高级检索
刘意, 徐巧华, 高欣, 朱晓磊, 吴静, 殷召雪. 老年健康服务体系建设状况评估指标构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2022, 38(10): 1233-1236. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1137563
引用本文: 刘意, 徐巧华, 高欣, 朱晓磊, 吴静, 殷召雪. 老年健康服务体系建设状况评估指标构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2022, 38(10): 1233-1236. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1137563
LIU Yi, XU Qiao-hua, GAO Xin, . Establishment of indexes for evaluation on construction of elderly health service system: a Delphi consultation study[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2022, 38(10): 1233-1236. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1137563
Citation: LIU Yi, XU Qiao-hua, GAO Xin, . Establishment of indexes for evaluation on construction of elderly health service system: a Delphi consultation study[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2022, 38(10): 1233-1236. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1137563

老年健康服务体系建设状况评估指标构建

Establishment of indexes for evaluation on construction of elderly health service system: a Delphi consultation study

  • 摘要:
      目的  构建老年健康服务体系建设状况的评估指标,为开展老年健康工作提供建设标准。
      方法  采用改良德尔菲专家咨询法构建老年健康服务体系建设状况评估指标,并运用层次分析法计算确定各指标权重。
      结果  21名专家2轮专家咨询的积极系数均为100 %,专家权威系数分别为0.71和0.72;第1轮和第2轮专家意见协调系数分别为0.203和0.397,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老年健康服务体系建设状况的评估指标,包括一级指标6个、二级指标16个,最终专家对评估各指标的重要性评分均数为7.00~8.50,变异系数为0.07~0.20;在构建的评估指标中,一级指标权重为0.08~0.23,其中疾病诊治的权重最大(0.232),安宁疗护的权重最小(0.079),所有二级指标在整个指标体系中的综合权重为0.032~0.110。
      结论  构建的老年健康服务体系建设状况评估指标具备较强的科学性、适用性,可为老年健康服务体系建设状况的评估提供参考依据。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To establish indexes for the evaluation on the construction status of elderly health service system for providing references to the development of elderly health work standards.
      Methods  An index frame was preliminarily constructed through literature study. Modified Delphi consultations were conducted online among 21 experts to assess the indexes for the evaluation on construction of elderly health service system. The weight for each of the indexes was determined with analytic hierarchy process.
      Results  Both positive coefficients for the two rounds of expert consultation were 100% and the expert authority coefficients were 0.71 and 0.72, respectively. The opinion coordination coefficients were 0.203 and 0.397 for the first and second round of expert consultation, indicating a significant opinion coordination of the experts (both P < 0.05). The finally established indexes included 6 first- and 16 second-level indicators; the mean important scores of all the indexes are between 7.00 and 8.50 according to the experts′ grading and the indexes′ coefficients of variation are from 0.07 to 0.20. The weights for the first-level indexes are between 0.08 and 0.23, with a maximum weight for the index of disease diagnosis and treatment and a minimum weight for the index of palliative care. The comprehensive weights of all secondary indexes are between 0.032 and 0.110.
      Conclusion  A set of indexes for evaluating the construction of elderly health service system was established and the indexes may provide a reference while performing the evaluation.

     

/

返回文章
返回