学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标的构建

崔孟杰; 尨拉; 马奇; 星一

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025171

学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标的构建

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025171

北京大学公共卫生学院儿童青少年卫生研究所，北京 100191

详细信息

作者简介:
崔孟杰(1999-)，男，河南周口人，在读硕士，主要研究方向为儿童青少年健康

通讯作者:
星一，E-mail：cyrss@126.com

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: R179 R181.3 X830.5
计量
- 文章访问数: 8
- HTML全文浏览量: 6
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-12-30
- 修回日期: 2025-02-10
- 网络出版日期: 2025-07-04
- 刊出日期: 2025-06-25

Construction of quality control evaluation indicators for common diseases surveillance among students

Institute of Child and Adolescent Health, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing(100191), China

摘要

摘要: 目的构建学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标体系，为监测项目质量控制工作提供参考。方法 2024年6—8月，基于文献研究和专家访谈方法，初步拟定评价指标基本框架和初选指标。选取20名相关领域内的专家进行2轮德尔菲专家咨询，通过邮件方式发放与回收问卷，收集专家对各项指标的重要性评分、判断依据、熟悉程度和可行性评价等，构建学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标体系。结果咨询专家分别来自卫生行政部门(1名)、各级疾病预防控制中心(16名)、高校和科研机构(3名)。年龄33~53岁，平均年龄为(45.25±5.03)岁；从事学校卫生相关领域工作年限为6~33年，平均(16.70±8.25)年。2轮咨询的专家积极程度均为100%，专家权威程度系数均数为0.90，可行性评价均数为0.75；Kendall's W检验显示第1轮咨询的专家协调系数为0.26，第2轮为0.33(P值均 < 0.01)。2轮专家咨询后，最终构建一套包含6个一级指标、19个二级指标和37个三级指标的学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标体系。结论通过科学方法构建的学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标，有助于监测项目的高质量运行。
- 疾病 /
- 人群监测 /
- 质量控制 /
- 德尔菲技术 /
- 学生
Abstract: Objective To construct a quality control evaluation indicator system for the surveillance of common diseases among students, so as to provide a reference for the quality control of surveillance projects. Methods Based on literature review and expert interviews, a preliminary framework and candidate indicators were developed from June to August in 2024. Twenty domain experts participated in two rounds of Delphi consultations conducted via email, providing importance ratings, judgment basis, familiarity levels, and feasibility assessments for each indicator. And a quality control evaluation indicator system for the surveillance of common diseases among students was ultimately constructed. Results The consulted experts aged 33-53, with an average age of (45.25±5.03) years, were from government health administration departments(n=1), centers for disease control and prevention at different levels(n=16), academic and research institutions(n=3). Their work experience in school health-related fields ranged from 6 to 33 years, with an average of (16.70±8.25) years. The activeness of experts in both rounds of consultation was 100%, the mean expert authority coefficient was 0.90, and the mean feasibility evaluation was 0.75. Kendall's W test showed that the expert coordination coefficient for the first round was 0.26, and for the second round, it was 0.33 (P < 0.01). After two rounds of expert consultation, a set of quality control evaluation indicators for the surveillance of common diseases among students was ultimately constructed, including 6 first-level indicators, 19 second-level indicators, and 37 third-level indicators. Conclusion The scientifically developed evaluation indicator system facilitates high-quality implementation of student common disease surveillance programs.
- Disease /
- Population surveillance /
- Quality control /
- Delphi technique /
- Students
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

表 1 学生常见病监测质量控制评价指标体系及其重要性评分加权均数

Table 1. Evaluation index system and weighted average of importance score for quality control of common diseases surveillance among students

