目的 比较和分析当前各地中医药卫生人员职称评审政策，为日后中医药卫生人员职称评审制度的进一步完善提供参考。方法 访问我国31个省（自治区、直辖市）卫生健康委员会、中医药管理局、人力资源和社会保障局（厅）及五所职称自评单位官方网站，以“医师职称”“职称评审”“评审通知”“评审要求”等作为关键词，检索2015年6月至2020年11月公开发布的与卫生人员职称评审相关的政策文件。从纳入的文件中提取中医药卫生人员高级职称评审政策措施和具体内容，并采用内容分析法分析其评审主体、评审分类、评审分层和主要评审指标等要素。结果 ①共纳入文件136项，包括“评审条件”类文件97项，“政策改革”类文件39项。②当下各省中医药卫生人员职称评审主体主要有两大类，一类是省级卫生主管部门、人力资源和社会保障部门，另一类是自主评审单位、区域卫生主管部门，所有省份中只有四川省的评审主体为省级或地市中医药管理部门。③各省在卫生系列职称评审过程中均有分类评审政策，但是仅有9个省份将中医单独分类评审。④所有省份在评审过程中均实行了分层评审制度，但是分层标准有所不同。⑤主要评审指标有科研类指标、工作业绩指标、中医特色指标及其他指标（含学历资历、医师考核、继续教育、基层服务及外语与计算机能力等）。结论 当下中医分类评审制度欠缺，评审主体仍未能以中医为主导，各层级评审要求制定有待完善，中医特色考核指标不多，建议构建中医药特色职称评价体系，贴合临床实际制定并不断完善各层级评审要求，增加中医特色考核定量指标及其比重等。

Objective To compare and analyze the current policy of professional title review of TCM health personnel in each province, so as to provide a reference for further improvement of professional title review system of TCM health personnel in the future.Methods The official websites of health committees, Traditional Chinese Medicine Administration (TCM), Human Resource and Social Security Administration (Department) and five self-evaluation units for professional titles in 31 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) of China were accessed, and the keywords "physician title", "title review", "notice of review", "requirement of review" were used to retrieve publicly available policy documents related to professional title review of health personnel from June 2015 to November 2020. Policy measures and specific contents of senior professional title review for TCM health personnel were extracted from the included documents, and the elements including review body, review classification, review stratification and main review indicators were analyzed by content analysis method.Results ① A total of 136 items were included in the document, including 97 items in the "conditions of review" class of document and 39 items in the "policy reform" class of document. ② There were two main categories of review subjects for professional titles of TCM health personnel in all provinces at the moment, one was the provincial health authority, human resources and social security department, and the other was the autonomous review unit, regional health authority, and only Sichuan Province"s review subjects were provincial level or municipal TCM administration departments in all provinces. ③ Provinces had policies for classification review during the review process of professional titles in health series, but only nine provinces had separate classification reviews for TCM. ④ All provinces applied a tiered review system during the review process, however, the stratification criteria varied. ⑤ The main review indicators were indicators of scientific research type, professional performance indicators, characteristic indicators of traditional Chinese medicine and other indicators (including qualifications of education, assessment of physicians, continuing education, primary services and foreign languages and computer ability, etc.).Conclusion At present, the system of traditional Chinese medicine classification review is lacking, and the review main body still fails to be dominated by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. The requirements of review at each level need to be improved, and there are not many evaluation indicators of characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine. It is recommended to construct the evaluation system of title for characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine, conform to the clinical practice and develop the requirements of each level of review, and increase the quantitative index of evaluation of characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine and its specific gravity and so on.

国家中医药管理局政策法规与监督司委托课题（GZY-FJS-2020-005）：中医药人才评价体系研究，负责人：胡镜清；中国中医科学院选题局委托行业专项（Y-1903）：中医药科研院所分类管理与绩效评价标准研究，负责人：胡镜清。