| Literature DB >> 33917125 |
Xiaojia Guo1,2, Jingzhong Li3, Yexin Gao1, Fang Su4, Bing Xue5.
Abstract
Harmonious and stable family relations are undoubtedly an important component of victory in terms of epidemic prevention. Take the COVID-2019 (2019 new crown pneumonia epidemic) as the major public events background; 24,188 national samples were obtained based on a network survey. We selected gender, education level, occupation type, family scale, neighborhood relationship and psychological state as independent variables, and adopted multiple logistic models to assess the impact of major public events on family relationships and the characteristics of humanistic-regional attributes. The findings are as follows: (1) During the epidemic period, major public health emergencies effectively promoted the national residents' family relationships. (2) The family relationships of national residents presented a high level in central China and a low level in the border areas of China, which is consistent with the spread of COVID-2019 in January and February. (3) Family relationship level averages between 2.201~2.507 among different groups when divided by occupation, age and education. The family relationship has improved, but the change is not drastic and the gap between various groups is not significant, so there is essentially no difference. (4) The impact of major public health emergencies on all families is nearly sudden and instant, so that family relationship changes are often also abrupt. (5) Educational level, family size and gender have a positive effect on the change in family relations, but this effect is weakened as family education level increases; while the anxiety of the interviewees and the neighborhood had a negative effect on the change in family relationship, this indicates that the better the neighborhood relations are, the more harmonious a family relationship is. The above research can provide an important scientific support and decision-making basis for the government to carry out community prevention work, respond to major public health emergencies and construct a family support social policy system in the future.Entities:
Keywords: family relationships; humanistic characteristics; influence factors; major public health emergencies; spatial distribution patterns
Year: 2021 PMID: 33917125 PMCID: PMC8067834 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18083879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Variable setting and meaning in the model.
| Variables | Variable-Definition |
|---|---|
|
| Family relationship level (1 = increased significantly, 2 = slightly increased, 3 = no change, 4 = slightly decreased, 5 = decreased significantly) |
|
| Level of education (1 = primary school and below, 2 = junior high school, 3 = high school or secondary school, 4 = college and above) |
|
| Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) |
|
| Family size (number of households living during the outbreak) |
|
| Occupational types (1 = employees of enterprises and institutions, 2 = middle level and above leading cadres, 3 = entrepreneurs, 4 = students, 5 = peasant, 6 = retiree, 7 = others) |
|
| Are you anxious or depressed about the severe form of the epidemic? (1 = yes, 0 = no) |
|
| Neighborhood relations (1 = significantly better, 2 = better, 3 = unchanged, 4 = worse, 5 = significantly worse) |
Figure 1Changes in interaction between the interviewees and their family member under the epidemic.
Figure 2Key elements of communication between the interviewees and their family member.
The average family interaction of different groups.
| Family Scale | Average Family Interaction | Occupation Type | Average Family Interaction | Age | Average Family Interaction | Education Level | Average Family Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2.466 | government employee | 2.270 | <20 | 2.329 | primary and below | 2.507 |
| 3 | 2.288 | middle-level cadres | 2.271 | 20–29 | 2.252 | junior middle school | 2.383 |
| 4 | 2.244 | entrepreneur | 2.281 | 30–39 | 2.251 | high schools | 2.391 |
| 5 | 2.217 | student | 2.271 | 40–49 | 2.306 | college and above | 2.267 |
| 6 | 2.213 | peasant | 2.395 | 50–59 | 2.364 | ||
| 7 | 2.201 | retiree | 2.369 | >60 | 2.482 | ||
| other | 2.347 |
Figure 3Spatial distribution characteristics of the comprehensive family relationship assessment.
Figure 4The changes in the number of new COVID-19 cases in various provinces of China from January 24 to February 17.
Figure 5Lisa gathering of family relationship closeness.
Figure 6The interaction of family members in different settlements.
Correlation between family relationship and influencing factors.
| Item | Age | Gender | Education Level | Occupation Type | Family Scale | Neighborhood Relations | Psychological State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation | 0.013 | −0.058 ** | −0.040 ** | 0.018 ** | −0.080 ** | 0.039 ** | 0.013 * |
| Double tail significance | 0.051 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.037 |
Note:* and ** indicate significant at 10% and 5%, respectively.
Simulation results of interaction among family members.
| Item | Regression Coefficient | Clustering Robust Standard Error | Wald Test Value | 95% Trust Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Superior Limit | ||||
| occupation = governmental employee | −0.176 *** | 0.050 | 12.369 | −0.273 | −0.078 |
| occupation = middle-level cadres | −0.237 *** | 0.066 | 12.734 | −0.367 | −0.107 |
| occupation = entrepreneur | −0.258 *** | 0.084 | 9.323 | −0.423 | −0.092 |
| occupation = student | 0.017 *** | 0.048 | 0.134 | −0.076 | 0.111 |
| occupation = peasant | −0.049 | 0.107 | 0.214 | −0.258 | 0.160 |
| occupation = retiree | −0.140 | 0.122 | 1.303 | −0.379 | 0.100 |
| gender | 0.240 *** | 0.025 | 93.471 | 0.191 | 0.288 |
| psychological state | −0.098 *** | 0.025 | 15.023 | −0.148 | −0.049 |
| family scale = 1 | 1.110 *** | 0.092 | 144.236 | 0.928 | 1.291 |
| family scale = 2 | 0.568 *** | 0.065 | 75.943 | 0.440 | 0.695 |
| family scale = 3 | 0.195 *** | 0.055 | 12.696 | 0.088 | 0.302 |
| family scale = 4 | 0.100 * | 0.055 | 3.282 | −0.008 | 0.208 |
| family scale = 5 | 0.033 | 0.059 | 0.309 | −0.082 | 0.147 |
| family scale = 6 | 0.040 | 0.066 | 0.372 | −0.089 | 0.169 |
| education level = primary and below | 0.441 *** | 0.163 | 7.361 | 0.123 | 0.760 |
| education level = junior middle school | 0.247 *** | 0.080 | 9.591 | 0.091 | 0.404 |
| education level = senior secondary school | 0.244 *** | 0.050 | 23.668 | 0.145 | 0.342 |
| neighborhood relations = significant better | −0.640 *** | 0.137 | 21.837 | −0.908 | −0.372 |
| neighborhood relations = slightly better | −0.584 *** | 0.128 | 20.745 | −0.836 | −0.333 |
| neighborhood relations = no change | −0.354 *** | 0.119 | 8.854 | −0.587 | −0.121 |
| neighborhood relations = slightly worse | −0.213 | 0.143 | 2.209 | −0.493 | 0.068 |
Note:* and *** indicate significant levels of 10% and 1%, respectively.