| Literature DB >> 30626073 |
Guang-Bin Qu1, Tian-Yu Zhao2, Bo-Wei Zhu3,4, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng5, Shan-Lin Huang6,7,8.
Abstract
Climate change-related anomalies have increased public concern regarding environmental protection. This has opened newer rural development avenues. In this regard, livability of villages is crucial; it can be evaluated based on the villagers' quality of life (QoL). The WHOQOL-BREF, a comprehensive cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary scale proposed by the World Health Organization to assess QoL, has aided in assessing and improving QoL in different regions. However, the factors of this instrument are mutually influential, necessitating an improvement strategy considering the entire system. This problem may be resolved using the DANP-mV model. However, the traditional DANP-mV model includes many items and responding to all of them is difficult for experts. Therefore, by using the case of Xingshisi Village in China, this study proposed a modified DANP-mV model to provide additional suggestions for systematic improvement of the QoL and livability in the village. Xingshisi is a model village built according to an aspirational benchmark; however, different from the traditional definition of a benchmark, this village exhibits room for improvement. Although the modified model reduces the number of questions from 650 to 168, its effect remains similar to that of the traditional model. Moreover, in the modified model, physical capacity (D₁) presented the largest dimensional gap. The interaction among the factors indicated that considering the effect of the environment (D₄) and developing a systematic improvement strategy are necessary to improve the livability of villages facing limited resources.Entities:
Keywords: DANP-mV model; WHOQOL-BREF; aspiration level; benchmark; quality of life; village livability
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30626073 PMCID: PMC6339206 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16010153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Indicator structure used in this study based on the Chinese version of WHOQOL-BREF (Brief version of quality of life framework proposed by the World Health Organization).
Description of all criteria in the Chinese version of WHOQOL framework.
| Criterion Name | Description |
|---|---|
| Pain and discomfort ( | Measures whether the respondents have a physical state of illness. |
| Dependence on medical substances and medical aids ( | Indicates the status of respondents with chronic diseases. |
| Energy and fatigue ( | Determines the respondents’ vitality. |
| Daily life activities ( | Determines the respondents’ ability to care for themselves. |
| Sleep and rest ( | Surveys the respondents’ quality of sleep and rest. |
| Mobility ( | Determines the respondents’ mobility. |
| Work capacity ( | Indicates the respondents’ ability to work. |
| Positive feelings ( | Determines the respondents’ positive emotional state. |
| Spirituality, religion, personal beliefs, thinking, and learning ( | Indicates the respondents’ state of belief. |
| Memory and concentration ( | Determines the respondents’ memory and concentration. |
| Body image ( | Refers to the respondents’ external feelings. |
| Self-esteem ( | Refers to respondents’ cognitive evaluation of self. |
| Negative feelings ( | Determines the respondents’ negative emotional state. |
| Personal relationships ( | Refers to the relationship between respondents and their families. |
| Relationship between husband and wife ( | Refers to the feelings between husband and wife. |
| Social support ( | |
| Respected by others ( | Refers to the relationship between other people and the respondents. |
| Freedom, physical safety, and security ( | Refers to the respondents’ safe and free living environment. |
| Physical environment ( | Refers to the respondents’ external living environment. |
| Financial resources ( | Mainly refers to the respondents’ financial status. |
| Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills ( | Mainly refers to whether the respondents’ environment facilitates gaining of new knowledge and skills. |
| Participation in and opportunities for recreation activities ( | Mainly refers to whether the respondents’ environment has related entertainment activities. |
| Home environment ( | Refers to the respondents’ internal living environment. |
| Health and social care: accessibility and quality ( | Indicates whether the respondents’ living environment has adequate health care services. |
| Transport ( | Refers to the degree of traffic convenience of the respondents’ environment. |
| Convenience of dining ( | Determines the respondents’ dietary environment. |
Figure 2Development of the INRM (Influential Network Relation Map) and formulation of improvement strategies.
Figure 3Procedure of the modified DANP-mV model.
Figure 4Overall INRM (influential network relation map).
Average direct-influence relation matrix and total influence relation matrix of each dimension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 3.500 | 2.200 | 2.000 |
| 0.873 | 1.334 | 1.086 | 0.926 |
|
| 2.900 | 0 | 3.300 | 2.100 |
| 1.146 | 1.108 | 1.196 | 0.967 |
|
| 1.700 | 3.000 | 0 | 1.900 |
| 0.924 | 1.174 | 0.787 | 0.829 |
|
| 2.600 | 2.800 | 1.700 | 0 |
| 1.038 | 1.222 | 0.990 | 0.702 |
Note: Consistency value = 0.024 < 0.05.
