JP7744638B2 - Evaluation method, evaluation device, evaluation system, and control program - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to an evaluation method, evaluation device, evaluation system, and control program for assessing the level of support required by caregivers in child-rearing.

The physical and mental health of caregivers, including mothers, who are responsible for childcare, has a significant impact on parenting behavior and has a significant impact on the development of children. For example, pregnancy and childbirth can place a significant burden on caregivers, particularly mothers, not only physically but also psychologically. For this reason, it is extremely important to extend support to caregivers from the perinatal period onwards.

Traditionally, various efforts have been made to provide appropriate interventions and support tailored to the recipients of support (e.g., mothers and children). For example, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is used as a method for early identification of mothers struggling with childcare. Additionally, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) has traditionally been used as a measure for identifying depressive symptoms.

Tomoko Shiino, "The Effects of Perinatal Social Support on Mother-Child Relationships," Stress Science Research, Vol. 31, pp. 74-75, 2016 Daisuke Fujisawa, Atsuo Nakagawa, Miyuki Tajima et al., "Development of the Japanese Version of the Quick Inventory of Depression Scale (QIDS-SR)," Stress Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43-52, July 2010 Hibiki Tanaka, "Support-seeking abilities of pregnant women: Factor analysis from focus group interviews," Sonoda Women's University Journal No. 45, pp. 85-105, January 2011 Mika Akimoto, Isao Saito, Takayo Sakiyama, "A Study of Factors Affecting Maternal Fatigue Up to One Month After Childbirth," Journal of Japanese Public Health, Vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 769-776, December 15, 2018

However, the EPDS is a scale used to screen for individuals suffering from depression, and only determines the presence of specific psychiatric disorders such as depressive symptoms, childcare neurosis, and postpartum depression.

However, support for raising children should not only be provided to those who clearly have a mental illness, but also to those who are at risk of developing a mental illness before it becomes a serious problem. Furthermore, even if they are not at risk, support should be provided to all parents who have experience raising children and who feel a vague sense of exhaustion that is unique to child-rearing, such as a general sense of anxiety, loneliness, fatigue, or simply wanting someone to listen to them.

For this reason, not only those clearly suffering from a mental illness, but also those at risk of developing a mental illness and those experiencing a vague sense of exhaustion should be considered comprehensively as "conditions requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing." There is a need to objectively and quantitatively assess the subjective and vague "distress" that such caregivers vaguely feel, i.e., the degree to which they require mental support. Ultimately, it is desirable to build a system that makes it possible to provide appropriate support to caregivers who have been assessed in this way, at the appropriate time. Here, "caregiver" includes not only the child's biological mother and father, but also anyone who has a responsibility to raise the child.

One aspect of the present invention aims to realize a method, device, system, etc. for objectively assessing a caregiver's need for support in child-rearing.

In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, one aspect of the present disclosure provides an evaluation method for evaluating the degree of support required by a subject who has or plans to have a child, and who requires support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing. The evaluation method includes the steps of acquiring a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions that inquire about at least the subject's personal factors, and statistically processing the acquired group of answers to calculate a support-needed score that represents the subject's degree of support-needed state. The acquiring step acquires at least a first group of answers from the subject to a first group of questions that inquire about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers from the subject to a second group of questions that inquire about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make child-rearing difficult. The calculating step performs statistical processing on each of the answer groups to calculate a score for each answer group, and then combines the scores for each answer group to calculate the support-needed score.

An evaluation device according to one aspect of the present disclosure evaluates the degree of support required by a subject who has or plans to have a child, requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with childcare. The evaluation device includes an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions asking about the subject's personal or environmental factors, and a calculation unit that statistically processes the acquired group of answers to calculate a support required score that represents the subject's degree of support required. The acquisition unit acquires at least a first group of answers from the subject to a first group of questions asking about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers from the subject to a second group of questions asking about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make childcare difficult for the subject. The calculation unit performs statistical processing on each of the answer groups to calculate a score for each answer group, and then integrates the scores for each answer group to calculate the support required score.

A control program for a subject terminal according to one aspect of the present disclosure is a control program for causing a computer to function as a subject terminal that communicates with an evaluation device that evaluates the degree of support-needing status of a subject who has or plans to have a child, requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing. The control program causes the computer to function as a first output control unit that presents to the subject at least a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental or personality characteristics and a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make child-rearing difficult for the subject; an input control unit that accepts input of a set of answers to the set of questions from the subject; and a second output control unit that presents to the subject a support-needing score that indicates the degree of support-needing status and that is received from the evaluation device in response to the accepted set of answers.

The evaluation device and subject terminal according to each aspect of the present invention may be realized by a computer. In this case, the present invention also includes a control program for the evaluation device that causes the computer to realize the evaluation device by operating as each part of the software elements included in the evaluation device, a control program for the subject terminal that causes the computer to realize the subject terminal by operating as each part of the software elements included in the subject terminal, and a computer-readable recording medium on which either of these programs is recorded.

One aspect of the present invention makes it possible to objectively evaluate a caregiver's need for support in child-rearing.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example of a configuration of a main part of an evaluation device. FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of an evaluation system for evaluating a caregiver's need for support. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a question database. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a question database. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of response data. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of an evaluation result database. FIG. 2 is a sequence diagram showing the flow of processing executed by each device in the evaluation system. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen displayed on a subject terminal. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen displayed on a supporter terminal. 1 is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. 1 is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. 1 is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. 1 is a table showing a portion of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and QIDS. 1 is a table showing a portion of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and QIDS. 1 is a table showing a portion of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and QIDS. 1 is a table showing a portion of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and QIDS. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of an evaluation system according to a second embodiment. FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of a measurement system for observing an observation subject. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of measurement data. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a configuration of a main part of an evaluation device according to a second embodiment. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of situation data. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a regional characteristics database. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a support information database. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example of a result screen displayed on the subject terminal. 10 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing executed by an evaluation device according to a second embodiment.

[Embodiment 1]
As a result of intensive research to solve the above-mentioned problems, the inventors have newly discovered that the characteristics of the caregiver themselves (for example, developmental characteristics, personality characteristics, how they tend to perceive the difficulties of child-rearing, etc.) are significantly related to the level of support required. In other words, the inventors have come to the realization that at least the personal factors of the caregiver can be used as factors related to the level of support required, and have completed the present invention.

The inventors have further discovered that the environment surrounding a caregiver also plays a significant role in determining the level of need for support. In other words, the inventors have come up with the idea that by incorporating environmental factors in addition to the caregiver's personal factors as factors related to the level of need for support, it would be possible to more accurately assess a caregiver's level of need for support, and have thus completed the present invention. Furthermore, the inventors have newly discovered that rather than simply evaluating personal and environmental factors separately, how a caregiver perceives the influences of the environment surrounding them based on their own characteristics also plays a significant role in determining the level of need for support. In other words, the inventors have newly discovered that a comprehensive assessment of personal and environmental factors is highly significant in assessing the level of need for support in a caregiver.

Until now, there has been no technology that focuses on personal factors such as the caregiver's developmental characteristics and combines them with environmental factors to comprehensively and quantitatively address the sense of exhaustion felt by caregivers. Continuous observation of the caregiver's personal and environmental factors, including before, during, and after birth, can be used to assess the caregiver's need for support. This promotes self-care for the caregiver themselves and also makes it possible for supporters to prepare to provide appropriate interventions and support at the appropriate time. Such timely interventions and support can also help prevent caregivers from actually developing mental illness.

The following provides a detailed explanation of one embodiment of the comprehensive support assessment scale developed by the inventors and the procedure for quantitatively assessing the support needs of caregivers using the scale. As an example, the comprehensive support assessment scale includes a set of self-description questions that focus on at least the personal factors of the caregiver, both personal and environmental. The background and rationale for constructing the set of questions will be described in detail at the end of this embodiment.

<System Overview>
2 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of an evaluation system for evaluating a caregiver's state of need for support. The evaluation system 100 includes at least an evaluation device 1, a subject terminal 2, a question database 12 (hereinafter referred to as question DB 12), and an evaluation result database 13 (hereinafter referred to as evaluation result DB 13). Furthermore, the evaluation system 100 may include a supporter terminal 3 and a service providing server 4 as necessary.

Evaluation device 1 is an information processing device that evaluates the level of support required by the caregiver who is the subject of evaluation. Subject terminal 2 is an information processing device used by the subject of evaluation. Supporter terminal 3 is an information processing device used by a supporter who supports the subject of evaluation. Supporters may include, for example, the local government in the area where the subject of evaluation lives, the medical institution that the subject of evaluation visits, family members who are in a position to support the subject of evaluation, or housekeeping/childcare service providers.

In this embodiment, as an example, an organization that provides an evaluation service that evaluates the support need of a caregiver to the person being evaluated and a supporter is referred to as a service provider. In this embodiment, the service provider distributes a childcare support application to the person being evaluated and a supporter as an example of a means of providing the evaluation service. The childcare support application may be distributed free of charge or for a fee.

By installing the childcare support application on the subject device 2 and the supporter device 3, the subject and supporter will be able to receive the evaluation service described above.

The service providing server 4 supplies the childcare support application to the recipient terminal 2 and the supporter terminal 3. The service providing server 4 may supply applications with different specifications for the recipient and the supporter. The service providing server 4, which has the function of distributing the childcare support application, may belong to the service provider that developed the childcare support application, or to a distribution contractor that has been entrusted with distribution by the service provider.

Alternatively, the evaluation device 1 may have the functionality of the service providing server 4. Furthermore, the evaluation device 1 may store the question DB 12 and the evaluation result DB 13 in a storage device built into the device itself.

The evaluation device 1, subject terminal 2, supporter terminal 3, and service provider server 4 are each connected to enable communication. For example, the evaluation device 1 and service provider server 4 are connected to the subject terminal 2 and supporter terminal 3 via a wide area communication network such as the Internet.

The subject device 2, which has installed the childcare support application provided by the service provider server 4, can acquire question data read from the question DB 12 and present it on its own device so that the person being evaluated can answer it. The subject device 2 generates answer data based on the answers entered by the person being evaluated and sends it to the evaluation device 1.

The evaluation device 1 performs statistical processing on the response group contained in the received response data to evaluate the support need state of the person being evaluated. The evaluation device 1 stores result data indicating the evaluation results in the evaluation result DB 13. The result data stored in the evaluation result DB 13 is fed back to the subject terminal 2 of the person being evaluated who responded. Note that the result data may also be sent to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter linked to the person being evaluated, as necessary.

