A “Community Fit” Community-Based Participatory Research Program for Family Health, Happiness, and Harmony: Design and Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A principal factor in maintaining positive family functioning and well-being, family communication time is decreasing in modern societies such as Hong Kong, where long working hours and indulgent use of information technology are typical. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe an innovative study protocol, "Happy Family Kitchen," under the project, "FAMILY: A Jockey Club Initiative for a Harmonious Society," aimed at improving family health, happiness, and harmony (3Hs) through enhancement of family communication. METHODS: This study employed the community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, and adopted 5 principles of positive psychology and the traditional Chinese concepts of cooking and dining, as a means to connect family members to promote family health, happiness, and harmony (3Hs). RESULTS: In-depth collaboration took place between an academic institution and a large nongovernmental community organization association (NGO association) with 400 social service agency members. Both groups were deeply involved in the project design, implementation, and evaluation of 23 community-based interventions. From 612 families with 1419 individuals' findings, significant increases in mean communication time per week (from 153.44 to 170.31 minutes, P=.002) at 6 weeks after the intervention and mean communication scores (from 67.18 to 69.56 out of 100, P<.001) at 12 weeks after the intervention were shown. Significant enhancements were also found for mean happiness scores 12 weeks after the intervention (from 7.80 to 7.82 out of 10, P<.001), and mean health scores (from 7.70 to 7.73 out of 10, P<.001) and mean harmony scores (from 7.70 to 8.07 out of 10, P<.001) 6 weeks after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first CBPR study in a Hong Kong Chinese community. The results should be useful in informing collaborative intervention programs and engaging public health researchers and community social service providers, major stakeholders, and community participants in the promotion of family well-being. Furthermore, this study has generated an effective practice model for the improvement of family communication and well-being. Challenges in maintaining research rigor during data collection and program implementation were observed, and should be considered during future program planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".