CAJ | 학술논문

目的：了解中国1997～2014年卫生人力文献研究现状，探寻卫生人力研究可能存在的薄弱点。方法：检索1997～2014年中国卫生人力中文文献，分别采取（JBI 2005）和GRADE证据质量分级标准，对定性定量研究文献进行系统评价。结果：本研究共筛选出420篇中国卫生人力研究文献，定性研究95篇，定量研究325篇，其中318篇是定量现状描述性研究，7篇为卫生人力干预对照类研究。研究主题涉及卫生人力需求预测与配置（77.4%），医学教育与在职培训（6.7%），系统管理（8.8%），国际经验介绍（5.0%），财政投入（2.1%）。45.3%的定性文献和57.6%的定量描述性研究质量评价为中等及以上，仅有2.2%（7/325）的定量文献采取干预对照研究。定量研究文献均明确阐述了数据收集方法和流程，但缺乏对调查工具信度与效度的验证。结论：定性研究、描述性定量分析是常规研究方法，干预对照类试验研究极少；研究主题集中于卫生人力资源配置领域，而卫生人力实践过程中的主要挑战问题，如筹资、开发、教育等管理实践及干预效果评价方面的研究文献比例较小。
목적：료해중국1997～2014년위생인력문헌연구현상，탐심위생인력연구가능존재적박약점。방법：검색1997～2014년중국위생인력중문문헌，분별채취（JBI 2005）화GRADE증거질량분급표준，대정성정량연구문헌진행계통평개。결과：본연구공사선출420편중국위생인력연구문헌，정성연구95편，정량연구325편，기중318편시정량현상묘술성연구，7편위위생인력간예대조류연구。연구주제섭급위생인력수구예측여배치（77.4%），의학교육여재직배훈（6.7%），계통관리（8.8%），국제경험개소（5.0%），재정투입（2.1%）。45.3%적정성문헌화57.6%적정량묘술성연구질량평개위중등급이상，부유2.2%（7/325）적정량문헌채취간예대조연구。정량연구문헌균명학천술료수거수집방법화류정，단결핍대조사공구신도여효도적험증。결론：정성연구、묘술성정량분석시상규연구방법，간예대조류시험연구겁소；연구주제집중우위생인력자원배치영역，이위생인력실천과정중적주요도전문제，여주자、개발、교육등관리실천급간예효과평개방면적연구문헌비례교소。
Objective: To understand the current status of literature on human resources for health during 1997-2014 in China, and to explore the research week spots in this area. Methods: We retrieved Chinese literature related to human resources for health between 1997 and 2014. JBI (2005) and quality classification standard of evidence (GRADE) were performed to systematically evaluate qualitative and quantitative research, respectively. Results: We screened 420 Chinese research papers on human resources for health, including 95 qualitative studies and 325 quantitative studies, and from which the numbers of quantitative descriptive studies on status quo and intervention control studies were 318 and 7, respectively. The main research topics on human resources for health included demand forecasting and allocation (77.4%), medical education and in-service training (6.7%), systematic management (8.8%), international experience introduction (5.0%), and financial investment (2.1%). The quality of 45.3% qualitative and 57.6% quantitative studies located at medium and above, only 2.2% (7/325) quantitative studies performed intervention control study. Quantitative study clearly described the method and process of data collection, however, it lacked reliability and validity test of self-designed survey tool. Conclusion: Most studies are performed by qualitative study and descriptive quantitative study. Randomized controlled trial is rarely adopted. Most studies focus on allocation of human resources for health, while the number of studies on finance, development, education and evaluation of intervention effect which are the main challenges in practice accounts for a lower proportion.