Communications Through Contemporary Tools of Information and Communication Technology: Cross-sectional Study Evaluating Health Among Separated Family Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of single-living workers separated from their spouses and families has been increasing due to the need to create a balance between life and work. Workers are assigned everywhere in globalized workplaces while also caring for their family members in the context of Japan's aging society. At the same time, the mental and health status of persons living separately from their families is a matter of concern. The development of interpersonal communication means using information and communications technology (ICT) tools and the internet is remarkable, enabling simultaneous 2-way communication across distances and national borders. The easy accessibility to simultaneous communication is expected to improve the psychosocial status of isolated family members. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to clarify the health benefits of ICT by using a psychosocial health assessment, the characteristics of ICT tools, and the frequency of communication among the workers and their families who live separately. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study planned and conducted in Japan. Study participants, including adults who live separately from other family members or have separately living family members due to work, were recruited to answer a web response survey about ICT usage status, health status, and life and society evaluation. This study recruited 73 participants divided into 2 groups by their communication tools and frequencies, and their separated life, health, and psychosocial status were statistically compared. RESULTS: Among the 73 study participants, 15 were categorized in the high communication-skilled (HCS) group that used both types of ICT tools to communicate frequently: "live," such as video chat and voice call, and "nonlive," such as SMS text message service and email. A simple comparison between the HCS and reference groups showed significant differences in the cohesion with the neighborhood (P=.03), perceived social position (P=.01), and happiness (P<.001); however, there were no significant differences in the health (psychological distress, P=.08; self-rated health, P=.07), lifestyle (drinking, P>.99; current smoking, P=.37), and dyadic trust in family members living separately (P=.80). Further, in a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors, such as educational history, age, gender, and job status, poor subjective health showed a prevalence odds ratio of less than 1 (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-1.02). The HCS group showed significant positive relationships in the cohesion score with the neighborhood (P=.01; β=2.40, 95% CI 0.56-4.24), perceived social position (P=.03; β=1.17, 95% CI 0.11-2.23), and happiness score (P=.002; β=1.46, 95% CI 0.58-2.34) in the same multivariate regression models. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that people who frequently communicate with separated family members by taking advantage of various ICT tools can maintain a better mental state and better social relations among those who live alone and are separated from their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".