| |
|
|
| |
| 投稿时间： 2015-11-04 最后修改时间： 2016-02-26 摘要点击次数: 2335 全文下载次数: 6 |
| |
| 引用本文：陈永超, 王芳, 丁雪,等.我国婚检政策执行分析——基于米特—霍恩模型[J].中国卫生政策研究,2016,9(5):24-29 |
|
| 陈永超1, 王芳1, 丁雪1, 杨婷1,2, 宋莉3, 刘颖3 |
1. 中国医学科学院医学信息研究所 卫生政策与管理研究中心 北京 100020;
2. 北京协和医学院 北京 100730;
3. 国家卫生计生委妇幼健康服务司 北京 100191 |
| 基金项目:2015年国家卫生和计划生育委员会委托重点项目 |
| |
|
| | 摘要:目的:本文运用米特—霍恩模型对我国婚检政策的执行情况进行分析,为完善婚检政策提供借鉴。方法:选取广西、福建、云南、江苏、湖北、黑龙江、天津和北京8省市开展调研,通过访谈、问卷、现场考察等方法收集调研地区相关资料,对婚检政策执行情况进行分析。结果:调研地区在相关法律框架下细化了婚检目标、开发了政策执行资源,并改善了婚检政策的执行环境。结论:各地根据实际情况实施的婚检措施效果良好,但依然存在政策执行不畅、部门配合不深入、资源投入力度不足等问题,影响政策执行效果。 | |
|
|
关键词:婚前保健服务 婚前医学检查 政策执行
|
| |
| Analysis of the premarital healthcare service policies implementation: Based on the Mitt-Horn Model |
| CHEN Yong-chao1, WANG Fang1, DING Xue1, YANG Ting1,2, SONG Li3, LIU Ying3 |
1. Center for Health Policy and Management, Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100020, China;
2. Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China;
3. Department of Maternal and Child Health, National Health and Family Planning Commission, Beijing 100191, China |
| |
|
| | Abstract:Objective: This article uses the Mitt-Horn Model to analyze the premarital healthcare policies implementation, in order to seek viable path for the effective implementation. Methods: Eight provinces, namely Guangxi, Fujian, Yunnan, Jiangsu, Hubei, Heilongjiang, Tianjin and Beijing were chosen to carry out the field research. Relevant information and data were collected through interviews, questionnaires, site visits, etc., and all relate to the implementation of a qualitative premarital analysis policy. Results: The research areas have refined the local premarital policy targets under the relevant legal framework, and have improved the policy implementation resources and execution environment. Conclusion: The premarital healthcare effects of measures implemented in the country based on the actual situation is good, but there are still some problems such as poor policy implementation with no in-depth sector, resource investment deficit in the policy, insufficient inter-department coordination and other issues affecting the policy implementation results. | |
|
|
|
|
