高级检索
周亚霖, 张艺馨, 田新宇, 韩扬, 孙成玺, 马景宇, 李群, 许真, 马吉祥. 基于德尔菲法中国县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2023, 39(9): 1180-1184. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1141479
引用本文: 周亚霖, 张艺馨, 田新宇, 韩扬, 孙成玺, 马景宇, 李群, 许真, 马吉祥. 基于德尔菲法中国县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系构建[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2023, 39(9): 1180-1184. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1141479
ZHOU Yalin, ZHANHG Yixin, TIAN Xinyu, HAN Yang, SUN Chengxi, MA Jingyu, LI Qun, XU Zhen, MA Jixiang. Establishment of an indicator system for assessing public health emergency response capacity at county/district level : a Delphi study[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2023, 39(9): 1180-1184. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1141479
Citation: ZHOU Yalin, ZHANHG Yixin, TIAN Xinyu, HAN Yang, SUN Chengxi, MA Jingyu, LI Qun, XU Zhen, MA Jixiang. Establishment of an indicator system for assessing public health emergency response capacity at county/district level : a Delphi study[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2023, 39(9): 1180-1184. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1141479

基于德尔菲法中国县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系构建

Establishment of an indicator system for assessing public health emergency response capacity at county/district level : a Delphi study

  • 摘要:
      目的  构建中国县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系,为评估县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力水平及制定有针对性的应急能力提高措施提供参考依据。
      方法   基于理论研究和文献分析初步确定县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系,遴选18名从事相关领域的专家进行3轮德尔菲法专家咨询,应用层次分析法计算各级指标的权重。
      结果   3轮专家咨询的积极系数分别为100.0%、88.9%和88.9%,专家权威系数分别为0.87、0.84和0.87;3轮专家意见协调系数分别为0.207、0.210 和0.295(均P < 0.001),专家意见协调程度较好;经过3轮专家咨询后建立了县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力的评估指标体系,包括一级指标5个、二级指标19个、三级指标61个,最终专家对各指标重要性和可行性评分分别为(4.83 ± 0.13)分和(4.48 ± 0.21)分,变异系数分别为0.00~0.18和0.07~0.22;在构建的评估指标中,一级指标权重为0.094~0.290,二级指标权重为0.011~0.119,三级指标权重为0.001~0.087。
      结论  构建的县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力评估指标体系可用于评价县(区)突发公共卫生事件应急能力的工具,具有一定的可信度,但其信度和效度及应用效果仍需进一步评估。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To establish a set of indicators for assessing the public health emergency response capacity at county/district level in China.
      Methods  An indicator system for evaluating public health emergency response capacity at county/district level was initially formulated based on theoretical research and literature review. Three rounds of Delphi consultation were conducted among 18 senior professionals to determine the indicators and their weights of the system using hierarchical analysis method.
      Results  For the 3 rounds of expert consultation, the positive coefficients of the were 100.0%, 88.9%, and 88.9%; the expert authority coefficients were 0.87, 0.84, and 0.87; and the coordination coefficients of expert opinions were 0.207, 0.210, and 0.295 (all P < 0.001), indicating a good coordination of the experts′ opinions. The finally established indicator system for assessing public health emergency response capacity at county/district level included 5 first-, 19 second-, and 61 third-level indicators. For the third round of Delphi consultation, the experts′ mean scores and ranges of coefficients of variance for importance/feasibility of all the indicators were 4.83 ± 0.13/4.48 ± 0.21 and 0.00 – 0.18/0.07 – 0.22, respectively. The weights for the first-, second-, and third-level indicators ranged from 0.094 to 0.290, 0.011 to 0.119, and 0.001 to 0.087, respectively.
      Conclusion  The established indicator system could be used to develop tools for evaluating public health emergency response capacities at county/district level, while the reliability and validity of the indicator system need to be assessed further.

     

/

返回文章
返回