探讨利益相关者视角下社区突发公共卫生事件抗逆力构建的现状并进行系统分析。

分别选取黑龙江、四川、广东三省的省会城市和一个地级城市为调查对象，采用课题组前期引进并汉化的CART量表结合Likert五级评分法并基于秩和检验结果从五个维度分析社区抗逆力构建过程中存在的问题。

共发出调查问卷2 625份，收回实际有效问卷2 506份，实际回收率为94.49%。秩和结果显示，在五个维度中"变革的潜力"秩和排名最高，"信息沟通交流"秩和排名最低。地方人民政府在"拥有的资源""变革的潜力""灾害的管理能力""信息的沟通交流"四个维度的排名位于其他利益相关者之首；而社区居民除"联系与关怀"外的其他维度及总体排名均处于最低水平；卫生行政及专业技术部门在"联系与关怀"维度的排名低于其他利益相关者。

基于多元利益主体的社区突发公共卫生事件抗逆力构建体系尚不完善，各利益相关群体之间缺乏沟通合作机制，地方人民政府构建社区抗逆力的意识匮乏以及物资投入不足，社区居民自主参与性较差。

To discuss the status quo of community public health emergency resilience construction from the perspective of stakeholders and to carry out systematic analysis.

The provincial capital cities of Heilongjiang, Sichuan and Guangdong provinces and a local-level cities were selected as the survey subjects, and the problems in the construction of community resistance were analyzed from five dimensions by combining the FIVE-level scoring method of Likert with the CART scale introduced and chineseized in the early stage of the task force.

A total of 2 625 questionnaires were sent out, and 2 506 actual valid questionnaires were recovered, with an actual recovery rate of 94.49%. Rank and results showed that the "potential for change" rank and ranking were the highest in the five dimensions, and the "information communication" rank and ranking were the lowest. Local people’s governments ranked first among other stakeholders in the four dimensions of "resources owned" , "potential for change" , "disaster management capabilities" and "information communication and communication" , while community residents ranked the lowest in all but "contact and care" dimensions, and health administration and professional and technical departments ranked lower than other stakeholders in the "contact and care" dimension.

The construction system of community public health emergency resistance based on multiple interest subjects is not perfect; there is no communication and cooperation mechanism among the various stakeholders; the local people’s government’s consciousness of building community resistance is lacking and the material input is insufficient and the self-participation of community residents is poor.