| Literature DB >> 36232111 |
Zikang Hao1, Mengmeng Zhang2, Kerui Liu3, Xiaodan Zhang1, Haoran Jia4, Ping Chen1.
Abstract
(1) Background: In recent years, new media and the integration of sport and medicine have promoted the rapid integration and development of the two fields of health and, to a certain extent, the pursuit of public health knowledge and the promotion of health concepts. However, the overall development process is at an early stage and the aim of this paper is to make an empirical analysis of its development through a SWOT-AHP model and give corresponding recommendations. (2)Entities:
Keywords: SWOT-AHP; new media; public health; social media; sports medicine; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36232111 PMCID: PMC9566796 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The progress of SWOT-AHP analysis.
Figure 2Hierarchical analysis structure graph.
AHP scale.
| Intensity of Importance | Definition | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Equal Importance | Two activities contribute equally to the objective |
| 3 | Moderate importance | Experience and judgement slightly favour one activity over another |
| 5 | Strong importance | Experience and judgement strongly favour one activity over another |
| 7 | Very strong or demonstrated importance | An activity is favoured very strongly over another; its dominance is demonstrated in practice |
| 9 | Extreme importance | The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation |
| 2, 4, 6, 8 | Importance between the above levels | |
| 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, | If sub-factor A is less important than sub-factor B, then intensity of importance of A is the inverse of intensity of importance of B | A reasonable assumption |
Comparison matrix A.
Comparison matrix A.
Normalized judgment matrix A′.
Judgement matrix after calculation.
Judgement matrix after calculation.
| W1 | ||||||
| W2 | ||||||
| W3 | ||||||
| W4 |
Average random consistency index.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1.12 | 1.26 | 1.36 | 1.41 | 1.46 |
Coordinate system and quadrant partitioning of the SWOT-AHP model.
| First Quadrant | Second Quadrant | Third Quadrant | Fourth Quadrant | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioneering strategic areas | Ambitious strategic areas | Conservative strategic areas | Resistant strategic areas | ||||
| Type | Azimuth field | Type | Azimuth field | Type | Azimuth field | Type | Azimuth field |
| Strength type |
| Aggressive type |
| Retreating type |
| Adjustment type |
|
| Opportunity Type |
| Adjustment type |
| Avoidance type |
| Aggressive type |
|
The details about the SWOT-AHP model.
| SWOT-AHP Group | Comparison | SUM | Relative |
|
| CI | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| WS1 = 0.0672 | AWS1 = 0.2804 | 4.2301 | 0.0766 | 0.0772 |
|
|
|
| WW1 = 0.9782 | AWW1 = 0.2935 | 3.00198 | 0.0009 | 0.0018 |
|
|
|
| WO1 = 0.2840 | AWO1 = 1.1569 | 4.05136 | 0.0171 | 0.0189 |
|
|
|
| WT1 = 0.2298 | AWT1 = 0.6902 | 3.00369 | 0.0018 | 0.0033 |
The strength of each sub-factor of the model.
| SWOT Group | Relative Importance (Weighting) W | Estimated Intensity | The Strength of Each Sub-Factor | Total Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| WS1 = 0.0672 | S1 = 1 | 0.0671 | 4.8007 |
|
| WW1 = 0.9782 | W1 = −2 | −0.1956 | −3.9577 |
|
| WO1 = 0.2840 | O1 = 4 | 1.1360 | 4.6231 |
|
| WT1 = 0.2298 | T1 = −3 | −0.6897 | −4.8215 |
Figure 3The SWOT strategy quadrilateral. S: Strength, W: Weakness, T: Threats and O: Opportunity.
Figure 4Development strategy vector and interval maps. S: Strength, W: Weakness, T: Threats and O: Opportunity.