A “Community Fit” Community-Based Participatory Research Program for Family Health, Happiness, and Harmony: Design and Implementation

Abstract

BackgroundA 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsIn-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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Happy Family Kitchen: Behavioral Outcomes of a Brief Community-Based Family Intervention in Hong Kong

“…Each of the 23 social service units chose one of five positive psychology themes, designed and implemented a community program. A one-group pre-test and repeated post-test design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs (Soong et al, 2015). Intervention outcomes were assessed using self-administered questionnaires at 4 time points: pre-intervention (baseline assessment, T 1 ), immediate post-intervention (immediately after the core session, T 2 ), 6 weeks postintervention (after the booster session, T 3 ), and 12 weeks post-intervention (T 4 ).…”

Development and Two-Year Follow-Up Evaluation of a Training Workshop for the Large Preventive Positive Psychology Happy Family Kitchen Project in Hong Kong

“…We describe the framework, development and results of a systematic evaluation of a 2-day training workshop for a community- and family-based positive psychology intervention project, entitled “Happy Family Kitchen Project” (HFK) in Hong Kong[ 1 ]. The training workshop and the HFK intervention program were delivered under the “FAMILY project, a Jockey Club Initiative for a Harmonious Society” (FAMILY project)[ 2 ].…”

Supporting social sustainability in resource‐based communities through leisure and recreation

“…In addition to deficits in basic urban infrastructure and services, RBCs often cannot supply auxiliary amenities that have been demonstrated to support social well-being and resident retention such as recreation facilities, retail shopping, dining, and entertainment options (Storey 2001;Nikiforuk 2011;Besser et al 2012;Franks 2012;Ennis et al 2013;Meinert 2013;Keough 2015;Soong et al 2015). The lack of such amenities contributes to high rates of transiency (Besser et al 2012;Deacon et al 2017)people reside in these communities temporarily to work and live elsewhere.…”