文章摘要
洪志恒,倪大新,曹洋,孟玲,涂文校,李雷雷,李群,金连梅.中国突发公共卫生事件监测系统评价指标体系初探[J].中华流行病学杂志,2015,36(6):547-551
中国突发公共卫生事件监测系统评价指标体系初探
Development of an index system for the comprehensive evaluation on public health emergency events surveillance system in China
收稿日期:2014-11-28  出版日期:2015-06-09
DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2015.06.002
中文关键词: 突发公共卫事件;监测系统;评价;指标体系
英文关键词: Public health emergency events;Surveillance system;Evaluation;Index system
基金项目:国家卫生行业科研专项(201202006)
作者单位E-mail
洪志恒 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
倪大新 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
曹洋 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
孟玲 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
涂文校 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
李雷雷 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
李群 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心  
金连梅 102206 北京, 中国疾病预防控制中心卫生应急中心 jin_lm@163.com 
摘要点击次数: 1354
全文下载次数: 1674
中文摘要:
      目的 探索建立我国突发公共卫生事件监测系统评价指标体系,为开展突发公共卫生事件报告质量评价工作提供依据.方法 结合我国突发公共卫生事件监测系统的特点,通过文献综述初步设计指标框架,采用Delphi法对效度与信度进行评价,进而遴选出指标体系.结果 突发公共卫生事件监测系统评价指标分为3级:一级指标4项(包括组织体系、网络平台、监测报告和分析利用),二级指标16项,三级指标70项.在一级指标中,组织体系14项,占20.00%;网络平台21项,占30.00%;监测报告24项,占34.29%;分析利用11项,占15.71%.各指标重要性平均得分为4.29(3.77~4.94)分,平均变异系数为0.14(0.12~0.16).各指标α信度系数均数为0.84(0.81~0.89).不同指标适用的评估对象不同.结论 本指标体系一级指标符合监测系统的特征及目的;二级指标明确了管理控制的核心内容;三级指标可获得性、操作性强.本指标专家认同率高,效度与信度良好,对开展突发公共卫生事件监测系统评估工作具有参考意义.
英文摘要:
      Objective To establish a comprehensive evaluation index system for the China Public Health Emergency Events Surveillance System (CPHEESS). Methods A draft index system was built through literature review and under the consideration of the characteristics on CPHEESS. Delphi method was adapted to determine the final index system. Results The index system was divided into primary,secondary and tertiary levels. There were 4 primary indicators:System structure,Network platform,Surveillance implementation reports with Data analysis and utilization. There were 16 secondary and 70 tertiary indicators being set,with System structure including 14 tertiary indicators (accounted for 20.00%),21 Network platforms (accounted for 30.00%). Twenty-four Surveillance implementation reports (accounted for 34.29%),11 Data analysis and utilization (accounted for 15.71%). The average score of importance of each indicators was 4.29 (3.77-4.94),with an average coefficient variation as 0.14(0.12-0.16). The mean Chronbach's α index was 0.84(0.81-0.89). The adaptability of each related facilities indicator was specified. Conclusion The primary indicators were set in accordance with the characteristics and goals of the surveillance systems. Secondary indicators provided key elements in the management and control of the system while the tertiary indicators were available and operative. The agreement rate of experts was high with good validity and reliability. This index system could be used for CPHEESS in future.
查看全文   Html全文     查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