[1]刘洋,李海燕*,贾李蓉,等.GB/T 38327－2019《健康信息学 中医药数据集分类》国家标准适用性评价研究[J].中国中医药图书情报杂志,2021,45(1):7-12.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-5707.2021.01.002]
LIU Yang,LI Hai-yan*,JIA Li-rong,et al.Study on Applicability Evaluation Based on National Standard of GB/T 38327－2019 Health Informatics - Classification of Traditional Chinese Medicine Data Sets[J].Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science for Traditional Chinese Medicine,2021,45(1):7-12.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-5707.2021.01.002]
点击复制LIU Yang,LI Hai-yan*,JIA Li-rong,et al.Study on Applicability Evaluation Based on National Standard of GB/T 38327－2019 Health Informatics - Classification of Traditional Chinese Medicine Data Sets[J].Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science for Traditional Chinese Medicine,2021,45(1):7-12.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-5707.2021.01.002]
GB/T 38327－2019《健康信息学 中医药数据集分类》国家标准适用性评价研究
《中国中医药图书情报杂志》[ISSN:2095-5707/CN:10-1113/R] 卷:
45卷 期数:
2021年1期 页码:
7-12
栏目:
信息技术与中医药 出版日期:
2021-01-29
- Title:
- Study on Applicability Evaluation Based on National Standard of GB/T 38327－2019 Health Informatics - Classification of Traditional Chinese Medicine Data Sets
- 文章编号:
- 2095-5707(2021)01-0007-06
- 分类号:
- R2-03
- 文献标志码:
- A
- 摘要:
- 目的 对GB/T 38327－2019《健康信息学 中医药数据集分类》国家标准（以下简称“本标准”）的适用性进行评价，从用户角度探索对本标准进行评价的方法。方法 本研究采用文献调查法、对比验证法等，选取6名测试人员对120个中医药数据集进行分类验证，与本标准制订人员进行一致性对比分析。结果 测试人员与本标准制订人员分类平均一致率为：“创建者类型”分类代码为79.72%，“数据来源类型”分类代码为71.67%，“主题类型”分类代码为58.61%。经分析，发现可多重分类的数据集、综合性主题数据集等是造成分类不一致的关键因素。结论 本标准所采用的适用性评价方法可作为分类编码类标准研制过程中的分类优化方法；本标准测试验证过程中发现的问题可作为实施过程中制定有针对性推广应用策略的依据，从而更有效地引导和方便用户应用本标准实现数据集分类著录、快捷检索，最终达到本标准有效执行之目的。
- Abstract:
- Objective To evaluate the applicability of the national standard of GB/T 38327－2019 Health Informatics - Classification of Traditional Chinese Medicine Data Sets (hereinafter referred to as “the National Standard”); To explore ways to evaluate the standard from the perspective of users. Methods In this study, 6 testers were selected to classify and verify 120 TCM data sets through literature investigation method and comparative verification method, and the consistency comparison analysis was conducted with the national standard-setters. Results The average agreement rate between testers and standard-setters was 79.72% for “creator type” classification code, 71.67% for “data source type” classification code, and 58.61% for “subject type” classification code. Through analysis, it was found that data sets with multiple classifications and comprehensive subject data sets were the key factors causing the inconsistencies in classification. Conclusion The applicability evaluation method used in the standard can be used as the classification optimization method in the development of the classification coding class standard. The problems found in the process of standard test verification can be used as the basis for formulating targeted promotion and application strategies in the process of standard implementation, so as to guide and facilitate users to apply the standard to achieve the classification and description of data set and fast retrieval, and finally achieve the purpose of effective implementation of the standard.
参考文献/References:
[1] 中华人民共和国国家市场监督管理总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.健康信息学 中医药数据集分类:GB/T 38327－2019[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2019:12.
[2] 范为宇,崔蒙,陈守鹏.中医药数据集分类研究[J].世界科学技术－中医药现代化,2006,8(5):26-29.
[3] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 13016－2018标准体系构建原则和要求[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2018.
[4] 倪晓春.档案标准体系的适用性评价指标体系与成熟度模型构建[J].东方论坛－青岛大学学报(社会科学版),2020(1):151-156.
备注/Memo
收稿日期：2020-06-23基金项目：国家重点研发计划项目子课题（2017YFC1703505）；中国中医科学院基本科研业务费自主选题（ZZ13-030）第一作者：刘洋，E-mail: winnerleer@126.com*通讯作者：李海燕，E-mail: lihy@mail.cintcm.ac.cn
更新日期/Last Update:
2021-01-20