ArticleBMC public health2025
Construction of a performance evaluation index system for the management of chronic diseases based on medical and preventive integration.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research on the construction of a Chinese indicator system for college students' multidimensional health.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Chronic disease management: policy design based on service design methods.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe medical and preventive integration(MPI) brings significant and substantial benefits to chronic disease management (CDM). Evaluating the effectiveness of MPI is curial to promote the high quality development of CDM. However, such a tool is not available in this field. We aimed to develop an evaluation index system for assessing the regional performance management level of MPI in the CDM and provide suggestions for improving quality construction of CDM at the county level.
methodsThe initial version of the performance evaluation index system was constructed based on literature analysis, panel discussions, and in-depth on-site interviews. The Delphi questionnaire was designed and 24 experts in the field of CDM were consulted in two rounds. The analytic hierarchy process method was employed to calculate the weight of indexes at the three levels.
resultsThe MPI performance evaluation index system at the county level includes five first-level indexes, 20 s-level indexes, and 69 third-level indexes. Among the five first-level indicators, "integration quality" (0.2060) ranked first, followed by "integration inputs" (0.2010), "integration effectiveness" (0.1982), "integration outputs" (0.1975), and "integration mode" (0.1973).
conclusionThe MPI performance evaluation indexes for CDM at the county level are scientific and reliable. This system can act as a useful tool for diversified subjects to find the loopholes and weak points in CDM. It also provides valuable experience for other national authorities to further improve their own CDM system by MPI evaluation. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: This study complements the gaps in the field of MPI questionnaires in China, but the sample size is small, and it is recommended that reliability and validity tests be carried out in multiple regions of the country in later stages to increase the practicality of the questionnaire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.