Objective To understand the social influence on Guangxi Medical and Health Appropriate Technology Promotion Award (hereinafter referred to as Appropriate Award), and to summarize the organizational review experiences of Appropriate Award, so as to provide a reference for improving management level of science and technology awards established by social forces. Methods Questionnaire investigation was performed on medical and health technical personnel from 35 medical and health institutions in Guangxi. The evaluation states of social influence, main problems existed, and comments and suggestions of Appropriate Award were compared and analyzed between investigation subjects. Results (1) A total of 2879 investigation questionnaires were issued, 2856 valid questionnaires were effectively collected, with an effective recovery rate of 99.2%. (2) Investigation subjects in 64.01% had a very good or a relatively good understanding of Appropriate Award, 72.79% of investigation subjects thought that the authority of Appropriate Award was large or relatively large, 77.87% of them believed that Appropriate Award was highly recognized or relatively high⁃recognized in the medical and health industry, and 52.20% of them were familiar with and had some understanding of Guangxi Health Science and Education Information Management System and would declare Appropriate Award on the system. There were statistically significant differences in the understanding of Appropriate Award, the understanding of Guangxi Health Science and Education Information Management System and the declaration of Appropriate Award on the system, and the evaluation of the authority and recognition of Appropriate Award between investigation subjects with different professional titles (P<0.05), therein individuals with senior professional title exhibited higher understanding rate of Appropriate Award, authority rate of Appropriate Award, recognition rate of Appropriate Award, and understanding rate of Guangxi Health Science and Education Information Management System and its declaration procedures as compared with individuals with intermediate professional title and below (P<0.05). (3) Investigation subjects in 79.56%, 78.02% and 80.78% thought that the appraisal process of Appropriate Award was fair or relatively fair, transparent or relatively transparent, and the appraisal organization management standard or relatively standard, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in evaluation states of impartiality, transparency, normalization of appraisal organization management on appraisal processes of Appropriate Award between investigation subjects with different professional titles (P<0.05). Individuals with senior professional title obtained higher impartiality rate, transparency rate on appraisal processes of Appropriate Award, and a higher normalization rate of appraisal organization management on appraisal processes of Appropriate Award as compared with individuals with intermediate professional title and below (P<0.05). (4) The main problems of Appropriate Award existed were insufficient reward strength, insufficient openness, and unscientific evaluation index system. (5) There was no statistically significant difference in the selection of Appropriate Award quota method and treatment suggestion of research integrity between investigation subjects with different professional titles (P>0.05). (6) There was a statistically significant difference in opinions on the number of public announcements of the proposed award projects between investigation subjects with different professional titles (P<0.05), therein the proportion of individuals with intermediate professional title, and with junior professional title and below who agreed that the number of public announcements should be increased 3 times and the time of public announcements should be shortened was higher than that of individuals with senior and deputy senior professional titles (P<0.05). (7) Investigation subjects in 70.10% agreed that anonymous reporting, overdue reporting and objections not raised during the public announcement period would not be accepted. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of investigation subjects with different professional titles agreeing to refuse to accept anonymous reporting, overdue reporting and objections not raised during the public announcement period (P<0.05), therein for the proportion of individuals who agreed to anonymous reporting, overdue reporting and objections not raised during the public announcement period would not be accepted, individuals with senior and deputy senior professional titles was higher than individuals with intermediate professional title, and individuals with deputy senior professional title was higher than individuals with junior professional title and below (P<0.05). Conclusion Guangxi medical and health technical personnel have a high awareness of Appropriate Award, and believe that the appraisal process of Appropriate Award is fair and transparent, the appraisal organization and management is standardized, and the social influence is great. However, there are still some problems such as insufficient reward strength, insufficient openness, and unscientific evaluation index system. It is suggested that appraisal organization department of science and technology awards established by social forces should reasonably set the number of awards, increase the transparency of appraisal and social supervision, strengthen the management of scientific research integrity, continuously improve the evaluation index system.

无