一份关于评估公共卫生应急准备情况的工具综述。
A review of instruments assessing public health preparedness.
作者信息
Asch Steven M, Stoto Michael, Mendes Marc, Valdez R Burciaga, Gallagher Meghan E, Halverson Paul, Lurie Nicole
机构信息
RAND Health, Santa Monica, CA 90401, USA.
出版信息
Public Health Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;120(5):532-42. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000508.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism.
METHODS
The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity.
RESULTS
There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes "preparedness" or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function.
CONCLUSION
Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.
目的
本研究旨在回顾评估州和地方公共卫生部门应对生物恐怖主义等健康威胁的准备程度的工具。
方法
作者审查了27种已发表的基于人群的规划或评估准备程度的工具，这些工具大多未见于同行评审文献。使用基本公共卫生服务框架，对这些工具进行了评估，评估内容包括：（1）测量参数的清晰度；（2）结构措施与过程措施之间的平衡；（3）有效性证据；（4）责任实体的明确规定。
结果
在什么构成“准备程度”或应如何衡量方面，存在大量重叠但一致性很少。大多数工具过度依赖主观或结构措施，缺乏对所评估措施的科学证据，并且未能明确界定哪个实体对完成任务或职能负责。
结论
改进策略包括措施标准化、更好的跨部门沟通以及对公共卫生实践研究的投资，以建立制定高质量措施和评估所需的基础证据。
Zotero 插件