A supporter terminal 3 that has installed a childcare support application provided by the service provider server 4 can obtain the result data stored in the evaluation result DB 13.

<Device configuration>
(Evaluation Device 1)
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the main parts of the evaluation device 1. FIG. 1 also shows an example of the configuration of the main parts of the subject terminal 2. The evaluation device 1 includes, as an example, a control unit 10 and a communication unit 11. The control unit 10 may be configured by a control device such as a CPU (central processing unit) or a dedicated processor. Each unit of the control unit 10, described below, can be realized by a control device such as a CPU reading and executing a program stored in a storage device realized by a ROM (read only memory) or the like into a RAM (random access memory). The communication unit 11 transmits and receives data to and from external devices via a network.

The control unit 10, for example, has an acquisition unit 14, a calculation unit 15, and a management unit 16. The acquisition unit 14 acquires a group of answers from the person being evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about the person's personal factors or environmental factors. The group of answers is included, for example, in the response data transmitted from the subject terminal 2.

Specifically, the acquisition unit 14 acquires at least a first group of answers and a second group of answers included in the response data. The first group of answers is a group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a first group of questions asking about the person's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics. The second group of answers is a group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a second group of questions asking about the person's thinking tendencies that make parenting difficult for the person being evaluated.

Furthermore, if the response data includes a third response group and a fourth response group, the acquisition unit 14 may also acquire these response groups as necessary. The third response group is a group of responses from the person being evaluated to a third question group that asks about the person's acceptability of support from those around them. The fourth response group is a group of responses from the person being evaluated to a fourth question group that asks about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden on the person being evaluated.

Furthermore, if the response data includes a fifth response group, the acquisition unit 14 may acquire this response group as necessary. The fifth response group is a group of responses provided by the person being evaluated to a fifth question group that asks about the characteristics of the child that the person is raising.

The groups of questions and answers are divided into five categories, 1st to 5th, according to their content, as described above, and each of these categories is called a domain.

The acquisition unit 14 processes the response data received from the subject terminal 2 via the communication unit 11, groups the responses acquired from the response data by domain, and outputs the groups to the calculation unit 15.

The calculation unit 15 statistically processes the group of acquired responses to calculate a support-needed score that indicates the degree of support-needed state of the person being evaluated. Specifically, the calculation unit 15 performs statistical processing for each domain to calculate a domain-specific score, and then integrates the domain-specific scores to calculate a support-needed score that indicates the degree of support-needed state.

As one example, the calculation unit 15 may score the answers to the questions and calculate the average score for each question in the same domain as the domain score. The calculation unit 15 may also calculate the sum of the domain scores as the support needed score. In this embodiment, as one example, the higher the support needed score, the greater the degree of need for support, i.e., the more difficult childcare is experienced by the person being evaluated. In another example, the calculation unit 15 may calculate another score (such as a childcare happiness index) in which the higher the score, the more favorable the evaluation state.

The management unit 16 associates the calculated support need score with identification information that uniquely identifies the person being evaluated and stores it in the evaluation result DB 13.

(Target terminal 2)
The subject terminal 2 includes, for example, a control unit 20, a communication unit 21, a display unit 22, and an operation unit 23. Specifically, the subject terminal 2 may be realized by a smartphone, a tablet, a notebook PC (Personal Computer), or the like carried by the person to be evaluated.

The control unit 20 may be configured, for example, by a control device such as a CPU or a dedicated processor. Each of the units of the control unit 20 described below can be realized by a control device such as a CPU reading out a program stored in a storage device such as a ROM into a RAM or the like and executing the program. The communication unit 21 (transmitter, receiver) sends and receives data to and from external devices via a network.

The display unit 22 is an output device that presents the information processed by the control unit 20 in a manner that is visible to the person being evaluated. For example, the display unit 22 is configured as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or an organic electroluminescence (EL) display.

The operation unit 23 is an input device for accepting operations by the person being evaluated. The operation unit 23 inputs instruction signals corresponding to the accepted operations to the control unit 20. As an example, the operation unit 23 may form a touch panel together with the display unit 22. The operation unit 23 is configured to include a device that can detect contact (including proximity) of an indicator such as the person being evaluated's finger or a touch pen with the input surface of the operation unit 23, which is also the display surface of the display unit 22. In another example, the operation unit 23 may be configured with a keyboard, mouse, etc.

The control unit 20 includes, as an example, a question presentation unit 24, an answer processing unit 25, and a result presentation unit 26. The question presentation unit 24 (first output control unit) presents multiple questions to the person being evaluated. The question presentation unit 24 may read a group of questions for each domain from the question DB 12 via the communication unit 21 and display them on the display unit 22 together with an answer field. For example, the answer field is arranged with selectable options corresponding to the degree to which the content of the question applies. In this embodiment, as an example, five options are assigned option numbers 1 to 5 based on a five-point scale: "1: Not at all applicable," "2: Not very applicable," "3: Moderately applicable," "4: Somewhat applicable," and "5: Very applicable," and are displayed as selectable options.

The question presentation unit 24 may present a list of questions together with the semantic content of the domain to which the question belongs, or may present the list without indicating the domain. In the former case, the person being evaluated can be made aware of the domain to which the question belongs when answering. In the latter case, conversely, the person being evaluated can be made to answer without being made aware of the domain to which the question belongs. Whether or not to present the semantic content of the domain together with the question may be decided appropriately by the asker (here, the service provider) depending on whether or not it is necessary to make the answerer aware of the intent of the question.

The answer processing unit 25 (input control unit) accepts input of a group of answers to multiple questions from the person being evaluated. For example, for each question, the answer processing unit 25 associates an option number corresponding to one option designated by the person being evaluated with the question and stores the option number in a memory unit built into the device (not shown).

When the person being evaluated has finished answering all the questions, the response processing unit 25 generates response data including a group of answers linked to option numbers for each question, and transmits this data to the evaluation device 1 via the communication unit 21.

The result presentation unit 26 (second output control unit) presents the support need score provided by the evaluation device 1 and received by the communication unit 21 to the person being evaluated. For example, the result presentation unit 26 displays the support need score on the display unit 22.

As described above, the sense of exhaustion that the person being evaluated feels on a daily basis is quantified and displayed numerically. This allows the person being evaluated to objectively understand the extent of their need for support. They can also use their past support needs scores as a basis for comparison. This means that by comparing their current state with their past self, they can understand whether their current state is improving or worsening, which can be useful for self-care.

<Data structure>
(Question database)
3 and 4 are diagrams showing an example of the data structure of the question DB 12. As an example, the question DB 12 holds question groups classified into five domains, first to fifth. FIG. 3 shows an example of a first question group 121 belonging to the first domain and an example of a second question group 122 belonging to the second domain. FIG. 4 shows an example of a third question group 123 belonging to the third domain, an example of a fourth question group 124 belonging to the fourth domain, and an example of a fifth question group 125 belonging to the fifth domain. Due to space limitations, the diagrams are shown in two separate figures, but this does not mean that multiple question groups are stored separately in multiple storage devices, nor is it intended to limit the storage of multiple question groups to a single storage device.

The first domain, to which the first group of questions belongs, relates to the developmental or personality characteristics of the person being evaluated. Therefore, as shown in Figure 3, the domain name of the first domain D1 is set to "Developmental Characteristics/Personality Characteristics" as an example. The second domain, to which the second group of questions belongs, relates to the person's thought patterns that make parenting difficult. More specifically, the second group of questions may include questions about the difficulties the person feels in parenting. Therefore, as shown in Figure 3, the domain name of the second domain D2 is set to "Perception of Difficulty" as an example. The third domain, to which the third group of questions belongs, relates to the person's acceptability of support from those around them. More specifically, the third group of questions may include questions about how the person perceives and feels support from those around them. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, the domain name of the third domain D3 is set to "Perception of Support" as an example. The fourth domain, to which the fourth group of questions belongs, relates to the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the person's physical and mental stress. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, the domain name of the fourth domain D4 is set as "Environmental Resources" as an example. The fifth domain, to which the fifth question group belongs, relates to the characteristics of the child that the person being evaluated is raising. The child's characteristics include the child's condition, personality, and temperament, and in particular refer to the child's own condition, personality, and temperament that act to increase the caregiver's level of fatigue and difficulty in raising the child. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, the domain name of the fifth domain D5 is set as "Child's Characteristics" as an example.

The data structure of each question group will be explained using the first question group 121 as an example. The other question groups have a similar data structure to the first question group 121, so the explanation will not be repeated. As an example, the first question group 121 is composed of the following columns: domain, factor, question, and inversion flag. The following information is stored in each column.

The domain column stores the domain ID and domain name. As an example, the first question group 121 is a domain for analyzing the developmental characteristics or personality characteristics of the person being evaluated, so the domain name is set as "Developmental Characteristics/Personality Characteristics." The domain ID can be any identification information that allows the evaluation device 1 to distinguish the first domain from other domains, for example, "D1."

In this embodiment, as an example, a group of questions belonging to one domain may be further grouped into multiple factor groups. The factor column stores factor IDs and factor names for grouping question groups. As an example, the first group of questions 121 is grouped into six factor groups: "Inattention Tendency," "Emotional Control," "Systemizing Impulse," "Simultaneous/Holistic Processing," "Difficulty Entraining," and "Attachment Issues." Note that one domain may be made up of one or more factor groups, and one factor group may include one or more questions.

The question column stores the question ID and the question text that is actually presented to the person being evaluated. The reversal flag column stores information that specifies the procedure that the calculation unit 15 uses to score the answer to the question. In this embodiment, there are two types of questions, and a scoring procedure is determined for each question type. In the reversal flag column, a value of "0" is stored for questions whose answers should be scored using the first procedure, and a value of "1" is stored for questions whose answers should be scored using the second procedure.

There are two types of questions: negative questions, which can be evaluated as making child-rearing more difficult (higher level of support needed) the more the question applies, and positive questions, which can be evaluated as making child-rearing less burdensome (lower level of support needed) the more the question applies.

Therefore, the first procedure "0" is associated with negative questions so that the more the content of the negative question applies, the higher the score that is derived. One example of the first procedure may be a procedure such that "the option number selected by the subject is used as the question score for the question." Conversely, the second procedure "1" is associated with positive questions so that the more the content of the positive question applies, the higher the score that is derived. One example of the second procedure may be a procedure such that "'6 - option number' is used as the question score for the question." When determining the question score based on the answer to a question, the calculation unit 15 references the reversal flag for the question and determines the question score according to the procedure specified by the reversal flag. For example, if "4: somewhat applicable" is selected for a positive question, the calculation unit 15 does not simply set the question score to 4 points, but rather determines the question score to be 6 - 4 = 2 points.

