高级检索

基于德尔菲法和层次分析法的机构健康传播工作评价指标体系构建

Construction of an evaluation indicator system for institutional health communication based on the Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process

  • 摘要:
    目的 构建一套科学有效的评价指标体系,适用于我国各级各类参与健康传播工作的机构,包括但不限于医疗卫生部门、科普部门、媒体、高校等,推动健康传播工作的规范化与效果提升。
    方法 基于“投入–过程–产出”模式和拉斯韦尔“5W”传播模式初步确立指标框架。采用德尔菲法邀请14名专家筛选和优化评价指标,结合层次分析法确定指标权重。
    结果 2轮问卷回收率均为100%,专家熟悉程度为0.89,判断系数为0.94,专家权威系数为0.91。2轮咨询的变异系数均<0.3;总体协调系数分别为0.222、0.268(均P<0.001)。最终形成的指标体系包含3项一级指标,涵盖投入、过程和产出;12项二级指标,涵盖传播主体、传播对象、传播渠道等要素;以及38项三级指标,涵盖年度预算、工作计划、特色IP、奖项表彰等。其中,一级指标权重为0.063~0.562,二级指标权重为0.043~0.600,三级指标权重为0.001~0.171。
    结论 该指标体系涵盖健康传播工作的核心要素,可以更合理地评价机构的健康传播工作,提高健康传播工作的针对性和有效性。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To construct a scientific and effective evaluation indicator system applicable to institutions at all levels involved in health communication in China, including but not limited to medical and health departments, science popularization departments, media, and universities, to promote the standardization and effectiveness of health communication.
    Methods Based on the "input-process-output" model and Lasswell′s "5W" communication model, an initial indicator framework was established. The Delphi method was used to invite 14 experts to screen and optimize the evaluation indicators, and the analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the indicator weights.
    Results The questionnaire recovery rate for both rounds was 100%. The expert familiarity was 0.89, the judgment coefficient was 0.94, and the expert authority coefficient was 0.91. The coefficients of variation for both rounds of consultation were < 0.3, and the overall coordination coefficients were 0.222 and 0.268, respectively (both P < 0.001). The final indicator system includes three first-level indicators, covering input, process, and output; 12 second-level indicators, covering communication subjects, communication objects, communication channels, and other elements; and 38 third-level indicators, covering annual budget, work plan, characteristic intellectual property (IP), awards, and other aspects. The weights of the first-level indicators ranged from 0.063 to 0.562, the second-level indicators from 0.043 to 0.600, and the third-level indicators from 0.001 to 0.171.
    Conclusions This indicator system covers the core elements of health communication work and can more reasonably evaluate the health communication work of institutions, improving the pertinence and effectiveness of health communication.

     

/

返回文章
返回