The Average-direct influence relation matrix and total influence relation matrix of criteria in 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 3.500 | 3.500 | 3.100 | 3.000 | 3.000 | 3.200 |
| 0.463 | 0.583 | 0.703 | 0.612 | 0.600 | 0.661 | 0.665 |
|
| 3.000 | 0 | 2.800 | 2.200 | 2.300 | 2.300 | 2.300 |
| 0.507 | 0.346 | 0.569 | 0.485 | 0.482 | 0.531 | 0.528 |
|
| 2.600 | 2.000 | 0 | 2.800 | 2.700 | 3.100 | 2.900 |
| 0.509 | 0.456 | 0.465 | 0.528 | 0.517 | 0.586 | 0.574 |
|
| 2.200 | 1.900 | 2.800 | 0 | 1.900 | 3.100 | 3.100 |
| 0.465 | 0.425 | 0.559 | 0.373 | 0.457 | 0.555 | 0.551 |
|
| 2.700 | 2.500 | 3.100 | 2.400 | 0 | 2.600 | 2.600 |
| 0.514 | 0.477 | 0.604 | 0.512 | 0.394 | 0.565 | 0.561 |
|
| 1.900 | 1.500 | 2.600 | 2.300 | 2.300 | 0 | 2.000 |
| 0.406 | 0.366 | 0.495 | 0.432 | 0.426 | 0.362 | 0.453 |
|
| 1.700 | 1.600 | 2.300 | 1.600 | 1.900 | 2.100 | 0 |
| 0.365 | 0.339 | 0.443 | 0.368 | 0.376 | 0.422 | 0.321 |
Note: Consistency value = 0.041 < 0.05.
The Average-direct influence relation matrix and total influence relation matrix of criteria in 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 3.100 | 2.400 | 2.800 | 3.500 | 3.000 |
| 1.733 | 1.836 | 1.402 | 1.591 | 1.911 | 1.795 |
|
| 3.200 | 0 | 2.200 | 2.100 | 3.300 | 3.100 |
| 1.827 | 1.590 | 1.335 | 1.492 | 1.822 | 1.724 |
|
| 2.300 | 2.300 | 0 | 1.500 | 2.200 | 2.600 |
| 1.461 | 1.410 | 0.974 | 1.192 | 1.449 | 1.397 |
|
| 2.800 | 2.600 | 1.500 | 0 | 3.000 | 2.400 |
| 1.647 | 1.580 | 1.181 | 1.236 | 1.649 | 1.539 |
|
| 3.500 | 3.500 | 2.200 | 2.900 | 0 | 3.100 |
| 1.963 | 1.894 | 1.424 | 1.630 | 1.766 | 1.839 |
|
| 3.400 | 3.000 | 2.300 | 2.800 | 3.100 | 0 |
| 1.897 | 1.813 | 1.384 | 1.575 | 1.874 | 1.612 |
Note: Consistency value = 0.002 < 0.05.
The Average-direct influence relation matrix and total influence relation matrix of criteria in 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 1.700 | 3.300 | 2.900 |
| 1.021 | 0.733 | 1.229 | 1.190 |
|
| 1.900 | 0 | 1.300 | 1.400 |
| 0.794 | 0.361 | 0.718 | 0.715 |
|
| 3.300 | 1.300 | 0 | 3.400 |
| 1.310 | 0.719 | 0.994 | 1.246 |
|
| 3.400 | 1.500 | 3.200 | 0 |
| 1.318 | 0.735 | 1.251 | 0.979 |
Note: Consistency value = 0.03 < 0.05.
