Table 4 Comparison of the results between cross sectional study and policy analysis
Dimension | Study design | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cross-sectional study | Policy documents analysis | Comparison | ||
Project performance in practice/performance objective in the policy documents | Relevance (Mean ± standard deviation/n) | 0.80 ± 0.22 | 17 | + |
Efficiency | 0.70 ± 0.24 | 11 | − | |
Effectiveness | 0.78 ± 0.19 | 11 | − | |
Satisfaction | 0.83 ± 0.20 | 6 | × | |
Social impact | 0.81 ± 0.17 | 13 | + | |
Sustainability | 0.80 ± 0.19 | 11 | + | |
Factors associated with project performance/coordination of participants described in the policy documents | Service object | Advanced ageing (P < 0.05), ageing | Oldest old | + |
Region (southern, northern and central of Jiangsu) | Region (degree of economic hardship: rural and urban) | − | ||
Not measured | Disability, dementia | / | ||
Not measured | Lonely, empty nest, left behind | / | ||
Undertaker | Social worker | Social force | + | |
Doctor/preventive medicine worker and nurse | Professional work force | + | ||
Others | Charitable organization, voluntary service organization, voluntary service organization of Red Cross Society | / | ||
Enterprise, industry association | / | |||
Training year (professional training) | − | / | ||
Purchaser | Red Cross Society | MCA, NHC, SC, MF, NDRC, RCSC, etc. | + | |