# Health Project Prioritization in Meta, Colombia, Using Anp-Dematel
## 4 Results  
The authors applied expert-derived influence models consisting of relationship matrices and limit matrices to quantify interconnections among network elements and groups. These analytical constructs facilitated the determination of expert-specific priority assignments for system components. Additionally, stakeholders completed Questionnaire 2 (Table A4) to evaluate both criteria importance and alternative prioritization. Analysis was performed using SuperDecisions software version number 3.2.0 [31; 32]. The authors aggregated priorities by calculating the geometric mean of re-normalized expert judgments, following the methodological framework by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (1998) [33], which accounts for individual judgment variability. The consolidated outcomes are presented in Table 9 (criteria priorities, with percentage values enabling comparative interpretation across all evaluated elements). Figure 3: ANP-DEMATEL influence network for health project prioritization. The comparative analysis reveals that criterion C.4.1 (8.54%) received the highest weight, highlighting its focus on reducing the proportion of the population with Unmet Basic Needs (UBNs). Its prioritization reflects its direct contribution to improving quality of life, reducing socioeconomic inequalities, and promoting food and nutritional security for vulnerable populations. Criterion C.6.1 (8.15%), which focuses on expanding hospital capacity for emergencies and disasters, underscores the importance of preparedness for health crises. Its position reflects the emphasis on public health system resilience and responsiveness. Similarly, criterion C.9.2 (7.59%) emphasizes financial sustainability, efficient resource allocation, and strategic planning to enhance the longevity and effectiveness of health interventions. Criterion C.6.2 (7.55%) addresses access to basic and advanced emergency transport in rural and remote areas. Criterion C.4.2 (7.14%) targets the reduction of acute malnutrition in children under five and was prioritized for its impact on nutrition outcomes. Other relevant criteria include C.2.2 (7.03%) for oral health, C.8.1 (6.96%) for Indigenous and rural health access, and C.3.2 (6.00%) for reducing domestic violence--underscoring the relevance of mental health and social cohesion. Other important criteria include C.2.2 (7.03%), aimed at reducing oral health problems--a frequently overlooked determinant of general health and a key factor in preventing non-communicable diseases. Criterion C.8.1 (6.96%) promotes equitable access to healthcare services for dispersed rural and Indigenous populations, reaffirming the importance of differential approaches in health policy. Finally, criterion C.3.2 (6.00%) addresses the reduction of domestic violence, thus highlighting the relevance of mental health and social cohesion within the broader public health agenda. This prioritization pattern demonstrates that experts placed a strong emphasis on criteria related to equity, system sustainability, access to essential services, and emergency preparedness, reflecting a multidimensional understanding of health system strengthening. It integrates technical, social, and territorial considerations to guide decision-making and optimize the overall impact of health investments [34; 35]. The prioritization analysis