| |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Sociodemographic Change & Wellbeing |
|
| |
| * Policy Research @ HKIAPS member |
On Family
|
A study on family research in Hong Kong: A critical review and annotated bibliography
Investigators: Mooly M. C. Wong (PI), Joyce L. C. Ma (PI), Po-san Wan*, Ting-kwok Iu, Lily Xia, & Rhea Rui Yuan
Commissioned by: Family Council, Home Affairs Bureau, & Central Policy Unit, HKSAR Government
Completion date: January 2019
|
| The research objectives were: |
 |
To take stock of the research on family and family-related issues conducted since 2000 by the government, tertiary institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and business organizations in Hong Kong; |
|
To give a comprehensive account of the collected research materials and compile an annotated bibliography of family and family-related issues in Hong Kong; |
|
To provide an in-depth analysis of the current state of family research in Hong Kong and identify gaps in knowledge deserving of further investigation; and |
|
To propose strategic directions and recommendations for policy and research with a view to enhancing our understanding of matters related to families in Hong Kong. |
The scope of the family and family-related issues included the following 11 themes:
 1. Family core beliefs;
2. Family support;
3. Social and economic participation for families;
4. Family diversity in forms of relationships;
5. Family structure, functioning, and demography;
6. Services for supporting the needs of individual family members;
7. Family services, interventions, and evaluations;
8. Family-related policies;
9. Family-related social issues;
10. Family impact assessment; and
11. Family-related laws and protections.
An annotated bibliography of 3,181 publications and an electronic database of 3,396 items were created.
|
Full report:  |
|
|
|
|
|
A study on family well-being in Hong Kong
Investigators: Joyce L. C. Ma (PI), Mooly M. C. Wong, Po-san Wan*, & Lily Xia
Commissioned by: Hong Kong Family Welfare Society
Completion date: April 2020 |
The aim of this study was to develop a socially relevant and culturally appropriate measurement tool with sound psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity, and then to use that tool to assess the wellbeing of Hong Kong families.
Family wellbeing was defined as “a state in which a family can perform various functions to satisfy the diverse needs of individual members of the family through interactions with the environment”.
A mixed-methods approach was adopted to develop the Hong Kong Family Wellbeing Index (HKFWI). The index consisted of six domains, including (1) family solidarity, (2) family resources, (3) family health, (4) social connection, (5) social resources, and (6) work-life balance. The overall reliability of the HKFWI was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha = 0.904, and the reliability of each domain was found to be satisfactory. The overall HKFWI score ranges from 0 to 10, and a higher score indicates better family wellbeing. It was calculated by summing up the separate domain scores multiplied by their respective weightings. The domains of family solidarity, family resources, family health, and social resources were each given a weighting of 20%, while the domains of social connection and work-life balance were each weighted at 10%. Four levels of family wellbeing status, namely good (≥7.5), average (6 to <7.5), below average (5 to <6), and poor (<5), were set based on the percentiles of the HKFWI scores of the sample.
A total of 2,008 respondents were successfully interviewed in July and August 2019, yielding a response rate of 41.0% for the landline survey and 42.4% for the mobile phone survey. This survey showed that:
|
|
The overall HKFWI score (6.23) was within the “average” range, with family solidarity (7.41), family resources (7.29), and family health (6.99) standing at the good end of the “average” range; social resources (5.19) falling in the “below average” range; and social connection (4.10) and work-life balance (4.45) in the “poor” range. |
|
About one out of ten (10.9%) respondents scored “good” on the overall HKFWI (7.86), with scores of over 8.5 in the domains of family solidarity (8.96), family resources (8.84), and family health (8.55). However, the score for work-life balance (5.59) fell just within the “below average” level. |
|
About one out of ten (10.9%) respondents scored “good” on the overall HKFWI (7.86), with scores of over 8.5 in the domains of family solidarity (8.96), family resources (8.84), and family health (8.55). However, the score for work-life balance (5.59) fell just within the “below average” level. |
|
Just over half (50.7%) of the respondents scored “average” on the overall HKFWI (6.67), “good” on family solidarity (7.87) and family resources (7.79), “average” on family health (7.38), “below average” on social resources (5.79), and “poor” on work-life balance (4.47) and social connection (4.50). |
|
Twelve per cent of the respondents scored “poor” on the overall HKFWI (4.36). This group scored “below average” or “poor” on all domains, and the scores for social resources and social connection even fell below 3. |
The results of the regression analysis revealed that age, education level, family income, and the occurrence of a family crisis in the previous year had an independent and significant effect on the HKFWI. People who were middle-aged or above, tertiary educated, had a middle or high level of family income, and had not encountered a family crisis in the previous year had a higher HKFWI than those who were young, had a secondary level of education or below, had a low level of family income, and had suffered from a family crisis in the previous year. |
Full report: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
