采用德尔菲法构建精神卫生立法评价指标框架

发布时间：2018-06-19 21:04

本文选题：德尔菲法 + 精神卫生立法　；参考：《中南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：评估《WHO有关精神卫生立法的检查清单》各类指标的重要性方法：采用改进的德尔菲法(Delphi)对来自5个不同的省市的专家进行两轮函询,将《WHO有关精神卫生立法的检查清单》27类指标进行评分。函询表收回后,将数据输入EXCEL, SPSS18.0软件包进行分析。结果：完成两轮咨询的专家共15名,平均年龄43.80±4.83岁,平均工作年限20.13±3.11年,具有正高级技术职称的专家占26.7%,具有硕士以上学位的专家占80%。在前后两轮咨询中,专家积极系数分别为83.33%和100%,熟悉系数均为4.88±0.38,所有指标评分均数分别为4.40和4.35,满分比分别为60.49%和46.41%,专家协调系数第一轮是0.215(P0.05),第二轮是0.338(P0.05)。第一轮中,K(代理人决定治疗的知情同意权)、N(精神障碍诊断)Q(临床和实验研究)、R(监督调查机制)4项指标在不同职业的专家评分中具有统计学差异,法律专家对其重要性评分偏低；在第二轮中,N(精神障碍诊断)不同职业的专家评分中具有统计学差异,法律专家对其重要性评分偏低。结论：1.咨询专家对本次研究关心和重视程度高,反馈信息可信度高,获得的评价指标体系有较高的价值。2.专家评分受职业、职称和年龄因素的影响程度小。3.专家评价得到较高权重(大于4.6)的指标是“提供精神卫生服务”、“法律能力与监护权”、“非自愿入院”、“非自愿治疗”和“特殊治疗”；专家评价得到较低权重(小于4.0)的指标是“序言与目的”、“防止歧视”、“住房”、“就业”、“社会保障”“和人权保护”。
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the importance of various indicators in the WHO checklist of mental health legislation. Two rounds of correspondence were conducted among experts from five different provinces and cities using the improved Delphi method. The < WHO check list of mental health legislation > 27 categories were graded. The data were input into excel, SPSS 18.0 software package for analysis. Results: the average age was 43.80 卤4.83 years old and the average working life was 20.13 卤3.11 years. In the two rounds of consultation, the positive coefficient of experts was 83.33% and 100, the familiarity coefficient was 4.88 卤0.38, the average score of all indexes was 4.40 and 4.35, the full score ratio was 60.49% and 46.41%, the first round of expert coordination coefficient was 0.215p 0.05, and the second round was 0.338g P0.05. In the first round, the right of informed consent (PIC) of the agent to decide on the treatment was statistically different in four indexes of clinical and experimental research (clinical and experimental research), but the importance of the evaluation was low by legal experts. In the second round, there were statistical differences in the scores of specialists in different occupations, but legal experts had low scores on their importance. Conclusion 1. The consultant has a high degree of concern and attention to this study, a high credibility of feedback information, and a high value of evaluation index system. The expert score was influenced by occupation, professional title and age factors. 3. 3. The indicators of higher weight (greater than 4.6) evaluated by experts were "provision of mental health services", "legal capacity and custody", "involuntary admission", "involuntary treatment" and "special treatment"; The indicators with lower weights (less than 4.0) evaluated by experts were "preamble and purpose", "Prevention of Discrimination", "Housing", "Employment", "Social Security" and "Human Rights Protection".
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D912.1

【参考文献】