Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process Method, the Impact of an HIV Health Education Campaign is Evaluated

^*Correspondence: Xiadre Moete, Department of Neurology, State University of Santa Catarina, Lages 88520-000, Brazil, Email:

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process • HIV • Stigma

Introduction

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making method developed in the 1970s. It provides a structured approach to compare and prioritize different criteria based on their relative importance. AHP breaks down complex decision-making problems into a hierarchy of criteria and alternatives, allowing decision-makers to assess their impacts and make informed choices. When evaluating the impact of an HIV health education campaign, the first step is to establish the hierarchy of criteria. This hierarchy typically consists of three levels: the goal, criteria, and alternatives. The goal represents the ultimate objective, such as increasing knowledge, changing attitudes, or reducing risky behaviours. Criteria can include factors such as reach, message clarity, community engagement, and cost-effectiveness. Alternatives refer to the various strategies or interventions implemented in the campaign [1,2].

Literature Review

After establishing the hierarchy, decision-makers assign relative weights to the criteria and alternatives. The weights reflect the importance or priority of each element in achieving the campaign's goal. These weights can be derived through expert opinions, surveys, or statistical analysis. It is crucial to involve stakeholders and representatives from the target population to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive evaluation. AHP employs pairwise comparisons to assess the relative importance of criteria and alternatives. Decision-makers compare each criterion or alternative against another and assign a numerical value indicating the strength of their preference. These pairwise comparisons result in a matrix that captures the relative priorities and allows for further analysis [3-5].

Discussion

To ensure the validity of the results, AHP incorporates consistency analysis. Decision-makers' judgments can be prone to inconsistencies or contradictions, which may affect the reliability of the evaluation. Consistency checks, such as the consistency ratio, are used to identify and rectify any inconsistencies in the pairwise comparison matrix. The application of AHP in evaluating HIV health education campaigns offers several advantages. Firstly, it provides a systematic and structured framework, allowing decision-makers to consider multiple criteria and alternatives holistically. AHP facilitates transparent decision-making, as it requires decision-makers to justify their judgments and compare them objectively. Furthermore, AHP allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling adjustments to the evaluation process based on evolving needs and changing circumstances [6].

Conclusion

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides a valuable methodology for evaluating the impact of HIV health education campaigns. By employing a structured approach to decision-making, AHP allows for the comprehensive assessment of multiple criteria and alternatives, aiding in the identification of effective strategies. The transparency and flexibility of AHP support evidencebased decision-making and enable stakeholders to actively participate in the evaluation process. While challenges such as subjectivity and data availability exist, incorporating diverse perspectives and leveraging qualitative assessments can enhance the robustness of the evaluation. By utilizing AHP, decision-makers can gain valuable insights into the effectiveness of HIV health education campaigns, facilitating targeted interventions and ultimately contributing to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Wu, Zunyou, Xinhua Sun, Sheena G. Sullivan and Roger Detels. "HIV testing in China." Science 312 (2006): 1475-1476.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Saaty, Thomas L. "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures." J Math Psychol 15 (1977): 234-281.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Tan, Xiaodong, Jianyan Lin, Fengjie Wang and Hong Luo, et al. "Evaluation of the effect of a health education campaign of HIV by using an analytical hierarchy process method." Int J Environ Res Public Health 4 (2007): 254-259.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Jianyan, L., W. Fengjie and L. Hong. "To evaluate the effect of health education about AIDS’knowledge, attitude and practice among service industries attendants." J Chinese Public Health 20 (2004): 81-82.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Ayyub, B. M. "Guidelines on expert-opinion elicitation of probabilities and consequences for corps facilities." Inst Water Resour 20 (1999): 1-23.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

6. Bowen, Glenn A. "Document analysis as a qualitative research method." Qual Res J (2009).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at