| 基于AHP-TOPSIS法的职业病报告管理质量评价 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 刘磊,程婷婷,唐昆,查晚生,胡迅嘉,耿为为,李鹏飞,姜正好,李开春.基于AHP-TOPSIS法的职业病报告管理质量评价[J].职业卫生与应急救援,2020,38(1):1-6. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 刘磊 程婷婷 唐昆 查晚生 胡迅嘉 耿为为 李鹏飞 姜正好 李开春 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1.六安市疾病预防控制中心, 安徽 六安 237005 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 探讨AHP-TOPSIS法在职业病报告管理质量评价中的应用。 方法 采用AHP法对职业病报告管理质量评价目标进行连续性分解，依据各级评价目标对总评价目标作用价值的大小赋予一定的权重系数，再运用TOPSIS法确定各评价对象的最优解和最劣解，得到各县区职业病报告管理质量综合评价排序。将各县区职业病报告管理质量AHP-TOPSIS法排序结果与传统方法排序结果进行相关性分析。 结果 职业病报告管理质量评价目标层连续分解为3个一级指标、12个二级指标。一级指标及其权重系数分别是组织管理（0.104 7）、工作实施（0.637 0）和质量控制（0.258 3），二级指标中权重系数最高的是报告人员培训覆盖率（0.272 4），其次是重点职业病监测项目个案卡收集率（0.149 6）、数据上报和审核及时率（0.120 2），最低的是年度工作计划完成率（0.011 4）。二级指标中地区差距最大的是年度漏报调查和质量评估优良率、数据上报和审核及时率，差距系数分别为0.00和13.63。AHP-TOPSIS法排序结果与传统方法排序结果之间存在相关性（rs=0.893，P=0.007）。 结论 与传统方法相比，AHP-TOPSIS法结果可反映工作实际情况，对职业病报告管理工作的质量综合评判排序具有更好的可行性和有效性。
|
| 关 键 词： | 职业病报告 AHP法 TOPSIS法 管理质量评价 |
| 收稿时间： | 2019-08-13 |
Management quality evaluation of occupational disease reporting with AHP-TOPSIS method |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective Using AHP-TOPSIS method to evaluate management quality of occupational disease reporting. Methods The management quality goals of occupational disease reporting were continuously decomposed with AHP method and weighting coefficient of each object was assigned according to its contribution to overall objects. Then the TOPSIS method was used to determine the optimal and the worst solution of each object and final score for the comprehensive evaluation of management quality of occupational disease reporting in each county was obtained. Correlation analysis was carried out between the ranking results of management quality evaluation of occupational disease reporting derived from the AHP-TOPSIS method in different counties and the ranking results derived from the traditional method. Results The management quality goals of occupational disease reporting were continuously decomposed into three first-level indicators and 12 second-level indicators. The first-level indicators and their weight coefficients were management of organization(0.104 7), implementation of work(0.637 0) and quality control (0.258 3), respectively. The highest weight coefficient among the secondary indicators was the reporting staff training (0.272 4), followed by the case card collection of key occupational diseases(0.149 6) and timeliness of data reporting and reviewing(0.120 2), and the lowest was the completion of annual work plan (0.011 4). Of all second-level indicators, the biggest regional disparities were the annual excellent rate of misreporting survey and quality assessment, and the timeliness of data reporting and auditing, which varied greatly among different counties with the gap coefficients of 0.00 and 13.63, respectively. The correlation between the two ranking results derived from the AHP-TOPSIS method and the traditional method was 0.893 (P=0.007). Conclusion Compared with the traditional method, AHP-TOPSIS can reflect the actual situation of the work, and has better feasibility and effectiveness for the comprehensive evaluation of the management quality of occupational disease reporting. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《职业卫生与应急救援》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《职业卫生与应急救援》下载全文 |
|
