社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作绩效指标评价研究

Study on performance indicators for non-governmental organizations involved in HIV/AIDS prevention and control efforts

目的分析并完善社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作的绩效指标评价体系。方法通过查阅文献、现场访谈等方式收集社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作的绩效指标,结合目前社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作的实际情况,形成社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作绩效指标体系初稿。随后,通过两次德尔菲法,对指标进行进一步筛选。结果初稿确定了32个工作绩效指标。参与德尔菲法调查专家共16名,其从事艾滋病防治工作平均年限17.22年,参与社会组织领域工作平均年限10.41年。两轮调查的专家积极性系数均为100%(16/16);专家权威程度(Cr)介于0.71至0.94。第一轮的重要性、可获得性及两者综合肯德尔和谐系数(W)分别为0.25、0.19和0.20,删除4个指标;第二轮分别为0.36、0.26和0.34,删除5个指标。最终确定25个指标,其中通用指标12个,高危人群干预领域5个,感染者和病人关怀领域共8个。结论通过德尔菲法最终确定的指标在理论上能够反映目前社会组织参与艾滋病防治工作的绩效情况,但指标在绩效应用中的可获得性、真实性、实用性等情况,仍需在实践中进一步验证与完善。

Objective To analyze and improve the performance indicator evaluation system for non-governmental organizations （NGO） involved in HIV/AIDS prevention and control efforts. Methods Literature review and field interview were conducted to analyze the performance indicators. Two rounds of DELPHI method were used to improve the indicators. Results 32 performance indicators were drafted in the evaluation system, which were reviewed by 16 experts. The experts had been engaged in HIV/AIDS prevention and control for 17.22 years on average, and worked with NGO for 10.41 years. The positive coefficients of them in the two rounds of review were 100% （16/ 16）. The values of authority coefficient （Cr） were between 0.71 and 0. 94. In the first round, the coordination coefficients in importance and operability of the indicators, and the mean of importance and operability were 0.25, 0.19, and 0. 20 respectively, resulting in deletion of four indicators. In the second round, the coefficients and mean were 0. 36, 0.26, and 0.34, and 5 indicators were deleted. Overall, 25 out of 32 indicators remain, including 12 indicators for general evaluation, 5 indicators for high risk population intervention, and 8 indicators for care and support to people living with HIV/AIDS. Conclusion The 25 indicators reserved by DELPHI method can reflect the per- formance of NGO involved in HIV/AIDS prevention and control program in China. However, the availability and facticity of the indicators still need to be further testified and improved in practice.