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标	重要性评分加权均数	一级指标	二级指标	三级指标	重要性评分加权均数
样本代表性			4.05		检测环境		3.54
	抽样方法		3.93			检测场所选择	3.70
		学校抽样方法	4.02			检测流程设置	3.68
		班级抽样方法	3.54		人员分配		3.92
	样本量		4.10			人员配置	3.93
		学校数量	4.07			人员分工	3.90
		学生数量	4.04		现场测量		4.58
	应答率		3.22			操作过程	4.59
		现场检测应答率	3.27			记录方式	4.51
		问卷填写应答率	3.12		复测		4.31
检测队伍资质			4.07			复测流程	3.95
	人员资质		3.96			抽样	3.94
		人员资质	4.06			复测错误率	4.18
	人员培训		4.30			复测后处置	3.92
		培训内容	4.36		现场质控工作		4.54
		培训方式	3.71			现场测量工作检查	4.40
	人员考核		3.73			现场质量控制记录	4.16
		考核内容	4.04	问卷填写规范性			4.14
		考核方式	3.27		填写过程		3.85
		考核通过率	3.85			填写前的宣贯	3.87
督导检查规范性			3.92			填写环境	3.13
	人员构成		3.75		填写结果		4.26
		人员构成	3.76			问卷有效率	4.14
	督导内容		3.99	数据质量			4.51
		督导内容	3.95		数据完整性		4.45
	督导方式		3.55			数据缺失比例	4.23
		督导方式	3.55			缺失值处理方式	3.64
现场检测规范性			4.52		数据准确性		4.62
	仪器设备		4.37			数据录入准确性	4.62
		设备性能	4.27			异常数据占比	4.07
		设备检查	4.17			异常数据处理方式	3.68

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(26)