Of the first question group 121 to the fifth question group 125 shown in Figures 3 and 4, the question ID and question sentence set stored in the question column are provided to the subject terminal 2 of the person being evaluated. This allows the subject terminal 2 to display the question sentence and options 1 to 5 on the display unit 22.

(Response data)
5 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the answer data generated by the answer processing unit 25 of the subject terminal 2 and transmitted to the evaluation device 1. As shown in the figure, the answer data may include basic answer information 50 in addition to a group 51 of answers to multiple questions.

As an example, the basic answer information 50 may include an evaluation subject ID for uniquely identifying the evaluation subject who answered the question, the status of the evaluation subject who answered the question, and an answer date indicating the date on which the evaluation subject answered the question. The status indicates, for example, the state of the evaluation subject as of the date of the answer. More specifically, the status indicates whether the evaluation subject is prenatal, i.e., pregnant, or postnatal. If the evaluation subject is pregnant, the status may further include information on the number of weeks pregnant, and if the evaluation subject is postnatal, it may further include information on the age of the baby in months.

In this embodiment, as an example, the subject of evaluation is assumed to be the biological mother, who is a typical caregiver of a child. However, as mentioned above, the caregiver is not limited to the biological mother. The caregiver, i.e., the subject of evaluation, may be someone other than the biological mother. In this case, the status may be, for example, an item name such as "before the birth of the child" or "after the birth of the child."

Answer group 51 includes a pair of a question ID that uniquely identifies a question and the option number selected by the person being evaluated for that question. Answer group 51 may have an answer group for each domain. For example, if the person being evaluated answers all questions in domains 1 to 5, answer group 51 includes first answer group 52, second to fourth answer groups (not shown), and fifth answer group 53.

If the person being evaluated is a pregnant woman, the fifth group of questions 125 asking about the characteristics of the baby will not be presented to the pregnant woman, or even if presented, she will not be able to answer. Therefore, in the response data sent from the pregnant woman's subject terminal 2, the group of answers 51 may include the fifth group of answers 53 in which the answer column has a blank value, or the fifth group of answers 53 itself may not be included in the group of answers 51. The calculation unit 15 can perform statistical processing based on the group of answers 51 sent from the subject terminal 2 and calculate the support need score of the person being evaluated who is the respondent.

(Evaluation results database)
6 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the evaluation result DB 13. As an example, the evaluation result DB 13 is configured with columns for the evaluation subject ID, status, response date, and support need score. The evaluation result DB 13 may further have a column for the average pregnancy score. The following information is stored in each column.

The evaluation subject ID column stores identification information for uniquely identifying the evaluation subject on the evaluation system 100. The status column stores information on whether the evaluation subject is in the prenatal or postnatal stage at the time of response, as well as the number of weeks pregnant or the baby's age in months. The response date column stores the date on which the evaluation subject responded. The support requirement score column stores the support requirement score calculated by the calculation unit 15 based on the response data sent from the evaluation subject's subject terminal 2. The pregnancy average score column stores the average support requirement score calculated based on responses made at least once before birth, if the evaluation subject's status is postnatal.

The management unit 16 associates the basic response information 50 included in the response data acquired by the acquisition unit 14 with the support need score calculated by the calculation unit 15 and stores them in the evaluation result DB 13.

The calculation unit 15 may calculate the average support need score obtained from multiple evaluations conducted in the past for the same evaluation subject. For example, the calculation unit 15 calculates the average support need score from evaluations conducted once or more before birth for the same evaluation subject. The management unit 16 may store the calculated average support need score for the pregnancy period in the average pregnancy score column.

As described above, the evaluation result DB13 constructed by the management unit 16 can be viewed as needed by anyone with the necessary authorization. For example, the person being evaluated and a supporter who is in a position to support the person being evaluated can access the evaluation result DB13 from the person being evaluated's terminal 2 or the supporter terminal 3, and read and view only the evaluation results associated with the person being evaluated as result data.

<Processing flow>
FIG. 7 is a sequence diagram showing the flow of processing executed by each device of the evaluation system 100. The series of processing shown in FIG. 7 is started when any trigger event occurs that triggers questioning of the person to be evaluated. An example of the trigger event is when the person to be evaluated installs a childcare support application on the person to be evaluated terminal 2. The trigger event may be when the person to be evaluated terminal 2 receives some kind of notification or request from a supporter terminal 3 of a medical institution or a local government, etc. Alternatively, the trigger event may be when a scheduled questioning date that was registered in advance in the evaluation device 1 or the service providing server 4 arrives.

In step S101, the question presentation unit 24 detects the occurrence of a trigger event that poses a question. When the question presentation unit 24 detects the occurrence of a trigger event, processing proceeds from YES in S101 to S102.

In step S102, the question presenting unit 24 acquires a set of questions to be presented to the person being evaluated. Specifically, the question presenting unit 24 acquires question data including question sentences to be presented to the person being evaluated. There are no particular limitations on where the question presenting unit 24 acquires the question data from. For example, the question presenting unit 24 may read pre-stored question data from a memory unit (not shown) built into the person terminal 2. Alternatively, the question presenting unit 24 may acquire question data received by the communication unit 21 from an external device such as the supporter terminal 3, the service providing server 4, or the evaluation device 1. Alternatively, the question presenting unit 24 may access the question DB 12 and download the question data from the question DB 12.

In step S103, the question presentation unit 24 presents the group of questions to the person being evaluated. Specifically, the question presentation unit 24 displays the question sentence of each question included in the question data on the display unit 22, and also displays five selectable options for each question.

In step S104, the response processing unit 25 accepts responses from the person being evaluated. Specifically, the response processing unit 25 identifies the option selected by the person being evaluated via the operation unit 23, associates the option number corresponding to the option with the question ID of the question, and temporarily stores it in a memory unit (not shown). When the response processing unit 25 has accepted answers to all questions, processing proceeds from YES in S104 to S105.

In step S105, the response processing unit 25 generates response data and transmits it to the evaluation device 1. Specifically, the response processing unit 25 generates the basic response information 50 shown in FIG. 5, generates a group of responses 51 containing pairs of question IDs and choice numbers equal to the number of questions, and transmits the basic response information 50 and the response data containing the group of responses 51 to the evaluation device 1.

In step S106 (acquisition step), the acquisition unit 14 of the evaluation device 1 acquires a group of answers from the person being evaluated to a plurality of questions inquiring about the person's personal or environmental factors. Specifically, the acquisition unit 14 acquires the answer data received by the communication unit 11 from the person's terminal 2. In this embodiment, the group of answers 51 included in the answer data includes at least a first group of answers 52 from the person being evaluated to a first group of questions inquiring about the person's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers from the person being evaluated to a second group of questions inquiring about the person's thinking tendencies that work to make child-rearing difficult for the person being evaluated.

In step S107 (calculation step), the calculation unit 15 calculates the support need score by performing statistical processing on the response group 51. An example of the procedure for calculating the support need score will be described in detail later.

In step S108, the management unit 16 (score management unit) associates the calculated support need score with identification information that uniquely identifies the person being evaluated and stores it in the memory unit. Specifically, the management unit 16 associates the basic answer information 50 included in the answer data acquired in S106 with the above-mentioned support need score and stores them in the evaluation result DB 13. The support need score of the person being evaluated stored in the evaluation result DB 13 is stored so that it can be read by the support provider terminal 3 used by a supporter who provides the person being evaluated with support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing.

In step S109, the management unit 16 or the service providing server 4 transmits the result data to the subject terminal 2 of the person being evaluated. The result data transmitted to the subject terminal 2 includes at least the support need score calculated in S107. The result data may further include the average pregnancy score, or a graph showing the support need score obtained in previous evaluations of the subject over time. Furthermore, the result data may include a statement of advice addressed to the person being evaluated. The statement of advice may be an appropriate one selected from pre-prepared standard phrases, for example, depending on the analysis results of the response group.

Here, if the correspondence between the person being evaluated and the supporter is managed in advance, the management unit 16 or the service providing server 4 may send the same result data to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter linked to the person being evaluated. Alternatively, the result data sent to the supporter may include a warning message indicating the type of support that is predicted to be required for the person being evaluated. Alternatively, result data for multiple people being evaluated that the supporter supervises may be sent together to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter.

In step S110, the result presentation unit 26 of the subject terminal 2 acquires the result data received from the evaluation device 1 via the communication unit 21. Finally, in step S111, the result presentation unit 26 displays the acquired result data on the display unit 22 so that it can be viewed by the subject to be evaluated.

<Screen example>
8 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen for the evaluation subject, which is displayed on the display unit 22 of the subject terminal 2. The result screen 200 is generated by the result presentation unit 26. The result presentation unit 26 arranges, on the result screen 200, as an example, a support need score 201 as a user interface (UI) component for presenting the support need score to the evaluation subject.

The support need score is an index that indicates the degree to which the person being evaluated needs support. In this embodiment, as an example, the higher the number, the greater the need for support. In other words, the support need score indicates the degree to which the person being evaluated feels that childcare is a burden. Therefore, the result presentation unit 26 may place a UI component on the result screen 200 that visually indicates the degree to which the person being evaluated feels burdened, such as the gauge shown in the figure. This allows the person being evaluated to intuitively grasp their current situation. Furthermore, the result presentation unit 26 may place an advice message corresponding to the support need score on the result screen 200. The person being evaluated can check the advice message that corresponds to their support need score and use it to help with self-care.

Figure 9 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen for a supporter displayed on the display unit (not shown) of the supporter terminal 3. As an example, a result data list 301 is displayed on the result screen 300. The result data list 301 is a UI component for listing result data for multiple evaluation subjects supervised by the supporter. In the result data list 301, result data with a support need score exceeding a predetermined threshold may be displayed in a different display format from other result data. This makes it easier for the supporter to identify evaluation subjects who are in a state where they require a high level of support. Furthermore, a warning message corresponding to the support need score may be displayed on the result screen 300. The supporter can check the warning message and understand what kind of support or preparations should be made for each evaluation subject based on the support need score.

<Calculation procedure for support requirement score>
When the response data shown in FIG. 5 is acquired, the calculation unit 15 performs, for example, the following statistical processing on the group 51 of responses included in the response data.

