Does Family Type Matter for Farmers’ Social Participation and Social Support During Waterlogging? An Analysis from Social Health Perspectives

Abstract

Background: People often overlook social health, believing it is less significant for humans. Family types may

influence social participation and support during a disaster. In addition, members of the joint family experience

more mental pressure during a crisis than members of the nuclear family.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of family type on their social health, particularly social

participation and social support.

Methods: This study follows the survey research design to collect data from 480 waterlogged farmers using

simple random sampling. I have formed a social health scale based on a 4-point Likert scale encompassing social

participation and support. I performed the Mann-Whitney U test and multinomial logistic regression to indicate

the differences in the influences of family type and its extension on social health.

Results: Most of the waterlogged farmers did not participate in social activities, but they received support from

their family members. More than 50% of the farmers had medium (11–15) social participation during

waterlogging. However, 56% of them received high (12≥) social support from their family. Statistically

significant differences were found between farmers' family type and their political participation (z =- 4.204),

religious congregation (z=-5.376), and watching television (z=-4.964). However, for social support, reliance on

family members at the time of having a serious problem (z=-5.376) showed a difference between the issues. In

terms of the social health scale, the social participation (z=-4.726, p<0.001) of the farmers who lived in joint

families differed more than that of social support (z=-2.038, p<0.05). Joint families influenced farmers with low

social participation (B =.814, CI, 955 to 5.329) 2.25 times more and farmers with low social support (B=1.03, CI,

.325 to 22.395) 2.81 times more.

Conclusion: Joint families impacted farmers' social health more than nuclear families. Family treatment should

be considered an important source of social health protection, particularly in disaster situations.