The Average-direct influence relation matrix and total influence relation matrix of criteria in 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 2.700 | 3.000 | 1.600 | 2.800 | 2.600 | 2.500 | 1.700 | 1.500 |
| 0.642 | 0.747 | 0.702 | 0.591 | 0.765 | 0.715 | 0.650 | 0.606 | 0.574 |
|
| 2.900 | 0 | 1.700 | 2.300 | 2.900 | 3.000 | 2.600 | 2.700 | 2.400 |
| 0.819 | 0.683 | 0.701 | 0.661 | 0.822 | 0.777 | 0.699 | 0.688 | 0.651 |
|
| 2.800 | 2.500 | 0 | 2.400 | 2.900 | 3.000 | 2.100 | 2.400 | 2.400 |
| 0.818 | 0.795 | 0.627 | 0.669 | 0.826 | 0.782 | 0.682 | 0.679 | 0.654 |
|
| 2.000 | 1.900 | 2.200 | 0 | 2.500 | 2.100 | 1.900 | 1.900 | 1.500 |
| 0.648 | 0.634 | 0.599 | 0.452 | 0.671 | 0.617 | 0.556 | 0.546 | 0.509 |
|
| 1.700 | 2.300 | 2.200 | 1.800 | 0 | 2.100 | 1.500 | 1.800 | 1.700 |
| 0.611 | 0.625 | 0.575 | 0.513 | 0.537 | 0.593 | 0.519 | 0.521 | 0.498 |
|
| 2.800 | 3.000 | 2.200 | 1.900 | 2.200 | 0 | 1.700 | 1.500 | 1.500 |
| 0.713 | 0.710 | 0.628 | 0.563 | 0.693 | 0.556 | 0.577 | 0.557 | 0.535 |
|
| 2.800 | 2.200 | 1.800 | 1.700 | 1.900 | 1.900 | 0 | 2.300 | 1.900 |
| 0.698 | 0.664 | 0.599 | 0.543 | 0.665 | 0.625 | 0.488 | 0.576 | 0.539 |
|
| 2.600 | 2.500 | 2.200 | 2.100 | 2.300 | 1.800 | 2.200 | 0 | 2.200 |
| 0.733 | 0.717 | 0.653 | 0.594 | 0.725 | 0.662 | 0.621 | 0.511 | 0.586 |
|
| 2.000 | 2.000 | 2.000 | 1.700 | 2.100 | 1.500 | 1.700 | 1.500 | 0 |
| 0.600 | 0.591 | 0.548 | 0.490 | 0.607 | 0.548 | 0.508 | 0.490 | 0.403 |
Note: Consistency value = 0.038 < 0.05.
The performance and gap evaluation of the case study using DANP-mV model.
| Dimensions/Criteria | Local Weight | Global Weight | Performance | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical capacity ( | 0.245 | 4.843 | 2.157 | |
| Pain and discomfort ( | 0.136 | 0.033 | 5.104 | 1.896 |
| Dependence on medical substances and medical aids ( | 0.125 | 0.031 | 4.083 | 2.917 |
| Energy and fatigue ( | 0.160 | 0.039 | 5.542 | 1.458 |
| Daily life activities ( | 0.138 | 0.034 | 4.958 | 2.042 |
| Sleep and rest ( | 0.136 | 0.033 | 5.688 | 1.313 |
| Mobility ( | 0.153 | 0.037 | 6.125 | 0.875 |
| Work capacity ( | 0.151 | 0.037 | 2.333 | 4.667 |
| Psychological state ( | 0.295 | 5.908 | 1.092 | |
| Positive feelings ( | 0.183 | 0.054 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Spirituality, religion, personal beliefs, thinking, and learning ( | 0.176 | 0.052 | 5.906 | 1.094 |
| Memory and concentration ( | 0.134 | 0.040 | 3.938 | 3.063 |
| Body image ( | 0.152 | 0.045 | 4.375 | 2.625 |
| Self-esteem ( | 0.182 | 0.054 | 6.781 | 0.219 |
| Negative feelings ( | 0.173 | 0.051 | 6.708 | 0.292 |
| Social relations ( | 0.249 | 5.741 | 1.259 | |
| Personal relationships ( | 0.289 | 0.072 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Relationship between husband and wife ( | 0.167 | 0.041 | 0.875 | 6.125 |
| Social support ( | 0.274 | 0.068 | 6.344 | 0.656 |
| Respected by others ( | 0.270 | 0.067 | 6.781 | 0.219 |
| Environment ( | 0.211 | 6.880 | 0.120 | |
| Freedom, physical safety, and security ( | 0.124 | 0.026 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Physical environment ( | 0.122 | 0.026 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Financial resources ( | 0.111 | 0.024 | 6.563 | 0.438 |
| Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills ( | 0.100 | 0.021 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Participation in and opportunities for recreation activities ( | 0.124 | 0.026 | 6.781 | 0.219 |
| Home environment ( | 0.116 | 0.024 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Health and social care: accessibility and quality ( | 0.104 | 0.022 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Transport ( | 0.102 | 0.022 | 6.563 | 0.438 |
| Convenience of dining ( | 0.097 | 0.021 | 7.000 | 0.000 |
| Total Performance | 5.811 | |||
| Total Gap | 1.189 |