[1]	ONG K K. Healthy growth and development[J]. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser, 2017, 87: 141-151.
[2]	NI Y, BECKMANN J, HURST J R, et al. Size at birth, growth trajectory in early life, and cardiovascular and metabolic risks in early adulthood: EPI cure study[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2021, 106(2): 149-155. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319328
[3]	中华人民共和国国务院关于印发中国妇女发展纲要和中国儿童发展纲要的通知[EB/OL]. (2021-09-08)[2024-11-04]. https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2021/content_5643262.htm.
[4]	CADEK M, FLINT S W, TENCH R. Delivery of the national child measurement programme in England[J]. Public Health Nutr, 2021, 24(6): 1177-1184. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004991
[5]	WHO. Global school-based student health survey(GSHS)[EB/OL]. (2021-09-07)[2024-03-07]. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/275390/GSHS.pdf?sequence=1.
[6]	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, BRENER N D, KANN L, et al. Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system, 2013[J]. MMWR Recomm Rep, 2013, 62(RR-1): 1-20.
[7]	WHO. WHO European childhood obesity surveillance initiative(COSI)[EB/OL]. [2024-03-05]. https://www.who.int/europe/initiatives/who-european-childhood-obesity-surveillance-initiative-(cosi).
[8]	中国疾病预防控制中心营养与健康所. 第八次全国学生体质与健康调研有关情况介绍[EB/OL]. (2021-09-03)[2024-11-05]. https://www.chinanutri.cn/xwzx_238/xyxw/202109/t20210903_235870.html.
[9]	中华人民共和国教育部. 十年健康监测见证营养改善: 农村义务教育学生营养改善计划营养健康状况变迁(2012—2022)[EB/OL]. (2022-10-14)[2024-11-05]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202210/t20221014_669469.html.
[10]	国家疾病预防控制局. 关于印发全国学生常见病和健康影响因素监测方案(2018年版)的通知[EB/OL]. (2018-04-09)[2024-11-13]. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/s5898bm/201804/88cec86c347c4c48aa508b742c7abd1a.shtml.
[11]	JONES J, HUNTER D. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research[J]. BMJ, 1995, 311(7001): 376-380. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
[12]	ISMAIL G, TALIEP N. The Delphi method[M]//LIAMPUTTONG P. Handbook of social sciences and global public health. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023: 1-19.
[13]	陶洋旭, 李建军. 医疗共识制订方法: 德尔菲法和名义小组法[J]. 国际眼科纵览, 2021, 45(5): 369-373. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-5803.2021.05.001 TAO Y X, LI J J. Delphi method and nominal group method for medical consensus formation[J]. Int Rev Ophthalmol, 2021, 45(5): 369-373. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-5803.2021.05.001
[14]	NASA P, JAIN R, JUNEJA D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: how to decide its appropriateness[J]. World J Methodol, 2021, 11(4): 116-129. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
[15]	HUMPHREY-MURTO S, VARPIO L, GONSALVES C, et al. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and nominal group in medical education research[J]. Med Teach, 2017, 39(1): 14-19. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1245856
[16]	柴鑫, 崔佳, 叶丽红, 等. 基于德尔菲法探索中国老年人群健康长寿实施策略[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2024, 58(6): 883-890. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20230804-00056 CHAI X, CUI J, YE L H, et al. Exploring implementation strategies for healthy longevity among the elderly population in China based on the Delphi method[J]. Chin J Prev Med, 2024, 58(6): 883-890. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112150-20230804-00056
[17]	BILBRO N A, HIRST A, PAEZ A, et al. The IDEAL reporting guidelines: a Delphi consensus statement stage specific recommendations for reporting the evaluation of surgical innovation[J]. Ann Surg, 2021, 273(1): 82-85. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004180
[18]	曾令烽, 杨伟毅, 梁桂洪, 等. 骨质疏松高危人群中医症状评估专家问卷调查和结果研究[J]. 中国全科医学, 2023, 26(24): 2986-2991. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0846 ZENG L F, YANG W Y, LIANG G H, et al. Expert questionnaire survey and result analysis of TCM symptom assessment in high risk population of osteoporosis[J]. Chin Gen Pract, 2023, 26(24): 2986-2991. (in Chinese) doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0846
[19]	陈希, 邹启, 甄若楠, 等. 构建大规模人群新型冠状病毒核酸筛查指标体系研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2021, 42(8): 1353-1359. CHEN X, ZOU Q, ZHEN R N, et al. Establishment of index system for population based SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2021, 42(8): 1353-1359. (in Chinese)
[20]	HASSON F, KEENEY S, MCKENNA H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2000, 32(4): 1008-1015. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
[21]	邢荔函, 潘宇宁, 贾倩, 等. 流行病学调查外部质量控制评价指标体系研究[J]. 卫生软科学, 2019, 33(6): 27-31. XING L H, PAN Y N, JIA Q, et al. Study on external quality control evaluation index system of epidemiological investigation[J]. Soft Sci Health, 2019, 33(6): 27-31. (in Chinese)
[22]	ALBALI N, ALMUDARRA S, AL-FARSI Y, et al. Comparative performance evaluation of the public health surveillance systems in 6 gulf cooperation countries: cross-sectional study[J]. JMIR Form Res, 2023, 7: e41269. doi: 10.2196/41269
[23]	GERMAN R R, LEE L M, HORAN J M, et al. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group[J]. MMWR Recomm Rep, 2001, 50(Rr-13): 1-35.
[24]	SILVA A, TEIXEIRA A, DOMINGUES C, et al. Evaluation of the national immunization program surveillance system: vaccination record module, Brazil, 2017[J]. Epidemiol Serv Saude, 2021, 30(1): e2019596. doi: 10.1590/s1679-49742021000100028
[25]	柯明娜, 张少录, 黄碧宏. 督导检查对PCI术后患者服药依从性的影响[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2015, 34(12): 1660-1661. KE M N, ZHANG S L, HUANG B H. The impact of supervision and inspection on medication adherence in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Int J Nurs, 2015, 34(12): 1660-1661. (in Chinese)
[26]	陈玉婷, 曹庆, 孟馥, 等. 上海市医务社会工作督导现状及政策建议[J]. 中华医院管理杂志, 2023, 39(1): 72-77. CHEN Y T, CAO Q, MENG F, et al. Current situation and policy suggestions of medical social work supervision in shanghai[J]. Chin J Hosp Adm, 2023, 39(1): 72-77. (in Chinese)