高级检索

医防融合视角下医院公共卫生综合评价指标体系构建

Construction of a comprehensive evaluation index system for public health in hospitals from the perspective of integrated medicine and prevention

  • 摘要:
    目的 构建医院公共卫生综合评价指标体系,为评价医院公共卫生工作开展情况提供依据。
    方法 通过查阅相关文献和政策文件并经课题组的多轮专题讨论,拟定评价指标体系初稿;采用2轮德尔菲专家咨询法筛选评价指标,构建医院公共卫生综合评价指标体系,运用层次分析法计算各指标权重,通过SPSS 20.0 统计软件分析专家积极程度、权威程度、意见协调程度。
    结果 2轮专家咨询问卷回收率均为100%,专家权威系数分别为0.869和0.902,专家权威程度较高;专家意见协调系数Kendall′s W分别为0.245、0.281(P<0.05),专家意见一致性较好。构建的医院公共卫生综合评价指标体系包括3个一级指标、8个二级指标和25个三级指标,一级指标为组织资源、业务流程和学科发展,其权重分别为0.257、0.451和0.292,各指标权重分配合理。
    结论 本研究构建的医院公共卫生综合评价指标体系具有较好的科学性和可靠性,可为医院公共卫生工作的科学评价提供参考。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To construct a comprehensive evaluation index system for public health in hospitals, providing a basis for evaluating the implementation of public health work in hospitals.
    Methods An initial draft of the evaluation index system was formulated through a review of relevant literature and policy documents and multiple rounds of thematic discussions by the research team. A two-round Delphi expert consultation method was used to screen the evaluation indicators and construct a comprehensive evaluation index system for public health in hospitals. The analytic hierarchy process was used to calculate the weight of each indicator, and SPSS 20.0 statistical software was used to analyze expert engagement, authority, and the degree of consensus.
    Results The recovery rate of the expert consultation questionnaires in both rounds was 100%. The expert authority coefficients were 0.869 and 0.902, respectively, indicating a high level of expert authority. The Kendall′s W coefficients of expert opinion coordination were 0.245 and 0.281, respectively (P < 0.05), indicating good consistency among expert opinions. The constructed comprehensive evaluation index system for public health in hospitals includes three first-level indicators, eight second-level indicators, and 25 third-level indicators. The first-level indicators are organizational resources, business processes, and disciplinary development, with weights of 0.257, 0.451, and 0.292, respectively. The weight distribution of each indicator is reasonable.
    Conclusions The comprehensive evaluation index system for public health in hospitals constructed in this study has good scientific validity and reliability and can provide a reference for the scientific evaluation of public health work in hospitals.

     

/

返回文章
返回