检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:梁钊明[1] 盛小刚[2] 何清位 唐波炎[2] 屈玉春[2] 林国伟[2]
机构地区:[1]广东医学院附属医院,广东湛江524001 [2]广东省中医院心血管科,广东广州510120
出 处:《中国医药导报》2013年第32期119-122,共4页China Medical Herald
基 金:广东省科技计划项目(编号2010B030700060)
摘 要:目的 检验德尔菲法(Delphi法)在心力衰竭慢性病管理方案构建过程中的可靠性.方法 通过对广东省中医院已经成功实施的心力衰竭临床路径进行系统性分析,古今心力衰竭文献资料整理等基础上,制定心力衰竭管理方案.针对管理过程中具体的管理细节及实施过程中可能遇到的各种情况进行提问,初步拟定了专家咨询问卷,再选择中医、西医,以及中西医结合界的几个学界专家,具有很好的地域及学术代表性.采用Delphi法对筛选出的28名专家进行两轮的专家咨询及一轮专家调研会议,用积极系数、权威程度和协调系数检验专家咨询的可靠性.结果 专家的总体权威系数为0.84,两轮专家调研问卷回收率分别为100%、96%,有效率均为100%,专家积极系数为100%,第1、2轮专家咨询Kendall'SW值分别在0.178~0.315及0.184~0.408.结论 专家参与本研究的评估及预测的关键问题的积极程度高、协调性好.总体而言,参与专家对本次研究的评估指标的赞同性、认可度高;专家的意见集中、统一,协调性好,调研结果的可靠性.Objective To examine the reliability of Delphi method during processing in chronic heart failure management programs.Methods Through the systematic analysis of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of TCM with successfully implemented of clinical pathway of heart failure,the management program of heart failure was formulated,which based on some data compilation of ancient and modern literatures.As well,the questions of various situations which would be encountered during management of specific details and implementation process were figured out,expert consultation questionnaires were initially developed.Then several academic experts among the traditional Chinese medicine,Western medicine,and integrative medicine industry were selected,who were the great representatives in geography and academy.After 28 experts were chosen by two-round performance of Delphi method,the positive coefficient,authoritative coefficient and Kendall coefficient were adopted to test the credibility of this study.Results The total authoritative coefficient was 0.84.Thepositive coefficients of the two round were 100% respectively.The Kendall'S W coefficient of the first round and the second round were 0.178-0.315 and 0.184-0.408 respectively.Conclusion The concordances among the experts are good and the authoritative level of the evaluation content and the key problems is high.And the suggestion of the importance of the index is consistent,which will bring reasonable results.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.31