论文部分内容阅读
〔目的〕结合有关文献,筛选输入性登革热风险预警量化评价的指标,构建科学、合理、准确和量化的输入性登革热风险预警评价指标体系。〔方法〕采用德尔菲法(Delphi)设计,就指标体系的每一项指标选定专家进行征询。按专家对各指标的重要性评价,赋予每个指标相应的权重。〔结果〕输入性登革热风险预警评价指标细化成3级70项要求,编制成征询表。选定的专家按重要性分值1、3、5分对评价指标进行评价,剔除了59项3级指标要求中的9项(第1、2级指标只能确定权重,不能剔除),保留了50项(占84.7%);专家对整体《评价表》的重要性评价均值为3.50,1级指标要求为3.85;2级指标要求为3.56;3级指标要求为3.44,显示《评价表》的重要性较高,专家的意见集中程度较好。专家对各项指标的协调程度可以用该项评价的变异系数V表示。评价表中“疫情监测”的变异系数最低,为0.11;说明专家对这项指标的意见协调性最好,对其重要性认识一致性较高。专家对总体指标意见的协调系数为0.33(P<0.05),而对1级指标的意见协调程度最高,协调系数为0.56(P<0.05);其次为2级指标,协调系数为0.48(P<0.05),对3级指标的协调性较低,协调系数为0.31(P<0.05),可以判断本次研究的专家意见协调程度是较好的。〔结论〕通过对专家的问卷式征询,构成了由70项指标(1级指标6项,2级指标14项和3级指标50项)及其相应的权重组成的、3级树状结构的《输入性登革热风险预警评价量化指标体系评价表》。
[Objective] To screen the index of quantitative evaluation of early warning of dengue risk based on the relevant literature and establish a scientific, reasonable, accurate and quantitative indicator system of early warning of dengue risk. [Method] Using Delphi design, we consulted selected experts for each index of the index system. According to the evaluation of the importance of each index by experts, each index is given the corresponding weight. [Results] The index of early warning and evaluation of imported dengue risk was subdivided into 3 levels and 70 requirements, and prepared as a consultation form. The selected experts evaluated the evaluation indexes according to the importance score of 1, 3 and 5 points, excluding 9 of the 59 3-level index requirements (the first and second level indexes can only determine the weight and can not be excluded) 50 (accounting for 84.7%). The experts’ overall assessment of the importance of the “evaluation form” was 3.50, that of the first grade was 3.85, that of the second grade was 3.56, that of the third grade was 3.44, The importance of higher, expert opinion is better. The experts’ degree of coordination of various indicators can be expressed by the coefficient of variation V of this evaluation. In the evaluation table, the coefficient of variation of “epidemic situation monitoring ” is the lowest, which is 0.11; it shows that experts have the best coordination of opinions on this indicator and the consistency of their understanding of importance is high. The coordination coefficient of the experts on the overall indicators was 0.33 (P <0.05), while the coordination of the indicators on the first level was the highest, with the coordination coefficient being 0.56 (P <0.05), followed by the second-level indicator with the coordination coefficient being 0.48 (P < 0.05). The coordination of the third level indicators was low, and the coordination coefficient was 0.31 (P <0.05). It can be concluded that the coordination of expert opinions in this study is better. [Conclusions] Through the questionnaire consultation with experts, it consists of 70 indicators (6 first-level indicators, 14 second-level indicators and 50 third-level indicators) and their corresponding weights. The three-level tree structure “Input dengue risk early warning evaluation quantitative index system evaluation table.”