摘要
目的:评价和比较信函和会议两种形式Delphi专家咨询的效果。方法:通过信函和会议两种形式进行医疗卫生信息系统数据集的Delphi专家咨询,专家对各项指标从重要性、必需性和可获得性三个方面做出评价。计算并比较信函和会议两种形式咨询的周期、指标的变异系数、专家意见的权威系数、协调系数等。结果:信函和会议形式完成两轮咨询的周期分别为4个月和2天。与第一轮相比,两种形式的咨询第二轮的变异系数均变小(P<0.001),协调系数变大(P<0.005)。比较两种形式的咨询效果发现,专家意见的权威系数(0.83±0.05)高于函询(0.77±0.03)(P=0.001);且会议咨询第二轮协调系数上升比信函咨询明显,即专家意见更容易趋向收敛(P<0.033)。结论:两种形式的Delphi专家咨询均能达到咨询目的,但会议咨询效果更好,且能弥补信函咨询周期过长的缺陷。
Objective:To evaluate and compare mail and meeting forms in evaluation of Delphi study.Methods:Delphi study by mail and meeting approaches was used to determine the health information dataset.Experts were required to grade the listed items through three indexes:importance,necessity and availability.Study duration,coefficient of variation of items,authority coefficient and coordination coefficient of the experts′ opinion of two forms of study were calculated and compared.Results:The study duration was four months through mail form and 2 days through meeting.Compared with the first round,the coefficient of variation decreased(P<0.001,all of the three indexes by two forms),and the cooperation index increased(P<0.005) in the second round.The experts′ opinions were easier to be consistent through meeting than through mail(P<0.033).And the authority coefficient by meeting consultation(0.83±0.05) was higher than that by mail(0.77±0.03)(P=0.001).Conclusion:Both mail and meeting forms of Delphi study can determine the health information dataset,but meeting consultation is better and requires shorter study duration.
出处
《浙江大学学报（医学版）》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2011年第3期276-280,共5页
Journal of Zhejiang University(Medical Sciences)
基金
"十一五"国家科技支撑计划(2008BAH27B01)
关键词
德尔菲技术
评价研究
咨询
信函咨询
会议咨询
Delphi technique
Evaluation Studies
Counseling
Mail consultation
Meeting advisory
