背景:医院的科学研究活动对于促进临床医学的发展很重要,医务人员的科学素养对提高医院科研质量和竞争力具有重要作用。迄今为止,目前还没有建立适用于我国医务人员科学素养水平的指标体系,能够有效评价和指导医务人员科学素养水平。本研究旨在建立我国医务人员科学素养评价指标体系,为完善该体系的评价提供参考。
方法:在本研究中,通过与医务人员的名义组技术(n=16),建立了医务人员科学素养的初步指标库。然后,与临床医生进行了两轮德尔菲专家咨询调查(n=20),对指标进行了筛选,利用边界值法和专家意见进行了修订和补充。接下来,利用层次分析法确定指标权重,最终建立医务人员科学素养指标体系。
结果:遵循专家意见,以2个一级指标为特征的医务人员科学素养指标体系,9个二级指标,最终确立了38项三级指标,并计算了各指标的权重。两个一级指标是研究素养和研究能力,二级指标为研究态度(0.375),识别问题的能力(0.2038),基本素养(0.1250),实施项目的能力(0.0843),研究产出能力(0.0747),专业能力(0.0735),数据处理能力(0.0239),论文写作技能(0.0217),和使用文献的能力(0.0181)。
结论:本研究构建了全面的科学素养指标体系,可作为评估和提高医务人员科学素养的参考依据。
BACKGROUND: Scientific research activity in hospitals is important for promoting the development of clinical medicine, and the scientific literacy of medical staff plays an important role in improving the quality and competitiveness of hospital research. To date, no index system applicable to the scientific
literacy of medical staff in
China has been developed that can effectively evaluate and guide scientific
literacy. This study aimed to establish an index system for the scientific
literacy of medical staff in
China and provide a reference for improving the evaluation of this system.
METHODS: In this study, a preliminary indicator pool for the scientific
literacy of medical staff was constructed through the nominal group technique (n = 16) with medical staff. Then, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation surveys (n = 20) were conducted with clinicians, and the indicators were screened, revised and supplemented using the boundary value method and expert opinions. Next, the hierarchical analysis method was utilized to determine the weights of the indicators and ultimately establish a scientific literacy indicator system for medical staff.
RESULTS: Following expert opinion, the index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff featuring 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators was ultimately established, and the weights of the indicators were calculated. The two first-level indicators were research literacy and research ability, and the second-level indicators were research attitude (0.375), ability to identify problems (0.2038), basic literacy (0.1250), ability to implement projects (0.0843), research output capacity (0.0747), professional capacity (0.0735), data-processing capacity (0.0239), thesis-writing skills (0.0217), and ability to use literature (0.0181).
CONCLUSIONS: This study constructed a comprehensive scientific literacy index system that can assess medical staff\'s scientific literacy and serve as a reference for evaluating and improving their scientific
literacy.