建了由组织管理与基本条件、慢病管理信息化、县乡慢病协同管理、慢病管理能力建设与质量控制和慢病管理质量与效果5大维度、45个指标组成的县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估指标体系。5大维度的权重分别为0.212 2、0.180 1、0.219 4、0.179 4和0.208 9。
    结论 本研究构建的县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估指标体系较为合理实用,具有代表性和导向性,可为县域慢病管理中心建设水平评估提供参考依据,为后续的建设提供重点方向。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To construct an evaluation index system for the development level of county-level chronic disease management centers, providing a basis for evaluating and comparing the construction of these centers.
    Methods Focusing on the key points of county-level chronic disease management center construction and combining relevant literature, a candidate index database was constructed. Twenty-nine experts in the field of chronic disease management were selected to conduct two rounds of Delphi consultation to determine the evaluation index system for the development level of county-level chronic disease management centers, and the analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the index weights.
    Results The active participation rates of experts in the two rounds of Delphi consultation were 90.91% and 96.67%, respectively, with expert authority coefficients of 0.85 and 0.84, and Kendall′s W of 0.15 and 0.20 (both P < 0.001). After two rounds of consultation, a final evaluation index system for the development level of county-level chronic disease management centers was constructed, consisting of 5 dimensions and 45 indicators: organizational management and basic conditions, chronic disease management informatization, county-township collaborative management of chronic diseases, capacity building and quality control of chronic disease management, and quality and effectiveness of chronic disease management. The weights of the 5 dimensions were 0.212 2, 0.180 1, 0.219 4, 0.179 4, and 0.208 9, respectively.
    Conclusion The evaluation index system for the development level of county-level chronic disease management centers constructed in this study is reasonable, practical, representative, and instructive, providing a reference basis for evaluating the development level of these centers and key directions for subsequent construction.

     

/

返回文章
返回