| 引用本文：陈婷, 周庆誉, 蒲川, 胡志, 李程跃, 郝模.政策工具和三级预防视角下我国糖尿病防治服务政策文本量化分析[J].中国卫生政策研究,2024,17(11):67-74 |
|
| 政策工具和三级预防视角下我国糖尿病防治服务政策文本量化分析 |
| 投稿时间：2024-08-07 修订日期：2024-09-25 PDF全文浏览 HTML全文浏览 |
| 陈婷1,2, 周庆誉1,2, 蒲川2,3, 胡志2,4, 李程跃1,2, 郝模1,2 |
1. 复旦大学卫生发展战略研究中心 上海 200032;
2. 健康相关社会风险预警协同创新中心 上海 200032;
3. 重庆医科大学公共卫生与管理学院 重庆 400016;
4. 安徽医科大学 安徽合肥 230032 |
| 摘要:目的：分析中国糖尿病防治服务政策的内容与不足，为完善中国糖尿病防治服务政策提供建议。方法：从三级预防和政策工具两个维度出发，通过内容分析和定量分析方法，构建“政策工具类型—三级预防(含服务类别)”二维框架，对国家层面糖尿病防治服务政策条目进行分析。结果：本研究共纳入88份糖尿病防治服务相关政策文件，政策工具维度编码181条，从政策工具维度看，多以强制型政策工具为主，强制型、混合型、自愿型政策工具占比分别为74.6%、19.3%、6.1%，分布具有差异性；从三级预防维度看，各级别预防策略覆盖广泛，三、二、一级预防占比分别为38.7%、36.5%、24.9%，内部子工具有待优化；从服务类别维度看，患者分级与随访管理、健康教育类目居多，疾病基线调查较少，不同类别的防治服务政策工具缺乏针对性。结论：糖尿病政策工具存在结构性失衡，内部子工具使用有待优化，糖尿病不同预防级别分布差异性显著，应提高政策工具精准性，强化糖尿病不同防治服务特性与政策工具的有效结合；优化政策工具结构，重视政策工具与三级预防策略的协同运作。 |
| 关键词:糖尿病防治 政策工具 三级预防 二维框架 |
| 基金项目:上海市加强公共卫生体系建设三年行动计划项目(GWIV-32、GWV-12) |
|
| A quantitative analysis of China's diabetes prevention and treatment service policies texts from the perspective of policy instrument and tertiary prevention |
| CHEN Ting1,2, ZHOU Qing-yu1,2, PU Chuan2,3, HU Zhi2,4, LI Cheng-yue1,2, HAO Mo1,2 |
1. Research Institute of Health Development Strategies, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China;
2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China;
3. School of Public Health and Management, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China;
4. Anhui Medical University, Hefei Anhui 230032, China |
| Abstract:Objective: This study aims to analyze the policy tools used in China's diabetes prevention and control services and provide recommendations for improving the diabetes policy system in China. Methods: From the perspectives of the three levels of prevention and policy tools, a two-dimensional framework of “Policy Tool Types-Three Levels of Prevention (including service categories)” was constructed through content analysis and quantitative analysis methods. This framework was used to analyze the national-level diabetes prevention and control service policy entries. Results: A total of 88 policy documents related to diabetes prevention and control services were included in this study. There were 181 codes for the policy tool dimension. From the perspective of policy tools, mandatory policy tools were mainly used to ensure the implementation of services, with the proportions of mandatory, mixed, and voluntary policy tools being 74.6%, 19.3%, and 6.1% respectively, showing significant distribution differences. From the perspective of the three levels of prevention, strategies at all levels were covered broadly, with the proportions of the three levels of prevention being 38.7%, 36.5%, and 24.9% respectively, and internal sub-tools needing optimization. From the perspective of service categories, patient classification and follow-up management, and health education were the most common, while baseline disease surveys were less frequent. There was a lack of targeted policy tools for different types of prevention and control services. Conclusion: The diabetes policy tools exhibit structural imbalances, the use of internal sub-tools needs to be optimized, and there is a significant difference in the distribution of different prevention levels of diabetes. Enhance the precision of policy tools and strengthen the effective combination of different diabetes prevention and control service characteristics with policy tools; optimize the structure of policy tools and emphasize the coordinated operation of policy tools with the three levels of prevention strategies. |
| Key words:Diabetes prevention and treatment Policy tools Tertiary prevention Two-dimensional framework |
| 摘要点击次数: 14 全文下载次数: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
