不同专业聘用制医务人员科研现状的调查

目的了解不同专业聘用制医务人员科研开展的情况、科研的水平现状及主要障碍。方法采用自制的问卷调查表，对304名聘用制人员进行调查。调查问卷经5名护理管理及医学统计学专家评定，效度系数为0．85，预试验测得的Cronbaeh’s α系数为0．83。调查表内容包括科研的开展情况（2项）、相关行为（3项）、运用科研工具的能力（5项）及主要障碍（5项）。结果回收问卷302份，有效回收率为99．34％。说明医疗人员开展科研活动的比例较其他专业高，差异有统计学意义（￡值分别为63．48，5．17，252．73；x2分别是54．62，61．83；P〈0．01）。医疗、护理、医技人员在科研设计及统计学处理的运用上掌握率均低于40％，普遍存在难点，差异无统计学意义（x。分别为4．44，5．73；P〉0．05）；而论文选题的能力医疗、护理、医技类人员分别为90．62％，32．08％，69．23％，护理人员最低，差异有统计学意义（x2=19．61，P〈0．01）。护理、医技类人员开展科研的困难为没有指导带头人及领导不重视，与医疗人员比较差异有统计学意义（x2分别为74．34，10．01；P〈0．05）。结论医院应平衡发展各专业聘用人员开展科研活动，重点培训科研设计方法和统计学处理技能，积极改善护理专业聘用制人员开展科研的环境。

Investigation and analysis of the scientific research of appointment system staff from different majors

Objective To find out the situation, level and obstacles of the scientific research of appointment system staff from different majors. Methods Self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate 304 staff of appointment system. Questionnaire was evaluated by 5 specialists in nursing management and medical statistics. The validity coefficient was 0.85 and the Cronbach＇ sot was 0.83 tested from preliminary examination. The development of the scientific research （2 items）, related behaviors （3 items）, ability to apply scientific research tools （5 items ） and main obstacles （5 items ） were included in this questionnaire. Results 302 questionnaires were called back with the effective rate of 99.34%. The rate of medical staff who conducted scientific research was higher than that of other majors, and the differences were statistically significant （ t = 63.48,5.17,252.73, respectively; x2 = 54.62, 61.83, respectively; P 〈 0.01 ）. The rate of medical, nursing and medical technology staff who applied research design and statistics were all lower than 40%, and the differences were not statistically significant （ X2 = 4.44, 5.73, respectively ; P 〉 0.05 ）. Medical, nursing and medical technology staff＇ s ability to select topics was respectively 90.62%, 32.08% and 69.23%, in which nursing staff was the worst, and the differences were statistically significant （X2 = 19.61, P 〈 0.01 ）. The main obstacles for nursing and medical technology staff were no pace-setters and leaders＇ indifference, which was statistically different from that of the medical staff （x2 = 74.34, 10.01, respectively; P 〈 0.05）. Conclusions Hospitals should balance the scientific research activities between staff from different majors and train them with research design methods and statistic skills, in order to improve the scientific research environment for appointment system staff.