Applying the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Evaluate Key Indicators of Health Promotion Policies for the Elderly in Taiwan

Table 8

The integration weights of evaluation aspects and evaluation indicators.

Evaluation aspect	Weight (A)	Evaluation indicator	Weight (B)	Integration weight (C) = (A)∗(B)
Healthy living (C1)	0.313 (1)	Promotion of personal health awareness and behavior (C11)	0.282 (1)	0.0883 (1)
		Well-planned health promotion plans for the elderly (C12)	0.236 (3)	0.0739 (5)
		Promotion of home medical services (C13)	0.251 (2)	0.0785 (2)
		Seamless integration of medical services and social care (C14)	0.231 (4)	0.0723 (7)
Happy family (C2)	0.291 (2)	Training long-term care service personnel and providing professional medical care (C21)	0.254 (3)	0.0739 (5)
		Planning a family caregiver support service system (C22)	0.258 (2)	0.0751 (4)
		Promoting connection and mutual assistance between families and the community (C23)	0.223 (4)	0.0649 (8)
		Guaranteeing the economic security of the elderly (C24)	0.265 (1)	0.0771 (3)
Vibrant society (C3)	0.194 (4)	Promotion of participation by older adults in work (C31)	0.231 (3)	0.0448 (14)
		Encouragement of the elderly to participate in voluntary service (C32)	0.270 (2)	0.0524 (12)
		Promotion of an education and learning system for older adults (C33)	0.273 (1)	0.0530 (11)
		Encouragement of creative thinking concerning services for older adults (C34)	0.226 (4)	0.0438 (15)
Friendly environment (C4)	0.202 (3)	Establishment of a network of continuous service resources (C41)	0.245 (3)	0.0495 (13)
		Establishment of community service resource centers (C42)	0.276 (2)	0.0557 (10)
		Creation of friendly living facilities and spaces (C43)	0.281 (1)	0.0568 (9)
		Review of laws, regulations, and public education (C44)	0.198 (4)	0.040 (16)

Note. The parentheses after the weight number mean the ranking.