黎桂福, 林长坡, 郁晞, 田建国, 戴燕丽, 姚正原, 郭晓虎, 潘俊锋, 徐瑞芳. 上海市青浦区公共卫生技术岗位人员培训现况调查[J]. 上海预防医学, 2018, 30(10): 828-832. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2018.18918
引用本文: 黎桂福, 林长坡, 郁晞, 田建国, 戴燕丽, 姚正原, 郭晓虎, 潘俊锋, 徐瑞芳. 上海市青浦区公共卫生技术岗位人员培训现况调查[J]. 上海预防医学, 2018, 30(10): 828-832. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2018.18918
LI Gui-fu, LIN Chang-po, YU Xi, TIAN Jian-guo, DAI Yan-li, YAO Zheng-yuan, GUO Xiao-hu, PAN Jun-feng, XU Rui-fang. Training status survey on public health technical staff in Qingpu District of Shanghai City[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2018, 30(10): 828-832. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2018.18918
Citation: LI Gui-fu, LIN Chang-po, YU Xi, TIAN Jian-guo, DAI Yan-li, YAO Zheng-yuan, GUO Xiao-hu, PAN Jun-feng, XU Rui-fang. Training status survey on public health technical staff in Qingpu District of Shanghai City[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2018, 30(10): 828-832. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2018.18918

上海市青浦区公共卫生技术岗位人员培训现况调查

Training status survey on public health technical staff in Qingpu District of Shanghai City

  • 摘要:
    目的掌握上海市青浦区区、镇两级公共卫生技术岗位人员培训现况,探讨相关影响因素。
    方法对辖区内相关机构的管理人员开展专项访谈,对公共卫生技术岗位人员进行自填式问卷调查。
    结果现阶段培训的系统性、实用性、及时性和针对性评分为3.37~3.54(满分5分),各指标间差异无统计学意义(F=2.54,P=0.55);总体满意度评分为3.60±0.91(满分5分),不同单位类型(F=64.82,P<0.01)、年龄(F=2.25,P<0.05)、性别(F=6.04,P<0.01)、学历(F=4.11,P<0.01)、学位(F=6.84,P<0.01)、专业(F=6.61,P<0.01)、工龄(F=3.18,P<0.01)者差异有统计学意义。人员参加培训的促成因素前3位分别是岗位工作需要、个人能力发展需要、上级单位安排; 阻碍因素前3位是工作离不开、不知道培训信息和内容不适合。岗位人员和机构参与或举办培训较大程度处于被动状态。
    结论公共卫生技术岗位人员培训有待进一步提升;要提高对培训必要性和紧迫性的认识,调动机构和人员等层面的积极性,要按不同需求分层进行,多种途径、方式相结合,切实提高培训效果。

     

    Abstract:
    ObjectiveTo investigate the training status and its related factors for public health technical staff in Qingpu District of Shanghai.
    MethodsA special interview with administrators and self-administered questionnaire survey among the public health staff were conducted to investigate the training status and related factors.
    ResultsThe systematicness, practicability, timeliness and pertinence scores for current training were between 3.37 and 3. 54 (full score was 5), and there was no statistical difference between the scores(F=2.54, P=0.55). The overall satisfaction score was 3.60±0.91 (full score was 5), and there were significant differences between different public health agencies (F=64.82, P < 0.01), ages (F= 2.25, P < 0.05), sexes (F=6.04, P < 0.01), educational backgrounds(F=4.11, P < 0.01), academic degrees (F=6.84, P < 0.01), specialties (F=6.61, P < 0.01), working ages(F=3.18, P < 0.01). The top 3 factors contributing to the training of staff were job needs, personal needs and unit arrangements; meanwhile, the top 3 hindrance factors were contradiction between work and study, absence of training information and unsuitable training content. The agencies and the staff were passive in organizing training or taking part in the training.
    ConclusionThe training for public health technical staff needs further improvement. It is necessary to raise the awareness of the necessity and urgency for training, mobilize the initiative of the agencies and their staff for training, and carry out training according to different needs by means of different modes to improve the effect of training.

     

/

返回文章
返回