上海交通大学学报（医学版）

›› 2012, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (12): 1631-.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2012.12.023

• 论著（卫生事业管理） • 上一篇    下一篇

中国公共卫生学院评价方法研究

张 哲1, 马司宇2, 陶婧婧1, 袁素维1, 马 进1   

  1. 1.上海交通大学 公共卫生学院, 上海 200025； 2.上海交通大学 医学院附属瑞金医院临床医学院, 上海 200025
  • 出版日期:2012-12-28 发布日期:2012-12-31
  • 通讯作者: 马 进, 电子信箱: majin@shsmu.edu.cn。
  • 作者简介:张 哲（1990—）, 女, 硕士生；电子信箱: strawberry1125@126.com。
  • 基金资助:

    上海市公共卫生重点学科建设项目（12GWZX0601）

Methodological research on evaluation of schools of public health in China

ZHANG Zhe1, MA Si-yu2, TAO Jing-jing1, YUAN Su-wei1, MA Jin1   

  1. 1.School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200025, China；2.School of Clinical Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Online:2012-12-28 Published:2012-12-31
  • Supported by:

    Shanghai Public Health Key Discipline Project, 12GWZX0601

PDF (PC)

1043

摘要：

目的 建立科学、可行的公共卫生学院评估体系。方法 通过文献回顾法初步确定评价中国公共卫生学院的评价指标。采用德尔菲专家咨询法进行了两轮咨询。第一轮：选取全国公共卫生高等教育机构的专家（n=83）为咨询对象，以电子邮件形式进行相关评价指标及权重咨询；第二轮：根据第一轮咨询答复情况，对有回应的专家进行第二轮咨询，对指标进一步打分筛选，最终确定评价指标体系及指标权重。根据结果链的逻辑关系即投入、过程、结果，分3个层级构建指标体系框架。结果 德尔菲专家咨询法第一轮回收有效问卷15份，有效率18.1%；第二轮回收有效问卷10份，有效率66.7%。第二轮的平均答复时间为2.30 d，较第一轮的3.87 d缩短1.57 d。被咨询专家的平均年龄超过48岁，相关领域工作年限超过23年。第二轮咨询的各级指标评分经肯德尔和谐系数检验，均具有统计学意义（P=0.000）。专家的评分结果具有一致性，根据投入、过程、产出3个层次最终确定了7个一级指标（人力投入、财物投入、管理模式、学院文化、人力产出、科研产出和社会服务）和40个二级指标及其权重，构成中国公共卫生学院评价指标体系。结论 上级拨款与教学补助、教师博士学位所占比例、高级人才引进、科研经费投入以及国际性期刊发表论文数（专指SCI数据库收录论文）是中国公共卫生学院评价指标体系中权重最大的5个二级指标。对部分难以量化的指标定性评价或选择标准分层评估，建议学院加强对社会服务类指标的重视，全方位提升综合水平。

关键词: 公共卫生学院, 评价指标, 德尔菲专家咨询法

Abstract:

Objective To establish a scientific and feasible indicator system for evaluation of schools of public health in China. Methods Literature review was conducted to initially explore the indicators of evaluation of schools of public health in China. Delphi method was employed to carry out two rounds of expert consultations. In the first round, experts were selected from higher education institutes of public health in China as objects for consultation (n=83), and questionnaires on evaluation indicators and weights were sent to them by E-mail. In the second round, new questionnaires on evaluation indicators and weights based on the results of the first-round consultation were sent to experts with response to the first-round consultation. Then, the evaluation indicators and weights were ultimately established. The concept of results chain (including input, process and output) was employed to set the framework of the indicator system. Results Fifteen copies of effective questionnaires were recovered in the first-round consultation, and the effective response rate was 18.1%. In the second-round consultation, 10 copies of effective questionnaires were received, and the effective response rate was 66.7%. The average response time of the second-round consultation was 2.30 d, 1.57 d shorter than the first-round consultation (3.87 d). The average age of experts involved was more than 48 years old, with the average related working time over 23 years. Through Kendall-W test, the score given by the experts in the second-round consultation to each indicator of each grade was of concordance with statistical significance (P=0.000). The evaluation indicator system of schools of public health in China was finally set up by 3 levels (input, process, output), which was made up of 7 first-grade indicators (human input, property input, management mode, school culture, human output, scientific output and social services), 40 second-grade indicators and their related weights. Conclusion “Superior's funds and subsidy”, “percentage of faculties with doctor's degree”, “introduction of advanced talents”, “scientific research funding input” and “number of publications of international journals （cited by SCI）” are the 5 second-grade indicators with largest weight in evaluation indicator system of schools of public health in China. Qualitative evaluation or layered assessment by choosing standards can be applied to such indicators which are hard to quantify. Schools of public health should lay more emphasis on indicators of social work and increase the overall levels as well.

Key words: school of public health, evaluation indicator, Delphi method