First, the calculation unit 15 determines a question score based on the answered option number for each question. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, a reversal flag is set for each question. The calculation unit 15 determines the question score for each question in accordance with the set reversal flag. For questions with a reversal flag of "0", the calculation unit 15 determines the answered option number as the question score for that question. For questions with a reversal flag of "1", the calculation unit 15 determines the number obtained by subtracting the answered option number from 6 as the question score for that question.

The calculation unit 15 calculates a domain-specific score for each domain. As an example, the calculation unit 15 calculates the average of the question scores for each question belonging to the same domain, and sets this as the domain-specific score.

In this embodiment, questions belonging to the same domain are further grouped by factor group. Therefore, the calculation unit 15 may calculate the average of the question scores for each factor group and use this as the factor-specific score. The calculation unit 15 may also calculate the domain-specific score from the average of the factor-specific scores within the same domain.

Finally, the calculation unit 15 calculates the support requirement score by adding up the domain-specific scores for the five (or four) domains from domain 1 to domain 5 (or domain 4).

(Modification of calculation procedure)
The calculation unit 15 may further derive a standard deviation for the factor-specific scores of the person to be evaluated calculated for each factor group. The group of people to be evaluated for calculating the average score to be referenced when deriving the standard deviation may be determined as appropriate.

<About the survey to build the question set>
The background to the adoption of each question item that constitutes the question group for each domain in the comprehensive support assessment scale is explained below. The inventors extracted questions related to factors for predicting the need for support in child-rearing through a review of literature (e.g., Non-Patent Document 3, Non-Patent Document 4, etc.) and interviews with clinicians.

Specifically, interviews were conducted with four experienced professionals (one liaison nurse, one clinical psychologist, and two social workers) who actually work in child-rearing support at obstetrics and gynecology clinics, child-rearing support centers, etc., and an exploratory content analysis of the factors was conducted. During the interviews, each was asked to explain in as much detail as possible the characteristics of cases in which they felt support was required in actual clinical settings. The obtained interview data was subjected to content analysis, and as many questions as possible were created that would broadly cover the constructs. Three researchers, including the inventors, reviewed these candidate questions and examined their appropriateness as questions. After narrowing the number of questions down to a manageable number, the questions were then checked multiple times by multiple researchers for wording and ease of response. A questionnaire was created in-house using simple wording to make the questions easy for mothers to understand.

The inventors examined the extracted questions and discovered that the main domains were the individual's personality, environment, and child. Using the extracted items, a quantitative survey was conducted targeting mothers currently raising children. Specifically, the survey consisted of a total of 118 questions categorized into five domains: (1) maternal developmental and personality characteristics, (2) perceived difficulties, (3) perceived support, (4) environmental resources, and (5) child characteristics.

(Research collaborators)
The survey subjects were mothers in Japan raising children whose youngest child was between the ages of 0 and 3. The survey was requested of 4,800 people who met the above conditions from the sample held by the research company, and of these, 1,031 people who agreed to participate and provided valid responses were used for analysis.

(Survey period)
It was October 2019.

(Survey Contents)
The survey was conducted as an online survey. First, the personal attributes of the survey participants were asked about their age, previous pregnancy and childbirth history, the age of their children, and circumstances other than childcare (work, caregiving, etc.). Next, to measure factors related to the need for support in childcare, participants were asked to respond to 118 uniquely selected questions using a five-point scale (1. Not at all applicable to 5. Very applicable). The 118 questions are shown in Figures 10 to 12. Finally, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) was used as an indicator of the subjects' psychological maladjustment.

(Analysis method)
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the attributes and backgrounds of the survey participants. Item analysis of the 118 items was performed using factor analysis and correlation analysis for each domain. Factors were extracted using factor analysis, and items appropriate for composing the resulting factors were selected from the results of correlation analysis and response distribution, ensuring a minimum number of items for each domain. Factor scores were calculated for each resulting factor. Finally, a logistic regression analysis was performed using QIDS severity as the outcome variable.

(result)
(1) Domain 1: Mother's developmental and personality characteristics. A maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on 41 questions related to developmental and personality characteristics. The number of factors was specified as 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, and a six-factor solution was ultimately determined to be appropriate based on interpretability. The same factor analysis was conducted again specifying the six-factor solution and then promax rotation was applied. Items with factor loadings of less than 0.30 for any factor, items with similar content, and items showing double loadings were deleted, and the factor analysis was repeated. Ultimately, the following 22 questions were adopted.

The loadings of the following questions were high on the first factor: "I often forget things (0.754)," "I often make careless mistakes (0.714)," "I often miss things (0.616)," and "I often don't understand even after multiple explanations (0.435)." For this reason, the first factor to which these four questions belong was named the "carelessness tendency" factor.

In the second factor, the following items had negative loadings: "I can accept that it can't be helped if my child doesn't do what I want (-0.685)," "I can calm myself down when I get irritated (-0.66)," and "I can accept that it can't be helped if things don't go my way (-0.60)," while the question item "I often feel so rejected that I don't want to see my child's face (0.433)" had a positive loading. These questions ask about one's ability to deal with one's own emotions. For this reason, the second factor to which these four questions belong has been named the "Emotional Control" factor.

For the third factor, the following questions loaded highly: "I have an ideal form, and I want to somehow fit it into that (0.832)," "I have an image of how things 'should' be, and I try to work towards that (0.774)," "I get confused when my internal process is disrupted (0.478)," and "Even if I'm told to do it moderately, I want to see it through to the end until I'm satisfied with it (0.453)." These questions relate to the urge to fit things into a framework that one sets for oneself. For this reason, the third factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "urge to systemize" factor.

For the fourth factor, the following questions had high loadings: "I'm good at doing two or more things at the same time (0.767)," "I'm good at chatting and making small talk while running errands (0.716)," "I can roughly imagine what the other person is trying to do after a short conversation (0.433)," and "I'm not good at reading people's facial expressions (-0.304)." These questions are related to simultaneous/parallel work and grasping the big picture and context. Therefore, the fourth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Simultaneous/Whole Processing" factor.

For factor 5, the following questions had high loadings: "During medical examinations and health checkups, the explanations given by doctors and other staff are sometimes difficult to understand (0.628)," "It is painful to wait in noisy places such as waiting areas for medical examinations and health checkups (0.566)," "I feel uneasy unless someone is nearby (0.501)," and "Even when given parenting advice, I would like to do it my own way as much as possible (0.375)." Factor 5, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Difficulty in conforming" factor.

The following questions were extracted from Factor 6: "When I was a child, my parents (or primary caregivers) didn't pay me any attention (0.965)" and "When I was a child, my parents (or primary caregivers) treated me violently (0.59)." These questions are related to not having received healthy parenting from one's parents, and Factor 6, to which these two questions belong, was interpreted as the "attachment problems" factor.

As described above, the first group of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental or personality characteristics may have multiple factor groups. Specifically, the first group of questions may have a first factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency toward inattention. The first group of questions may have a second factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's ability to cope with their own emotions. The first group of questions may have a third factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's systemizing impulse to incorporate things into the framework they set for themselves. The first group of questions may have a fourth factor group including questions inquiring about the subject's ability to multitask. The fourth factor group may further include questions inquiring about the subject's situational judgment abilities, such as imagining the feelings of others, judging a situation from its context, and grasping the overall picture of a situation. The first group of questions may have a fifth factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's difficulty empathizing with others. The first group of questions may include a sixth factor group that asks about the type of upbringing the person being evaluated received from their caregiver.

(2) Second domain: Difficulty The same procedure was used to divide the 22 questions about difficulty into five factors, and three items with factor loadings of less than 0.240 were deleted, ultimately resulting in the following 19 questions.

The loadings on the first factor were high for the following questions: "When raising children, I often feel helpless and anxious (0.882)," "When raising children, I sometimes don't know what to do (0.880)," "When raising children, I often feel confused and anxious about whether I'm doing the right thing (0.868)," and "I lack confidence in myself (0.318)." These questions are related to anxieties about raising children. Therefore, the first factor, to which these four questions belong, was interpreted as a "lack of confidence" factor.

For the second factor, the following questions had high loadings: "I feel that I have relatively enough time to do things the way I want to (0.824)," "I feel that I am able to take even short periods of time to relax (0.758)," "I feel that I am able to relieve stress in moderation (0.745)," and "I feel that I am able to manage my time well (0.571)." These questions are related to whether or not one is able to successfully manage child-rearing. For this reason, the second factor, to which these four questions belong, was interpreted as the "coping potential" factor.

The third factor is composed of the questions "I love my children (0.955)," "I want to protect my children at all costs (0.855)," and "Having children makes me feel warm (0.692)." The third factor, to which these three questions belong, was interpreted as the "love for children" factor.

For the fourth factor, the following questions had high loadings: "I can overcome difficulties to a certain extent (0.804)," "I am able to do things that are good for my child's health at an average level (0.629)," "I am able to understand my own emotions and thoughts (0.597)," and "I think I am doing my best in raising my children (0.525)." These questions are related to having a positive impression of oneself and one's own child-rearing. Therefore, the fourth factor, to which these four questions belong, was interpreted as the "self-esteem" factor.

Factor 5 is made up of the following questions: "When my child won't stop crying, I feel like it's my fault (0.889)," "I feel like my child's crying is blaming me (0.868)," "Raising a child makes me feel empty (0.388)," and "I feel like I'm not valued (0.246)." These questions contain elements of self-blame for parenting issues that go poorly. For this reason, Factor 5, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Self-blame" factor.

As described above, the second group of questions, which inquires about the subject's thought patterns that make child-rearing difficult, may have multiple factor groups. Specifically, the second group of questions may have a first factor group consisting of questions asking about any vague anxieties the subject has about child-rearing. The second group of questions may have a second factor group consisting of questions asking about whether the subject believes they are managing everything related to child-rearing well. The second group of questions may have a third factor group consisting of questions asking about the subject's affection for their child. The second group of questions may have a fourth factor group consisting of questions asking about whether the subject is able to view themselves positively. The second group of questions may have a fifth factor group consisting of questions asking about whether the subject tends to blame themselves for poor child-rearing.

(3) Third domain: Perception of support A maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on 15 questions about how people receive support from those around them. Based on the attenuation of eigenvalues and the interpretability of the factors, a four-factor solution was determined to be appropriate, and the same factor analysis was conducted again specifying the four-factor solution, followed by promax rotation.

The loadings on the first factor were high for the following questions: "My husband (partner) helps with child-rearing (0.933)," "My husband (partner) helps with housework (0.807)," "My husband (partner) doesn't help much with child-rearing, so I feel lonely (-0.681)," and "My husband (partner) cares for me (0.664)." These questions relate to support and cooperation from one's husband (partner). Therefore, the first factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Husband Support" factor.

