文章摘要
张 会,杨正夫,范吉平,陈晓云,江 震.1997~2014年中国卫生人力研究文献系统评价[J].南京医科大学学报(社会科学版),2015,(2):109~113
1997~2014年中国卫生人力研究文献系统评价
Systematic evaluation of studies on human resources for health in China between 1997 and 2014
投稿时间:2015-02-12  
DOI:10.7655/NYDXBSS20150206
中文关键词: 卫生人力  文献分析  系统评价  中国
英文关键词: human resources for health  literature analysis  systematic evaluation  China
基金项目:联合国儿童基金会(YH702H&N),安徽医科大学博士基金(0503019202)
作者单位
张 会 安徽医科大学卫生管理学院,安徽 合肥 230032 
杨正夫 中国中医科学院医院管理处,北京 100700 
范吉平 中国中医科学院医院管理处,北京 100700 
陈晓云 安徽医科大学卫生管理学院,安徽 合肥 230032 
江 震 安徽医科大学卫生管理学院,安徽 合肥 230032
中国疾病预防控制中心性病艾滋病预防控制中心,北京 102206 
摘要点击次数: 985
全文下载次数: 690
中文摘要:
      目的:了解中国1997~2014年卫生人力文献研究现状,探寻卫生人力研究可能存在的薄弱点?方法:检索1997~2014年中国卫生人力中文文献,分别采取(JBI 2005)和GRADE证据质量分级标准,对定性定量研究文献进行系统评价?结果:本研究共筛选出420篇中国卫生人力研究文献,定性研究95篇,定量研究325篇,其中318篇是定量现状描述性研究,7篇为卫生人力干预对照类研究?研究主题涉及卫生人力需求预测与配置(77.4%),医学教育与在职培训(6.7%),系统管理(8.8%),国际经验介绍(5.0%),财政投入(2.1%)?45.3%的定性文献和57.6%的定量描述性研究质量评价为中等及以上,仅有2.2%(7/325)的定量文献采取干预对照研究?定量研究文献均明确阐述了数据收集方法和流程,但缺乏对调查工具信度与效度的验证?结论:定性研究?描述性定量分析是常规研究方法,干预对照类试验研究极少;研究主题集中于卫生人力资源配置领域,而卫生人力实践过程中的主要挑战问题,如筹资?开发?教育等管理实践及干预效果评价方面的研究文献比例较小?
英文摘要:
      Objective: To understand the current status of literature on human resources for health during 1997-2014 in China, and to explore the research week spots in this area. Methods: We retrieved Chinese literature related to human resources for health between 1997 and 2014. JBI (2005) and quality classification standard of evidence (GRADE) were performed to systematically evaluate qualitative and quantitative research, respectively. Results: We screened 420 Chinese research papers on human resources for health, including 95 qualitative studies and 325 quantitative studies, and from which the numbers of quantitative descriptive studies on status quo and intervention control studies were 318 and 7, respectively. The main research topics on human resources for health included demand forecasting and allocation (77.4%), medical education and in-service training (6.7%), systematic management (8.8%), international experience introduction (5.0%), and financial investment (2.1%). The quality of 45.3% qualitative and 57.6% quantitative studies located at medium and above, only 2.2% (7/325) quantitative studies performed intervention control study. Quantitative study clearly described the method and process of data collection, however, it lacked reliability and validity test of self-designed survey tool. Conclusion: Most studies are performed by qualitative study and descriptive quantitative study. Randomized controlled trial is rarely adopted. Most studies focus on allocation of human resources for health, while the number of studies on finance, development, education and evaluation of intervention effect which are the main challenges in practice accounts for a lower proportion.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