关键词: 层次分析法, 病原微生物实验室, 生物安全管理, 指标体系, 区域差异, 实证研究

Abstract:

Objective To establish a scientific and reasonable evaluation system for laboratory biosafety management，analyze the differences in biosafety management levels among different regions，and propose systematic improvement strategies to enhance the governance efficiency of laboratory biosafety. Methods The analytic hierarchy process（AHP） was adopted to construct an evaluation index system，which was divided into 3 levels，including 3 first-level indicators，10 second-level indicators，and 40 third-level indicators. The weights of the indicators were determined through system decomposition，pairwise comparison matrices，and consistency check（CI） to ensure the scientificity and applicability of the evaluation system. From April 9th to 15th，2025，this system was used to assess the current status of biosafety management in laboratories of 11 cities in Shanxi Province，identifying the main shortcomings and influencing factors. Results The study confirmed that the AHP method could construct a scientific and reasonable evaluation index system for laboratory biosafety management. Empirical analysis showed that the development of biosafety management in laboratories in different regions was unbalanced，with the comprehensive scores of laboratory biosafety management in various cities ranging from 76.52 to 92.70. Among them，the management of facilities and equipment was relatively balanced and at a relatively high level across all cities，but there were significant differences in the scores of safety emergency management，personnel management，and other indicators，showing a phenomenon of "emphasizing hardware over management". Further analysis revealed that the regional differences in second-level indicators reflecting management capabilities，such as risk control and personnel management，and third-level indicators such as high-pathogenicity pathogen strain or sample transportation certificates and personnel training were prominent，exposing deficiencies in the implementation of systems and daily management. Conclusion The AHP method is suitable for laboratory biosafety evaluation，but attention should be paid to the possible bias caused by the subjective cognition of decision-makers. In response to management shortcomings，it is recommended to strengthen the construction of a standardized system，improve risk assessment and emergency mechanisms，optimize personnel management and health monitoring，and innovate supervision and regional collaboration mechanisms. Future research should increase the proportion of field investigations，further refine evaluation indicators，and deeply explore the implementation effects of improvement strategies to build a more comprehensive biosafety management system.

Key words: Analytic hierarchy process, Pathogenic microorganism laboratory, Biosafety management, Index system, Regional differences, Empirical research