高级检索

我国疫苗临床试验政策文本量化分析:基于“工具—要素—力度”三维分析框架

A quantitative study of China′s policy texts of vaccine clinical trials based on "tool–element–strength" three-dimensional analytical framework

  • 摘要:
    目的 剖析我国疫苗临床试验政策文本,揭示其质量管理特点、问题及改进方向。
    方法 通过检索国务院及相关部门官方网站,获取2001年1月—2024年12月中央层面发布的17份政策文件,构建“工具—要素—力度”三维分析框架,运用内容分析法和潜在狄利克雷分配(LDA)主题模型,深入挖掘政策文本的潜在主题结构。
    结果 疫苗临床试验政策工具使用失衡,激励型(1.23%,2条)、信息劝诚型(3.09%,5条)、能力建设型(7.41%,12条)和系统变革型(9.89%,16条)工具运用不足,政策要素配置不均;临床试验设计(4.94%,8条)、对象(3.09%,5条)和内容(6.17%,10条)的关注度较低。政策力度分布严重失衡,且各要素、工具和力度之间缺乏协同匹配。政策主题整体协同效果良好,共同推动疫苗试验监管体系的完善。
    结论 应提高政策工具运用的均衡性,优化政策结构,关注疫苗临床试验设计,灵活应用多种设计方法,提升疫苗试验的科学性和实用性。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To analyze the policy texts of vaccine clinical trials in China and identify the characteristics, issues, and directions for improvement in the quality management.
    Methods Seventeen policy documents issued at the central level between January 2001 and December 2024 were obtained through a systematic search of the official websites of the State Council and relevant ministries. A three-dimensional analytical framework consisting of tools, elements, and strength was developed, integrating content analysis and the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model to uncover the latent thematic structures within these policy texts.
    Results The findings indicated a significant imbalance in the deployment of policy tools for vaccine clinical trials. The utilization of inducements (1.23%, 2 codes), symbolic and hortatory tools (3.09%, 5 codes), capacity-building tools (7.41%, 12 codes), and system-changing tools (9.89%, 16 codes) remained insufficient. Furthermore, the distribution of policy elements was uneven, with limited emphases on clinical trial design (4.94%, 8 codes), trial participants (3.09%, 5 codes), and trial contents (6.17%, 10 codes). Policy intensity also exhibited substantial disparities, lacking synergy and alignment among policy elements, tools, and intensity. The overall thematic coordination of the policies was effective, jointly contributing to the improvement of the vaccine trial regulatory system.
    Conclusions In the future, efforts should be made to enhance the balanced utilization of policy tools, optimize policy structures, prioritize vaccine clinical trial design, and adopt diverse and flexible design methodologies, thus improving the scientific rigor and practical applicability of vaccine trials.

     

/

返回文章
返回