论文部分内容阅读
目的:评估2020年国家艾滋病综合防治示范区（示范区）不同工作领域指标情况，为后续更好地开展示范区工作提供基础依据。方法:计算2020年全国示范区各领域指标的得分，比较不同类型示范区得分情况。采用n M（n Q1，n Q3）描述各指标得分，采用熵权法计算各指标综合得分，并换算为百分制得分，比较不同指标的得分情况。n 结果:一级指标层面，组织领导和管理（96.0分）、预防艾滋病宣传教育（94.0分）和创新策略措施（98.0分）的得分相对较高，预防艾滋病社会综合治理（72.0分）领域的得分最低。城市示范区的预防艾滋病宣传教育、艾滋病综合干预2个领域得分均明显高于县（区）示范区。得分较低的二级指标包括暗娼人群最近1次性行为安全套使用情况（70.0分）、至少本地1类重点人群每年检测人次数较上年增加（70.0分）、普通高等学校、职业院校设立校内艾滋病自助售卖设施情况（65.0分）、对抓获的涉嫌卖淫嫖娼、聚众淫乱、吸毒贩毒人员进行HIV检测和出台相关政策文件/工作方案（55.0分）和MSM最近1次性行为安全套使用情况（50.0分）。指标3艾滋病综合干预对评估结果的贡献最大，指标7创新策略措施对评估结果的发挥作用最小。结论:2020年示范区工作总体情况良好，但各领域工作进展尚不够均衡。建议今后重点加强艾滋病综合干预和预防艾滋病社会综合治理2个领域工作；进一步完善评估指标体系，更全面推动示范区工作。“,”Objective:To analyze the work indicators of China Comprehensive AIDS Response Program (China CARES) and provide reference for future work of the program.Methods:The scores of each indicator were calculated, and different scores among different types of program areas were compared. The n M(n Q1,n Q3) was used to describe the score of each indicator. The entropy weight method was used to calculate the composite score of each indicator and the composite score was translated into a 100-point system and compared among indicators.n Results:In terms of the first-level indicators, organizational leadership and management (96.0 points), publicity and education (94.0 points), and innovative strategies and measures (98.0 points) got relatively high scores; while comprehensive social governance of AIDS prevention (72.0 points) was with the lowest score. The scores of publicity and education and comprehensive intervention in county-level program areas were significantly lower than those in urban areas. For secondary indicators, the indicator with relatively lower scores included “condom use among female sex workers last time” (70.0 points)“, ”at least one local key population has an increase in the number of people receiving HIV testing compared with the previous year“ (70.0 points)”, “colleges and occupational schools set up AIDS-related self-service facilities” (65.0 points), “HIV testing among the arrested people suspected of prostitution, adultery, drug users and traffickers” (55.0 points) and “condom use among men who have sex with men during last episode” (50.0 points). The “indicator 3 comprehensive intervention” contributed most to the evaluation, while “indicator 7 innovation strategies and measures” played a minor role in the evaluation results.Conclusions:The overall situation of AIDS Response Program in 2020 was good, but the progress in different word areas was not yet balanced. The two areas of comprehensive intervention and comprehensive social governance of AIDS prevention should be strengthened. It is also suggested that relevant indicators be adjusted appropriately to improve evaluation indicators system and comprehensively promote the program.