The loadings on the second factor were high for the following questions: "My parents help me with childcare (1.023)," "I can easily ask my parents for childcare and housework (0.921)," "My parents are always willing to give me advice about childrearing (0.571)," and "There are people outside of my family who help me with childrearing (0.210)." These questions relate to help from family members with childrearing. Therefore, the second factor, to which these four questions belong, was interpreted as the "parental support" factor.

The third factor had high loadings for the questions "My husband (partner) helps with childcare, but I sometimes feel lonely (0.714)" and "I feel like my husband (partner) doesn't understand me as I raise my children (0.657)." These questions are primarily related to one's own psychological understanding and support rather than physical support for childcare from one's husband (partner). For this reason, the third factor, to which these two questions belong, was named the "Psychological support from husband" factor.

The fourth factor is composed of the following questions: "I have a good relationship with my parents (0.691)," "My parents and I have different ideas and methods about child-rearing, which is stressful (-0.523)," "I have friends I can talk to about child-rearing (0.230)," "My friends who share my children (other mom friends, online connections, etc.) are stressful (-0.221)," and "I find online information useful for child-rearing (0.213)." These questions relate to whether one is in an environment or relationship where they can receive support from the people and information around them. For this reason, the fourth factor, to which these five questions belong, was designated the "Support Receptivity" factor.

As described above, the third group of questions, which inquires about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them, may have multiple factor groups that are related to both personal factors and environmental factors. Specifically, the third group of questions may have a first factor group consisting of questions asking about how the subject receives physical support from their partner, such as their husband. The third group of questions may have a second factor group consisting of questions asking about how the subject receives support from their parents. The third group of questions may have a third factor group consisting of questions asking about how the subject receives emotional support from their partner, such as their husband. The third group of questions may have a fourth factor group consisting of questions asking about whether the subject has built relationships or an environment in which they can receive support.

(4) Environmental Resources: A maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on 33 questions related to the environment. A five-factor solution was selected based on the same criteria as for the other dimensions. Items with factor loadings of less than 0.30 for any factor were deleted, and the same procedure was repeated, ultimately resulting in 20 items.

The first factor is composed of the following questions: "I think medical professionals are dependable (0.933)," "I think medical professionals can be trusted (0.906)," "I have good communication with medical professionals during my child's health checkups (0.55)," and "I don't have a fixed pediatrician (-0.355)." These questions ask about the sense of trust in medical professionals and whether relationships have been built. For this reason, the first factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Relationships with Medical Professionals" factor.

The second factor is composed of the following questions: "My husband (partner) is difficult to get along with (0.893),""I think my husband (partner) is very particular (0.702),""My husband (partner) often makes me feel like I'm bossing him around (0.536)," and "I think my husband (partner) is good at controlling his emotions (-0.454)." The second factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Partner's Temperament" factor.

The third factor is composed of the following questions: "My parents are good at time management (0.882)," "My parents are good at organizing (0.726)," "I think my parents are people who can take care of themselves (0.483)," and "My parents are healthy (0.434)." The third factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Parental Autonomy" factor.

The fourth factor was "My husband (partner) is good at time management (0.717),""My husband (partner) is good at organizing (0.702),""I think my husband (partner) is someone who can take care of himself (0.682)," and "My husband (partner) is healthy (0.32)."
The fourth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Partner's Autonomy" factor.

The fifth factor is made up of the following questions: "(If there are older children) The older child is a lot of work (0.867)," "(If there are older children) The older child acts like a baby (0.780)," "(If there are older children) The older child is ill or disabled (0.434)," and "I am caring for a parent or grandparent (0.328)." These questions relate to the child-rearing and caregiving responsibilities of the parent, in addition to raising the child being evaluated (e.g., the youngest child). Therefore, the fifth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Child-rearing and Caregiving Burden" factor.

As described above, the fourth group of questions, which inquires about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated, may have multiple factor groups. Specifically, the fourth group of questions may have a first factor group consisting of questions asking whether the person being evaluated has built a trusting relationship with medical professionals. The fourth group of questions may have a second factor group consisting of questions asking about the partner's temperament. The fourth group of questions may have a third factor group consisting of questions asking about the parent's independence. The fourth group of questions may have a fourth factor group consisting of questions asking about the partner's independence. The fifth group of questions may have a fifth factor group consisting of questions asking about the childcare or nursing burden borne by persons other than the child being evaluated.

(5) Child Characteristics For the seven questions about factors related to the child being raised that were the subject of evaluation, one factor was designated based on the same judgment, and items with factor loadings of less than 0.360 were deleted. After that, factor analysis was conducted again, and five items were ultimately adopted.

For the first factor, the following questions had high loadings: "My child often does not calm down even when I hold him (0.679)," "My child is often in a good mood (-0.616)," "My child cries a lot (0.550)," "My child gets sick easily (0.438)," and "My child does not eat much (including breastfeeding and solid food) (0.357)." These questions are related to the characteristics of children that are likely to cause feelings of fatigue and difficulty in childcare. For this reason, the first factor, to which these five questions belong, was designated the "Child's temperament and state" factor.

(Correlation with QIDS)
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the 21 factors obtained by factor analysis performed on each of the five domains and the QIDS, and significant correlations were found for the following factors (p<0.01). The correlations between the QIDS and the following 21 factor groups (F1-F21) are shown in Figures 13-16. The number in the upper row of each cell indicates the Pearson correlation coefficient, and the number in the lower row indicates the probability of significance (two-sided). The frequency is 1031, which corresponds to the number of valid responses mentioned above, for each cell. Among the correlation coefficients shown in the upper row of each cell, those marked with "**" are significant (two-sided) at the 1% level, and those marked with "*" are significant (two-sided) at the 5% level.

In the first domain (mother's developmental and personality characteristics), significant correlations were found with the factors "difficulty in conforming (r = 0.344)," "emotional control (r = 0.318)," "tendency to be inattentive (r = 0.264)," and "attachment issues (r = 0.256)." In the second domain (sense of difficulty), strong correlations were found with the factors "blame (r = 0.521)" and "lack of self-confidence (r = 0.439)." Significant correlations were also found with the factors "coping potential (r = 0.352)," "self-esteem (r = 0.254)," and "affection for children (r = 0.200)." Correlations were found across all factors. In the third domain (perceived support), a strong correlation was found with the factor "psychological support from husband (r = -0.402)," and significant correlations were also found with the factors "receptivity to support (r = -0.298)" and "support from husband (r = -0.239)." In the fourth domain (environmental resources), a significant correlation was found with the factors "partner's temperament (r = 0.262)" and "relationship with medical professionals (r = 0.207)." In the fifth domain (child's temperament and condition), a significant correlation was found with the factor "child's temperament (r = 0.256)."

(Multiple regression analysis)
To determine the extent to which each factor related to child-rearing affects feelings of depression, a multiple regression analysis was conducted using the forced entry method for domains 1 to 5, with the QIDS as the dependent variable and each factor as the independent variable. Mothers who scored high on the factors of "Lack of self-confidence,""Copingpotential,""Self-blame,""Psychologicalsupport,""Tendency to be inattentive,""Difficultyconforming,""Attachmentproblems,""Partner'stemperament," and "Child-rearing/caregiving burden" were found to have mental instability, and the results indicated that these factors have an influence in explaining mothers' mental instability.

[Embodiment 2]
Other embodiments of the present invention will be described below. For ease of explanation, the same reference numerals will be used to designate components having the same functions as those described in the above embodiment, and the description thereof will not be repeated.

Furthermore, the inventors noticed that even caregivers who may be judged to be "able to raise their children without any major problems," or in other words, "low level of support required," based on questions about child-rearing that the caregiver answers, can experience problems such as sleep deprivation or mental stress. In other words, the inventors came to the realization that by incorporating hidden personal factors that the caregiver themselves are not aware of as factors related to the level of support required, it would be possible to more accurately assess the level of support required by a caregiver, and thus completed the present invention.

Below, we will describe an evaluation system that more accurately assesses a caregiver's need for support by taking into account personal factors that the person being evaluated is unaware of, in addition to the comprehensive support assessment scale described in embodiment 1. Furthermore, we will describe an evaluation system that can determine the type of support required for each caregiver based on the evaluation results and present support appropriate for each individual caregiver.

<Evaluation system overview>
FIG. 17 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of the evaluation system according to this embodiment. The evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment may include a measurement system 5 and a measurement result database 17 (hereinafter, referred to as measurement result DB 17) as a first additional component group in addition to the components of the first embodiment included in the evaluation system 100 according to the first embodiment. Alternatively, the evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment may include a regional characteristics database 18 (hereinafter, referred to as regional characteristics DB 18) as a second additional component group instead of the first additional component group in addition to the components of the first embodiment. The evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment may include both the first and second additional components described above. Furthermore, the evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment may include a support information database 19 (hereinafter, referred to as support information DB 19) as a third additional component group, as necessary, in addition to the first or second additional component group.

The measurement system 5 observes at least one of the caregivers and the children being raised by the caregivers who are the subjects of evaluation. When there is no need to distinguish between the caregivers and children who are the subjects of observation in the measurement system 5, they will be collectively referred to as the observed subjects. The measurement system 5 includes one or more sensing devices, collects measurements taken by the sensing devices regarding the observed subjects, and uploads the measurement data including the measurement group to the measurement result DB 17.

The measurement result DB17 stores the measurement data uploaded from each measurement system 5 provided for each evaluation subject.

Regional characteristics DB18 stores regional characteristic data related to increases and decreases in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing for each region. For example, to create regional characteristics DB18, an analysis is conducted for each region on items related to increases and decreases in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing, which can be extracted from existing regional statistical data, etc. In regional characteristics DB18, the regional characteristics identified based on the results of the above analysis are defined for each region as regional characteristic data.

Support information DB19 stores support information that contributes to reducing the physical and mental burden of child-rearing on caregivers. Support information is stored in support information DB19, categorized, for example, by region, type of support required, and level of support required. This makes it possible to output support information that is appropriate for the evaluated caregiver.

The evaluation device 1 may store the measurement result DB 17, regional characteristics DB 18, and support information DB 19 in an external storage device such as a cloud server. Alternatively, the evaluation device 1 may store the measurement result DB 17, regional characteristics DB 18, and support information DB 19 in a storage device built into the evaluation device 1.

