ObjectiveTo develop the Evidence Grading Scale for Ancient classical prescriptions in Traditional Chinese medicine， assess its reliability and validity， and apply it in practice to provide multi-source evidence for clinical practice guidelines development. MethodsLiterature retrieval was conducted to extract and screen existing evaluation dimensions， then the initial items were summarized using thematic analysis. Experts in the clinical medicine， medical history and literature participated in the Delphi questionnaire survey to evaluate and refine the items. An expert consensus meeting was conducted to finalize the included items， refine the method for items evaluation and evidence grading. The evidence quality rating scale for ancient classical traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） prescriptions was then established and tested for reliability and validity. ResultsThrough literature review， extraction， screening and summarization， a total of 3 dimensions and 12 initial items were formed. Questionnaires were sent to 69 experts to evaluate the initial items， with a questionnaire response rate of 100% and an expert authority coefficient of 0.92. All 12 items were retained for they had importance scores above 4. The Evidence Grading Scale on Ancient classical prescriptions in Traditional Chinese medicine includes 3 dimensions with 12 items. The 3 dimensions includes ancient evidence， inheritance status， and modern application. Each dimension contains 4 items， and each item has a full score of 5 points. The evidence was rated as high-level， moderate-level， and low-level according to the final scores. The content validity index （CVI） of the 12 items was ＞0.9， the average CVI of the scale was 0.98， and the intraclass correlation coefficient （ICC） was 0.90. ConclusionThe Evidence Grading Scale on Ancient classical prescriptions in Traditional Chinese medicine has good reliability and validity， which is practical for use in the development of TCM clinical guidelines and can better support clinical decision-making.

The survey on the hesitant status of rubella-containing vaccine (RCV) vaccination was conducted among 2 141 women of childbearing age in four provinces, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui, from May 2017 to March 2018. Among the 2 141 study participants, a total of 38.21% (818) of women of childbearing age were aware of rubella and 21.25% (455) of women of childbearing age knew about RCV. Among the 455 women of childbearing age who were aware of RCV, 262 (57.58%) were willing to be vaccinated with RCV; 304 women of childbearing age (66.81%) tended to be vaccinated with RCV free of charge. Among the 193 women of childbearing age who did not want to be vaccinated or did not decide whether they preferred to be vaccinated with RCV, no one around them was vaccinated (89, 46.11%) and fear of vaccine safety (70, 36.27%) were the main reasons for hesitation to receive RCV.

The survey on the hesitant status of rubella-containing vaccine (RCV) vaccination was conducted among 2 141 women of childbearing age in four provinces, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui, from May 2017 to March 2018. Among the 2 141 study participants, a total of 38.21% (818) of women of childbearing age were aware of rubella and 21.25% (455) of women of childbearing age knew about RCV. Among the 455 women of childbearing age who were aware of RCV, 262 (57.58%) were willing to be vaccinated with RCV; 304 women of childbearing age (66.81%) tended to be vaccinated with RCV free of charge. Among the 193 women of childbearing age who did not want to be vaccinated or did not decide whether they preferred to be vaccinated with RCV, no one around them was vaccinated (89, 46.11%) and fear of vaccine safety (70, 36.27%) were the main reasons for hesitation to receive RCV.