OBJECTIVE: To understand the mental intervention service system responsiveness. METHODS: A stratified, multi-stage random cluster sampling method was used, and a total of 211 residents in the central earthquake area were face to face interviewed by using the evaluating questionnaire of mental intervention service system responsiveness (including confidentiality, autonomy, prompt attention and so on, in sum of eight indicators). Analytic hierarchy process method was used to determine the weight of each index, carrying out a single index evaluation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on the mental intervention service system responsiveness, and using Spearman rank correlation and Binary logistic regression model to analyze the relationship of total satisfaction of mental intervention with each index. RESULTS: The dignity and confidentiality indicators were higher weight and rating. Prompt attention and the autonomy indicators were higher weight but lower rating, while surroundings and choice of providers indicators were lower weight and rating. It was also found that communication and social support network indicators were lower weight but higher rating. The overall assessment of mental intervention service system responsiveness ranged between "good" and "very good". All rank correlation coefficients of the indicators and the total satisfaction of mental interventions were significant (r(s) = 0.186 - 0.362, P < 0.05), except for confidentiality. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main factors of the individual variables influencing the total satisfaction were dignity (adjusted OR = 3.047, P < 0.001), surroundings (adjusted OR = 1.619, P = 0.019), and social support network (adjusted OR = 1.527, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The overall assessment of mental intervention service system responsiveness was high. Mental interventions should be taken positive and effective measures to improve the prompt attention, autonomy, the choice of providers and service environment.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the mental intervention service system responsiveness. METHODS: A stratified, multi-stage random cluster sampling method was used, and a total of 211 residents in the central earthquake area were face to face interviewed by using the evaluating questionnaire of mental intervention service system responsiveness (including confidentiality, autonomy, prompt attention and so on, in sum of eight indicators). Analytic hierarchy process method was used to determine the weight of each index, carrying out a single index evaluation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on the mental intervention service system responsiveness, and using Spearman rank correlation and Binary logistic regression model to analyze the relationship of total satisfaction of mental intervention with each index. RESULTS: The dignity and confidentiality indicators were higher weight and rating. Prompt attention and the autonomy indicators were higher weight but lower rating, while surroundings and choice of providers indicators were lower weight and rating. It was also found that communication and social support network indicators were lower weight but higher rating. The overall assessment of mental intervention service system responsiveness ranged between "good" and "very good". All rank correlation coefficients of the indicators and the total satisfaction of mental interventions were significant (r(s) = 0.186 - 0.362, P < 0.05), except for confidentiality. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main factors of the individual variables influencing the total satisfaction were dignity (adjusted OR = 3.047, P < 0.001), surroundings (adjusted OR = 1.619, P = 0.019), and social support network (adjusted OR = 1.527, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The overall assessment of mental intervention service system responsiveness was high. Mental interventions should be taken positive and effective measures to improve the prompt attention, autonomy, the choice of providers and service environment.