文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：基于AGREE-HS评价的应急卫生系统指南可实施性特点

英文题名：Characteristics of Implementability of Emergency Health Systems Guidance Based on AGREE-HS

作者：刘芳绮[1];刘孟宇[2];郑丹平[2,3];李安[2];陈雪[2];张格知[2];卫东锋[2];杨伟[2];柏伟宣[2];李勇[1,4]

第一作者：刘芳绮

机构：[1]甘肃中医药大学中西医结合学院,兰州730000;[2]中国中医科学院中医临床基础医学研究所,北京100700;[3]中国中医科学院中医基础理论研究所,北京100700;[4]中国人民解放军总医院第二医学中心,北京100853

第一机构：甘肃中医药大学中西医结合学院

年份：2024

卷号：30

期号：24

起止页码：250

中文期刊名：中国实验方剂学杂志

外文期刊名：Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae

收录：CSTPCD;;Scopus;北大核心:【北大核心2023】；CSCD:【CSCD2023_2024】；

基金：中国中医科学院科技创新工程项目(CI2021A00701-2);中国中医科学院自主选题项目(Z0740);国家自然科学基金面上项目(61771491)。

语种：中文

中文关键词：应急卫生系统指南;卫生系统指南研究与评估系统(AGREE-HS);评价;可实施性

外文关键词：emergency health systems guidance;Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems(AGREE-HS);assessment;implementability

摘要：指南的实施作为理论与实践的桥梁,可以帮助指南在最短的时间内扩大影响和应用范围。本研究基于卫生系统指南研究与评估系统(AGREE-HS)工具的可实施性条目,对以全球新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)卫生系统指南(HSG)为代表的应急卫生系统指南进行示范性评价,旨在探索应急HSG可实施性的制定特点。评价结果显示,新型冠状病毒感染(COVID-19)应急HSG的可实施性条目平均得分较低,仅高于参与者条目,条目下的标准2(推荐意见实施的成本和资源考虑因素)得分最高(平均得分4.29),标准9(实施的系统评估)得分最低(平均得分1.34)。世界卫生组织(WHO)制定的应急HSG与各国制定的应急HSG相比,除标准1(实施的阻碍和促进因素)差异无统计学意义(P=0.114),条目平均得分和其余标准得分差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。WHO标准HSG整体得分较高,在条目平均得分和9个标准得分方面与应急HSG差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在指南亚类评价中,全球/国家层面指南在标准1得分与临床相关层面指南和物资保障层面指南比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。应急HSG在可实施性方面关注实施的成本、资源及实施的灵活性,而弱化利益相关者的意见、指南的传播策略及指南的评估等方面,这可能与紧急卫生事件的灵活性和易变性的制订背景有关,指南制定者应综合考虑制定应急指南实施性相关的需求和特点。
Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice,enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application.This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents(HSG),represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG,based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems(AGREE-HS),aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG.The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability,which ranked just above the item participants.Criterion 2(costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations)received the highest mean score of 4.29,while criterion 9(systematic evaluation of implementation)received the lowest mean score of 1.34.The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization(WHO)and those formulated by various countries showed no difference(P=0.114)in criterion 1(barriers and facilitators to implementation)but had differences(P<0.05)regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria.The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences(P<0.05)in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG.The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1(barriers and facilitators to implementation)compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG(P<0.05).Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs,resources,and flexibility in terms of implementability,while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions,dissemination strategies,and evaluation of HSG.This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated,given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events.The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.