In this embodiment, information identifying the residential area of the caregiver who is the subject of evaluation is supplied from the subject terminal 2 to the evaluation device 1. Hereinafter, the information identifying the residential area will be referred to as regional identification information. The timing at which the regional identification information is provided is not particularly limited. As an example, the question data presented to the subject terminal 2 from the question DB 12 may include a question asking about the residential area. The subject terminal 2 may return to the evaluation device 1 answer data including an answer to the question asking about the state of need for support, and regional identification information as the answer to the question asking about the residential area. Examples of regional identification information include a postal code, prefecture name, and city/ward/town/village name.

<Measurement system overview>
18 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of a measurement system for observing a subject. The measurement system 5 includes a control device 60, a communication device 61, and one or more sensing devices 62. The measurement system 5 may also include a data acquisition device 63 as necessary.

The control device 60 is communicatively connected to the communication device 61 and the sensing device 62, and controls these devices in an integrated manner, uploading the measurement values measured on the observed subject to the measurement result DB 17. The control device 60 may be configured, for example, by a CPU or a dedicated processor.

The communication device 61 transmits and receives data to and from an external device, such as a storage device that stores the measurement result DB 17, via a communication network such as the Internet. The control device 60 and communication device 61 may be provided in a single housing, such as a PC or tablet.

The sensing device 62 observes the subject and periodically acquires measurement values related to the subject. The measurement values may be accumulated for a fixed period (e.g., 24 hours) in a storage device (not shown) built into the measurement system 5. The group of measurement values accumulated in the storage device is periodically uploaded as measurement data from the communication device 61 to the measurement result DB 17 under the control of the control device 60.

Multiple sensing devices 62 may observe a single subject from various perspectives. Also, one sensing device 62 may observe multiple subjects, namely child B and caregiver R. Specific examples of sensing devices 62 include a temperature sensor 621, a microphone 622, a camera 623, a respiratory and heart rate sensor 624, a weight sensor 625, and a distance sensor 626. Sensing devices 62 are not limited to the specific examples above, and may be any type of sensing device that can obtain measured values that can be used to analyze the condition of the subject.

In this embodiment, as an example, six sensing devices 62 are used to observe child B, who is the subject of observation. These sensing devices 62 may be installed in places where a newborn or infant spends a lot of time, such as a crib, futon, pillow, mat, bassinet, bouncer, baby chair, or stroller. They may also be attached to child B's clothing, baby carrier, or toys.

The temperature sensor 621 measures the body temperature of the person being observed. The control device 60 periodically uploads, for example, a CSV file containing the body temperature of child B measured by the temperature sensor 621 at predetermined intervals to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data.

The microphone 622 captures the sound emitted by the subject of observation. The control device 60, for example, periodically uploads the sound data collected by the microphone 622 over a predetermined period of time to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data. The sound data may be, for example, a WAV file. The sound data is thought to include Child B's laughter, crying, and the voice of caregiver R, and is used to analyze Child B's situation, the interaction between Child B and caregiver R, etc.

The camera 623 captures video of the subject being observed. The control device 60, for example, periodically uploads the video data captured by the camera 623 over a predetermined period of time to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data. The video data may be, for example, an MP4 file. The video data is thought to include Child B's facial expressions, movements, and interactions with caregiver R, and is used to analyze Child B's situation, the relationship between Child B and caregiver R, etc.

The respiratory and heart rate sensor 624 measures the respiratory rate, heart rate, etc. of the person being observed. The control device 60 periodically uploads, for example, a CSV file containing the respiratory rate and heart rate of child B measured by the respiratory and heart rate sensor 624 at predetermined intervals to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data.

The weight sensor 625 measures the movements and weight of the person being observed. The control device 60 periodically uploads a CSV file containing, for example, the center of gravity position, pressure detection position, and weight of child B measured by the weight sensor 625 at predetermined intervals to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data. The center of gravity position and pressure detection position are used to analyze child B's movements, such as rolling over, crawling, and kicking their legs.

The distance sensor 626 measures the relative positions of the observed subjects. The control device 60 periodically uploads, for example, a CSV file containing the distance between child B and caregiver R measured by the distance sensor 626 to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data. Based on the change in the distance between child B and caregiver R over time, it is possible to determine the length of time child B and caregiver R are in contact, the time required for caregiver R to arrive after child B starts crying, and so on. The distance measured in this way is used to analyze the interaction between child B and caregiver R, etc.

The data acquisition device 63 may acquire measurement data related to the subject of observation from an external device (not shown). For example, the data acquisition device 63 may be a communication device with wireless communication capabilities and acquire measurement data from external devices used by caregiver R, such as a scale, blood pressure monitor, or pedometer. Alternatively, the data acquisition device 63 may be an information processing device that accepts and manages the input of caregiver R's personal life repository (PLR) data. The data acquisition device 63 acquires and manages PLR data, such as weight, sleep time, food intake, and exercise volume, entered daily by caregiver R. The data acquisition device 63 may itself be a wearable device that can directly observe caregiver R. A smartphone that functions as the subject terminal 2 may also function as the data acquisition device 63. The data acquisition device 63 may communicate with the control device 60 and upload the acquired measurement data to the measurement result DB 17 via the communication device 61, or it may upload the measurement data to the measurement result DB 17 using the communication function of the data acquisition device 63 itself.

<Measurement data>
FIG. 19 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the measurement data uploaded from the measurement system 5 to the measurement result DB 17.

Measurement data 68 shows an example of measurement data generated by measurement system 5 for child B. Measurement data 68 includes, as an example, information indicating the measurement date or measurement period, an evaluation subject ID that uniquely identifies caregiver R, who is the evaluation subject, and a group of various measurement values measured by each sensing device 62.

Measurement data 69 shows an example of measurement data generated by the measurement system 5 regarding caregiver R. As an example, measurement data 69 includes information indicating the measurement date or measurement period, the subject ID, and a group of various measurement values acquired by the data acquisition device 63.

The measurement system 5 may be configured to periodically send only the measurement data 68 for child B to the measurement result DB 17, or may be configured to send both the measurement data 68 for child B and the measurement data 69 for caregiver R to the measurement result DB 17. The measurement system 5 may send the measurement data 68 and the measurement data 69 separately to the measurement result DB 17, or may send both together as a single piece of data.

In measurement result DB17, the measurement value groups contained in measurement data 68 and measurement data 69 are stored in association with the measurement date or measurement period for each evaluation subject ID.

When assessing the level of support required by the subject, the evaluation device 1 can refer to the measurement result DB 17. The evaluation device 1 can then more accurately calculate the support required score by taking into account the conditions of child B and caregiver R analyzed based on the measurement data of the subject over a specified period of time.

<Configuration of evaluation device>
20 is a diagram showing the main configuration of the evaluation device 1 according to the present embodiment. The control unit 10 in the evaluation device 1 according to the second embodiment further includes an adjustment unit 32 in addition to the group of elements included in the control unit 10 according to the first embodiment. The control unit 10 according to the second embodiment may include at least one of an analysis unit 31 and a classification unit 33, as necessary.

The adjustment unit 32 adjusts the support requirement score calculated by the calculation unit 15, taking into consideration the circumstances of the caregiver R and his/her child B, who are the subjects of evaluation, as determined from data stored in at least one of the measurement result DB 17 and the regional characteristics DB 18.

For example, if the condition of the person being evaluated or their child indicated by the measurement data stored in the measurement result DB17 is one that increases the level of support required, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support required score upward. Conversely, if the condition of the person being evaluated or their child indicated by the measurement data is one that decreases the level of support required, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support required score downward.

Alternatively, for example, if the regional characteristics of the region where the subject resides, as indicated by the regional characteristic data stored in the regional characteristic DB 18, are characteristics that increase the level of support needed, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support need score upward. Conversely, if the regional characteristics of the region where the subject resides, as indicated by the regional characteristic data, are characteristics that decrease the level of support needed, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support need score downward.

The analysis unit 31 analyzes the conditions of caregiver R and child B based on the measurement data stored in the measurement result DB 17. For example, the analysis unit 31 may analyze child B's sleep duration and nighttime sleep intervals based on child B's respiratory and heart rate data. The analysis unit 31 may also compare child B's sleep duration and nighttime sleep intervals with the average sleep duration and nighttime sleep intervals for children of the same age. If child B's sleep duration and nighttime sleep intervals are shorter than average, the analysis unit 31 may determine that child B's condition indicates a greater need for support.

Alternatively, the analysis unit 31 may analyze the number of cries based on child B's audio data. Furthermore, the analysis unit 31 may determine the time from when child B starts crying until caregiver R arrives, or the time from when caregiver R begins to take action until child B stops crying, based on child B's audio data, video data, and distance data. If the analysis unit 31 estimates based on the determined content that caregiver R tends to leave child B alone even when crying, or that child B does not stop crying even when caregiver R pays attention to him, the analysis unit 31 may determine that child B's situation is such that the level of support required is high.

The analysis unit 31 may be realized by an analyzer using artificial intelligence (AI) that takes the measurement data of the observed person as an input value and outputs the situation of the observed person as an output value. For example, the analysis unit 31 may be an analyzer that takes the crying audio data of child B as an input value and outputs the cause of child B's crying (sleepiness, hunger, discomfort in the diaper, etc.) as an output value. The analyzer may be a trained estimation model that is trained using training data that includes multiple combinations of the measurement data of the observed person (crying audio data) and the results of actual investigations of the situation of each observed person (the reason for crying actually recognized by the caregiver). Furthermore, the analysis unit 31 may determine whether caregiver R is responding in a way that matches the cause of child B's crying.

The analysis unit 31 outputs situation data indicating the situation of the observed subject, analyzed based on the measurement data, to the adjustment unit 32. The adjustment unit 32 adjusts the support requirement score based on the situation data.

The classification unit 33 classifies the type of support required for the evaluation subject whose support need score has been calculated. As described in embodiment 1, factors related to the increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing are broadly classified into five domains, which are further classified into 21 factor groups. It is expected that, depending on the caregiver, there will be a bias in the level of support required for each domain or factor group. The classification unit 33 may classify the type of support required based on such bias.

For example, the classification unit 33 may classify the type of support required based on the domain-specific scores calculated by the calculation unit 15. The type of support required is information indicating what type of support the subject needs or what type of difficulties the subject is facing. Hereinafter, the type of support required will be referred to as the support required type. In other words, the support required type is information for classifying the subject according to the type of support the subject needs or the type of difficulties the subject faces. As an example, the classification unit 33 may classify the support required type of a subject for whom a high domain-specific score in the third domain D3, "Support Recognition," is calculated as "Support Recognition Required Type." Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may classify the support required type of a subject for whom a high domain-specific score in the fourth domain D4, "Environmental Resources," is calculated as "Environmental Resource Required Type." Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may classify the support required type of a subject for whom a high domain-specific score in the fifth domain D5, "Child Characteristics," is calculated as "Child Care Help Required Type."

