Associations of Face-to-Face and Instant Messaging Family Communication and Their Contents With Family Wellbeing and Personal Happiness Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

BackgroundBoth face-to-face and instant messaging (IM) communication are important for families, but face-to-face communication has reduced amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the use and contents of both communication methods amidst the pandemic, their associations with family wellbeing and personal happiness, and the mediation effects of communication quality in Hong Kong Chinese adults.MethodsThis population-based online survey enrolled 4,921 respondents in May 2020, who reported (i) any face-to-face or IM family communication when the pandemic was severe; (ii) communication contents being classified as neutral, positive, supportive, and negative; and (iii) communication quality, family wellbeing and personal happiness (score 0–10). Associations of family wellbeing and personal happiness with communication methods and contents (no communication excluded) were examined using linear regressions (β), adjusting for each other, sex, age, socioeconomic status, and the number of cohabitants. Mediating effects of communication quality on these associations were examined. Prevalence estimates were weighted by sex, age, and education of the general population. Interactions of methods and contents were examined.ResultsOf 4,891 included respondents (female: 52.9%, 45–54 years: 37.7%, ≥65 years: 21.3%), 7.1% reported no communication, 12.7% face-to-face communication only, 26.7% IM only, and 53.4% both methods. More males and those at younger ages, had lower socioeconomic status, or fewer cohabitants showed no family communication or face-to-face only. More respondents reported neutral (83.1–99.3%) than positive (42.1–62.2%), supportive (37.5–54.8%), and negative (10.9–34.5%) contents despite communication methods. Communication quality was higher with both methods than IM only, face-to-face only, and no communication (scores: 6.7 vs. 4.5–6.6, all P ≤ 0.02). Better family wellbeing and personal happiness were associated with using IM only (adjusted βs: 0.37 and 0.48) and both methods (0.37 and 0.42) than face-to-face only, and positive (0.62 and 0.74) or supportive (0.45 and 0.46) contents (all P ≤ 0.001). Communication quality mediated 35.2–93.5% of these associations. Stronger associations between positive contents and family wellbeing showed in both methods and face-to-face only than IM only (P for interaction = 0.006).ConclusionsWe have first shown that, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, family IM communication and positive and supportive contents may promote family wellbeing and personal happiness. People with no family communication may need assistance.

Does the Internet Bring People Closer Together or Further Apart? The Impact of Internet Usage on Interpersonal Communications

“…Interpersonal communications are essential to building social networks, which is also a necessary channel to help people establish social trust and enhance their sense of belonging and happiness [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Therefore, in the context of the rapid development of Internet technology, it is of great importance to clarify the impact of the Internet on interpersonal communications.…”

Inverted U-shaped relationship between education and family health: The urban-rural gap in Chinese dual society

“…Chinese people have strong family consciousness, and health-related knowledge and skills can be disseminated through kinship links, benefiting family members ( 93 ). Sharing information related to health care and disease prevention among families, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, can build a culture of health, and foster family resilience and wellbeing ( 94 – 96 ).…”

Adversity coping capability and its associations with mental health and family wellbeing amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong

“…The survey design and methods have been published [17]. All phone numbers were randomly generated using known prefixes assigned to telecommunication service providers under the Numbering Plan of the Office of the Communication Authority.…”

“…Of the 1604 and 816 qualified respondents who answered the landline and mobile telephone surveies, respectively, 1022 (63.7%) and 500 (61.2%) respondents completed the whole survey, respectively. The online survey was selfadministered and sent to HKPORI's probability and nonprobability online panel members by email invitations, with an access link to the survey website [17]. Among the 4,311 and 44,514 probability and non-probability panel members who opened the invitation emails, 641 (14.2%) and 5372 (12.1%) respondents completed the whole survey, respectively.…”