Table 5 PMC index scores and grade evaluation of two-way referral policy
From: Quantitative evaluation of two-way referral policies based on PMC index model
Code | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | PMC index | Ranking | Level | Issuing region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 6.12 | 3 | excellent | Hainan |
P2 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.22 | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 4.99 | 14 | acceptability | the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region |
P3 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.43 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 5.55 | 13 | acceptability | Sichuan |
P4 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 6.11 | 4 | excellent | Guizhou |
P5 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 6.26 | 5 | excellent | Shanxi |
P6 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.89 | 0.43 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 6.42 | 2 | excellent | Yunnan |
P7 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.89 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 5.67 | 9 | acceptability | Guizhou |
P8 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 5.75 | 11 | acceptability | Jiangxi |
P9 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.40 | 5.59 | 7 | acceptability | Guangxi |
P10 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.57 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 5.69 | 10 | acceptability | Shanghai |
P11 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 5.35 | 12 | acceptability | Guangdong |
P12 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 5.61 | 8 | acceptability | Guangdong |
P13 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 6.18 | 6 | excellent | Beijing |
P14 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 6.86 | 1 | excellent | Jiangsu |
Mean value | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 5.84 | Â | Â | Â |