In another example, the classification unit 33 may determine the support need type of the subject based on the regional characteristic data stored in the regional characteristic DB 18. For example, the classification unit 33 may classify the support need type of the subject who lives in an area with an extremely low number of childcare facilities per capita as an "environmental resource need type" or the like. Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may classify the support need type of the subject who lives in an area with a high number of nuclear families or a high number of elderly people requiring care as a "support awareness need type" or the like.

Furthermore, the classification unit 33 may classify the type of support required by the person being evaluated based on regional characteristic data indicating the level of availability of administrative services, the number of parks, the number of public health nurses, etc.

The support need types classified by the classification unit 33 are not limited to the domains or factor groups of the comprehensive support need assessment scale described in embodiment 1.

For example, based on the similarity of response patterns among multiple subjects, the 118 questions in the comprehensive support assessment scale may be classified into question clusters that differ from the domain and factor groups of embodiment 1, such as (1) trust in others, (2) coping ability, (3) management ability, (4) parent cooperation, (5) partner cooperation, (6) anxiety, and (7) attention deficit.

Then, question clusters that show a significant correlation with the region may be adopted as the support type, such as "evaluation subjects in this region tend to receive high scores in this question cluster." For example, (4) the support type of evaluation subjects living in a specific region who receive high scores in the question cluster regarding parental cooperation systems may be classified as the "parental cooperation required type."

Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may be realized by a classifier that receives as input values the region identification information of the region in which the person being evaluated resides and the domain-specific score of the person being evaluated, and outputs as an output value the type of support required. For example, the classifier may be constructed by machine learning using training data that includes multiple pairs of the domain-specific score and region identification information of the person being evaluated, and the type of support required that has actually been determined for the person being evaluated by an expert or the like.

In this embodiment, the management unit 16 stores the final support need score adjusted by the adjustment unit 32 in the evaluation result DB 13 in association with the evaluation target ID of the evaluation target. Furthermore, the management unit 16 may store the adjusted domain-specific score in the evaluation result DB 13 in association with the evaluation target ID. Furthermore, the management unit 16 may store the support need type classified by the classification unit 33 in association with the evaluation target ID in the evaluation result DB 13. Furthermore, the management unit 16 (identification unit) may identify support information suitable for the evaluation target from the support information DB 19 based on at least one of the support need score, support need type, and residential area of the evaluation target, and store the support information in the evaluation result DB 13 in association with the evaluation target ID.

<Score adjustment based on measurement data>
FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of situation data output by the analysis unit 31 as a result of analyzing the measurement data of a certain evaluation subject.

As an example, the situation data has two columns: "Items to Consider" and "Assessment Results." "Items to Consider" indicates the observation items of Child B or Caregiver R that should be taken into consideration when adjusting the support needed score. The assessment results indicate whether the situation of Child B or Caregiver R for the relevant observation item increases or decreases the level of support needed, and to what extent.

The items to be considered may be selected in advance by an engineer who is building the analysis unit 31. For example, items that are closely related to characteristics of the child that increase caregiver R's level of fatigue or difficulty in child-rearing may be extracted as "items to be considered."

In the illustrated example, the more "+" symbols there are, the more likely the child's characteristics are to increase the caregiver's level of fatigue and difficulty in raising the child. A "-" symbol means the opposite. For example, the analysis unit 31 may determine that the more "+" symbols there are, the shorter Child B's sleep time is compared to that of infants of the same age.

The adjustment unit 32 adjusts a predetermined domain-specific score among the five domains in accordance with the situation data output as shown. As an example, in the example shown, the consideration items are extracted as items related to the fifth domain D5, "child characteristics." Therefore, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score for the fifth domain D5, "child characteristics," based on the assessment results of the situation data. Specifically, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score for the fifth domain upward as the assessment results include more "+"s, and adjusts the domain-specific score for the fifth domain downward as the assessment results include more "-"s.

If the considerations that can be analyzed from the measurement data of the observed subject are not limited to "child characteristics" but also include considerations related to other domains, such as "developmental characteristics/personality characteristics" in the first domain and "sense of difficulty" in the second domain, the adjustment unit 32 may adjust the domain-specific scores for the other domains or directly adjust the support required score, which is the overall value of these. Furthermore, a "domain to be adjusted" column may be provided in the situation data, and the domain for which the score is to be adjusted based on the assessment results may be specified in advance.

As described above, by taking into account factors that the person being evaluated may not even be aware of based on measurement data, it is possible to more accurately calculate the support required score.

<Score adjustment based on regional characteristics data>
22 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the regional characteristic DB 18. As an example, the regional characteristic DB 18 may be configured to include a rule table 181 for determining regional characteristics for each region, and a reference table 182 for referencing the regional characteristics determined for each region.

As an example, the rules table 181 has three columns: "Consideration Items," "Support Recognition," and "Environmental Resources."

"Consideration items" indicate evaluation items of regional characteristics that should be taken into account when adjusting the support required score. The consideration items may be selected in advance by engineers who build the adjustment unit 32. For example, items closely related to "support perception" and "environmental resources," which affect the increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing on caregiver R, may be extracted as "consideration items." Consideration items closely related to "support perception" and "environmental resources" may be items that can be collected from existing regional statistical data, for example.

"Support Perception" shows the evaluation rules for regional characteristics related to the third domain "Support Perception" for each consideration item. Specifically, this column specifies whether a region with characteristics that meet the conditions listed in the consideration item is evaluated as having characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the third domain. The "+" symbol specifies that the region is evaluated as having characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the third domain. Therefore, for example, if the condition "there is a large number of single-parent families" applies to a certain region, then that region will be evaluated, in accordance with rule table 181, as having regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the third domain.

"Environmental Resources" shows the evaluation rules for regional characteristics related to the fourth domain, "Environmental Resources," for each consideration item. Specifically, this column specifies whether a region with characteristics that meet the conditions listed in the consideration item is evaluated as having characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the fourth domain. The "+" symbol specifies that the region is evaluated as having characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the fourth domain. Therefore, for example, if the condition "few daycare centers" applies to a certain region, that region will be evaluated as having regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the fourth domain, in accordance with rule table 181.

Note that the evaluation of regional characteristics for each region may be performed in advance by an evaluation unit (not shown) based on the rule table 181 and the above-mentioned existing regional statistical data. The reference table 182 is defined as the evaluation result by the above-mentioned evaluation unit.

By referencing the rule table 181, regional characteristics can be determined for each region based on regional statistical data, and the reference table 182, described below, can be obtained.

As an example, reference table 182 has two columns: "Region identification information" and "Region characteristics." The "Region characteristics" column may be further divided into two columns: "Region characteristics related to support recognition" and "Region characteristics related to environmental resources."

"Region identification information" refers to identification information that identifies the region in which the person being evaluated resides. Examples of region identification information include a postal code, city, town, or village name, etc.

"Regional characteristics" indicates the regional characteristics of the region identified by the regional identification information. The more "+" symbols there are, the more the regional characteristics of that region act to increase the level of support required. A "-" symbol has the opposite effect. The evaluation unit (not shown) may associate more "+" symbols with a region in the rule table 181 as the more consideration items that apply to that region.

In the "Regional Characteristics" column for "Regional Characteristics Related to Perceived Support," the more "+" symbols there are, the more the regional characteristics of that region increase the domain-specific score for Domain 3. In the "Regional Characteristics" column for "Regional Characteristics Related to Environmental Resources," the more "+" symbols there are, the more the regional characteristics of that region increase the domain-specific score for Domain 4.

The adjustment unit 32 reads out from the reference table 182 the regional characteristics associated with the regional identification information indicating the residential area of the person being evaluated, and adjusts the support-needed score in accordance with the read regional characteristics. For example, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score for the third domain upward the more "+" symbols there are in the "regional characteristics related to support perception" of the residential area of the person being evaluated. Furthermore, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score for the fourth domain upward the more "+" symbols there are in the "regional characteristics related to environmental resources" of the residential area of the person being evaluated.

The consideration items in the rule table 181 are not limited to those related to "recognition of support" and "environmental resources," but may also include consideration items related to other domains, such as "developmental characteristics/personality characteristics" in the first domain, "sense of difficulty" in the second domain, and "child characteristics" in the fifth domain. In this case, the adjustment unit 32 may adjust the domain-specific scores for the other domains in accordance with the rule table 181, or directly adjust the support-required score, which is the overall value of these.

Alternatively, the items to be considered in the rule table 181 may include items other than those related to the five domains (for example, regional characteristics 1 to 5). Regional characteristics 1 to 5 may include a large number of items, including items that may not at first glance be clearly related to childcare, such as local industries. These items that may not at first glance be clearly related to childcare may be derived, for example, by aggregating and clustering the response patterns of the subjects of evaluation for each region using machine learning.

<Support information>
23 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the support information DB 19. As an example, the support information DB 19 may have four columns: "support information,""URL (Uniform Resource Locator),""targettype," and "target area."

"Support Information" indicates the name of the support information provided to caregiver R, the person being evaluated, to support childcare. Instead of the name of the support information, this column may also store the name of the facility or organization that provides the support information.

"URL" indicates the URL for accessing the relevant support information.

"Target type" indicates the type of support required by the person being evaluated, for whom the relevant support information is appropriate.

"Target area" indicates the area in which the person being evaluated resides that is appropriate for providing the relevant support information.

Support information DB19 may further include a column for "Support Needed Score" (not shown). The "Support Needed Score" indicates the range of support needed scores for the person being evaluated that is appropriate for providing the corresponding support information.

The management unit 16 extracts support information suitable for providing to the person being evaluated from the support information DB 19 based on the support need type assigned to the person being evaluated and the person's residential area. The management unit 16 registers one or more extracted pieces of support information in the evaluation result DB 13 along with the calculated support need score.

This allows the person being evaluated to be provided with support information that is appropriate for their residential area and type of support required. The support information may be sent to a supporter terminal 3 owned by the supporter of the person being evaluated.

<Screen example>
24 is a diagram showing another example of the result screen displayed on the display unit 22 of the subject terminal 2. The result screen 200 according to this embodiment may include, in addition to the support need score 201, a support need type 202 classified by the classification unit 33 and support information 203 extracted by the management unit 16. The support information 203 may be, for example, link information to a website operated by a facility or organization that provides support services to caregiver R.

