Objective:To present an evaluation indicator system for access to cancer screening services.Methods:The evaluation indicator pool was constructed through a scoping review. The theoretical framework was constructed based on the multi-source indicators, and the qualitative expert consultation method was employed to form the initial version of the three-level evaluation indicator system. Delphi expert consultation method was conducted in two rounds to evaluate the relevance, importance, and availability of the proposed evaluation indicator system. The expert positive coefficient, authority coefficient, coordination degree of expert opinions, and concentration of expert opinions were subjected to analysis. Subsequently, the three-level evaluation indicator system for access to cancer screening services was adjusted and determined based on the boundary value method and the open opinions of experts. Finally, the combination weight method was employed to determine the weight.Results:The initial version of the indicator system comprised 3 primary (first-level) indicators, 11 secondary (second-level) indicators, and 46 tertiary (third-level) indicators. Delphi expert consultation was conducted for the initial version, and 17 experts ultimately completed it, exhibiting a positive coefficient of 100% and an authority coefficient of 0.87. In comparison to the initial round of consultation, Kendall's W coefficient ranges (0.15-0.43, all P<0.05) of relevance, importance, and availability scores for each tertiary indicator in the second round exhibited an improvement. The analysis of the importance dimension indicates that expert opinions are also more concentrated, as evidenced by an increase of 8.5% and 7.0% in the proportion of the tertiary indicators with an arithmetic mean above 8 and a full mark ratio above 0.5, respectively. The final evaluation indicator system comprises three primary indicators, with the weights of structure evaluation, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation being 0.338, 0.378, and 0.285, respectively. It also comprises 11 secondary indicators and 45 tertiary indicators. Conclusions:The evaluation indicator system developed in this article can be an effective evaluation tool for quantitative comparison of access to cancer screening services across different populations, cancer types, and before and after intervention. Furthermore, it is recommended that the system undergo continuous optimization concerning its application.

Objective:To present an evaluation indicator system for access to cancer screening services.Methods:The evaluation indicator pool was constructed through a scoping review. The theoretical framework was constructed based on the multi-source indicators, and the qualitative expert consultation method was employed to form the initial version of the three-level evaluation indicator system. Delphi expert consultation method was conducted in two rounds to evaluate the relevance, importance, and availability of the proposed evaluation indicator system. The expert positive coefficient, authority coefficient, coordination degree of expert opinions, and concentration of expert opinions were subjected to analysis. Subsequently, the three-level evaluation indicator system for access to cancer screening services was adjusted and determined based on the boundary value method and the open opinions of experts. Finally, the combination weight method was employed to determine the weight.Results:The initial version of the indicator system comprised 3 primary (first-level) indicators, 11 secondary (second-level) indicators, and 46 tertiary (third-level) indicators. Delphi expert consultation was conducted for the initial version, and 17 experts ultimately completed it, exhibiting a positive coefficient of 100% and an authority coefficient of 0.87. In comparison to the initial round of consultation, Kendall's W coefficient ranges (0.15-0.43, all P<0.05) of relevance, importance, and availability scores for each tertiary indicator in the second round exhibited an improvement. The analysis of the importance dimension indicates that expert opinions are also more concentrated, as evidenced by an increase of 8.5% and 7.0% in the proportion of the tertiary indicators with an arithmetic mean above 8 and a full mark ratio above 0.5, respectively. The final evaluation indicator system comprises three primary indicators, with the weights of structure evaluation, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation being 0.338, 0.378, and 0.285, respectively. It also comprises 11 secondary indicators and 45 tertiary indicators. Conclusions:The evaluation indicator system developed in this article can be an effective evaluation tool for quantitative comparison of access to cancer screening services across different populations, cancer types, and before and after intervention. Furthermore, it is recommended that the system undergo continuous optimization concerning its application.