Through this result screen 200, the person being evaluated can understand their support need score and the type of support they need. Furthermore, they can obtain the support information 203 they need.

<Processing flow>
25 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing executed by the evaluation device 1 according to this embodiment. The series of processing shown in FIG. 25 corresponds to step S107 in the sequence of the evaluation system 100 shown in FIG.

In step S201, the calculation unit 15 calculates a domain-specific score for each of the five domains based on statistical processing of the response data, as described in embodiment 1.

In step S202, the analysis unit 31 analyzes the condition of the observed subject based on the measurement data of the subject stored in the measurement result DB 17. For example, the analysis unit 31 may analyze the condition of the subject's child.

In step S203, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific scores based on the situation data generated by the analysis unit 31. For example, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific scores for the fifth domain, "Child Characteristics."

In step S204, the adjustment unit 32 refers to the regional characteristics DB 18 and adjusts the domain-specific scores based on the regional characteristics of the residential area of the person being evaluated. For example, the adjustment unit 32 refers to the reference table 182 and adjusts the domain-specific scores for the third domain "Support Recognition" and the fourth domain "Environmental Resources."

In step S205, the calculation unit 15 adds up the adjusted scores for each domain to calculate the support requirement score.

In step S206, the classification unit 33 classifies the support requirement type of the person being evaluated based on regional characteristics.

In step S207, the management unit 16 extracts support information from the support information DB 19 based on the classified support requirement type and the residential area of the person being evaluated.

In this embodiment, after S207, in S108 shown in FIG. 8, the management unit 16 associates the support need score, support need type, and support information with the evaluation subject ID and stores them in the evaluation result DB 13. Thus, in S111, the result presentation unit 26 of the subject terminal 2 can display the result screen 200 shown in FIG. 24 on the display unit 22 of the subject terminal 2.

[Software implementation example]
The control blocks of the evaluation device 1 (particularly, the acquisition unit 14, the calculation unit 15, and the management unit 16) may be realized by a logic circuit (hardware) formed on an integrated circuit (IC chip) or the like, or may be realized by software.

The control blocks of the subject terminal 2 (particularly the question presentation unit 24, answer processing unit 25, and result presentation unit 26) may be realized by logic circuits (hardware) formed on an integrated circuit (IC chip) or the like, or by software.

When implemented using software, the evaluation device 1 and the subject terminal 2 each include a computer that executes instructions from a software program that implements each function. This computer may include, for example, one or more processors and a computer-readable recording medium storing the program. The object of the present invention is achieved by the computer having the processor read and execute the program from the recording medium. The processor may be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU). The recording medium may be a "non-transitory tangible medium," such as a read-only memory (ROM), tape, disk, card, semiconductor memory, or programmable logic circuit. The computer may also include a random access memory (RAM) for expanding the program. The program may also be supplied to the computer via any transmission medium capable of transmitting the program (such as a communication network or broadcast waves). One aspect of the present invention may also be realized in the form of a data signal embedded in a carrier wave, in which the program is embodied by electronic transmission.

[Additional Notes]
The evaluation method according to the present disclosure is a method for evaluating the degree of support-needing state of a subject who has or plans to have a child, and who requires support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing. The evaluation method includes the steps of: acquiring a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions inquiring about at least personal factors of the subject (S106); and statistically processing the acquired group of answers to calculate a support-needing score that represents the degree of support-needing state of the subject (S107). The acquiring step acquires at least a first group of answers from the subject to a first group of questions (first domain) inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers from the subject to a second group of questions (second domain) inquiring about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make child-rearing difficult for the subject; and calculating the support-needing score by performing statistical processing on each of the answer groups to calculate a score for each answer group, and integrating the scores for each answer group to calculate the support-needing score.

The above-described method makes it possible to assess at least the degree to which the subject of evaluation is in need of support due to child-rearing. For example, the evaluation method disclosed herein can be used to assess a caregiver's tendency to suffer from mental illness (for example, to predict the risk of developing depressive symptoms). This evaluation method can be used even before the subject of evaluation actually has a child (for example, from the pregnancy stage).

The plurality of questions may further include questions inquiring about environmental factors of the person being evaluated, and the acquiring step may further acquire a third set of answers from the person being evaluated to a third set of questions (third domain) inquiring about the person's receptivity to support from those around them, and a fourth set of answers from the person being evaluated to a fourth set of questions (fourth domain) inquiring about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated.

The above-mentioned method allows for a broad, comprehensive, and quantitative assessment of the subject's level of need for support in child-rearing, not just whether they have or are at risk of developing a mental illness. This assessment method can be used even before the subject actually has a child (for example, from the pregnancy stage).

The acquiring step may further include acquiring a fifth set of answers from the subject to a fifth set of questions (fifth domain) inquiring about the characteristics of the child the subject is raising.

Using the above-mentioned method, after the person being evaluated has a child (for example, after giving birth), the characteristics of the child (including the child's condition, temperament, etc.) can be taken into account when evaluating the person being evaluated. This makes it possible to more accurately assess the degree to which the person being evaluated needs support in childcare.

Each of the groups of questions may include questions that have been shown to correlate significantly with a predetermined scale for assessing depressive symptoms. This can improve the accuracy of predictions about the risk of developing mental illness due to child-rearing.

Here, any known scale, such as the QIDS, can be used as the predetermined scale for assessing depressive symptoms. That is, the predetermined scale for assessing depressive symptoms may be, for example, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a patient health check questionnaire, a clinically useful depression outcome scale, a depression diagnostic test, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the Depressive Symptom Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Kutcher Adolescent Depression Scale (KADS), the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ), the Tsang Self-Rating Depression Scale, or the like.

In the calculation step, the support required score may be adjusted based on at least one of the following data: measurement data indicating the status of the subject measured by a measurement system that observes at least one of the subject and the child being raised by the subject; and area characteristic data indicating the child-rearing characteristics of the area in which the subject resides.

The above-mentioned method allows for a more accurate assessment of a caregiver's need for support by taking into account personal factors that the person being evaluated may not be aware of when answering the questions.

In the calculating step, the answer group score may be calculated for a fifth group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a fifth group of questions asking about the characteristics of the child being cared for by the person being evaluated, and the answer group score for the fifth group of answers may be adjusted upward if the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater need for support.

The above-mentioned method allows for a more accurate assessment of the caregiver's need for support by taking into account characteristics of the child that the person being evaluated may not be aware of themselves when answering the questions.

In the calculating step, the answer group score may be calculated for a third group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a third group of questions asking about the person's acceptability of support from those around them, and the answer group score may be calculated for a fourth group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a fourth group of questions asking about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated, and if the area characteristic data indicating the characteristics of the area in which the person being evaluated lives indicates characteristics that increase the level of support required, the answer group score for at least one of the third and fourth groups of answers may be adjusted upward.

The above-mentioned method allows for a more accurate assessment of the caregiver's need for support by taking into account local characteristics that the person being evaluated may not be aware of when answering the questions.

The evaluation method may further include a step of determining a support type indicating the type of support required by the subject based on the regional characteristic data and the response group score of the subject, and a step of specifying support information to be provided to the subject based on the determined support type.

The above-described method allows the subject to be classified according to the type of support they require, and provides support information appropriate for the subject to be classified according to that classification.

The evaluation device (evaluation device 1) disclosed herein evaluates the degree of support-needed state of a subject who has or plans to have a child, requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with childcare. The evaluation device includes an acquisition unit (acquisition unit 14) that acquires a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions asking about the subject's personal or environmental factors, and a calculation unit (calculation unit 15) that statistically processes the acquired group of answers to calculate a support-needed score representing the subject's degree of support-needed state. The acquisition unit acquires at least a first group of answers from the subject to a first group of questions asking about the subject's developmental or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers from the subject to a second group of questions asking about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make childcare difficult for the subject. The calculation unit performs statistical processing on each of the answer groups to calculate a score for each answer group, and then combines the scores for each answer group to calculate the support-needed score. This configuration achieves the same effects as the evaluation method described above.

The acquisition unit may further acquire a third set of answers from the person being evaluated to a third set of questions inquiring about the person's acceptability of support from those around them, and a fourth set of answers from the person being evaluated to a fourth set of questions inquiring about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the person's physical and mental burden.

The acquisition unit may further acquire a fifth set of answers from the subject to a fifth set of questions inquiring about the characteristics of a child that the subject is raising.

The evaluation device may also include an adjustment unit (adjustment unit 32) that adjusts the support required score based on at least one of the following data: measurement data indicating the status of the subject measured by a measurement system (measurement system 5) that observes at least one of the subject and the child being raised by the subject; and area characteristic data indicating the child-rearing characteristics of the area in which the subject resides.

The calculation unit may calculate the answer group score for a fifth group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a fifth group of questions inquiring about the characteristics of a child being cared for by the person being evaluated, and the adjustment unit may adjust the answer group score for the fifth group of answers upward when the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater need for support.

The calculation unit calculates the answer group score for a third group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a third group of questions asking about the person's acceptability of support from those around them, and calculates the answer group score for a fourth group of answers given by the person being evaluated to a fourth group of questions asking about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated, and the adjustment unit may adjust the answer group score for at least one of the third and fourth groups of answers upward when the area characteristic data indicating the characteristics of the area in which the person being evaluated lives indicates characteristics that increase the level of support needed.

The evaluation device may further include a classification unit (33) that determines a support type indicating the type of support required by the person being evaluated based on the regional characteristic data and the response group score of the person being evaluated, and a characteristics unit (management unit 16) that specifies the support information to be provided to the person being evaluated according to the determined support type.

The evaluation system (evaluation system 100) according to the present disclosure includes any one of the evaluation devices (evaluation device 1) described above, and a subject terminal (subject terminal 2) operated by the person being evaluated and communicatively connected to the evaluation device. The subject terminal includes a first output control unit (question presentation unit 24) that presents the plurality of questions to the person being evaluated, an input control unit (answer processing unit 25) that accepts input of the group of answers to the plurality of questions from the person being evaluated, a transmission unit (communication unit 21) that transmits the accepted group of answers to the evaluation device, a reception unit (communication unit 21) that receives from the evaluation device a support need score corresponding to the transmitted group of answers, and a second output control unit (result presentation unit 26) that presents the received support need score to the person being evaluated.

The above-described configuration makes it possible to build a system that utilizes information and communications technology and the evaluation method disclosed herein to assess the degree to which a caregiver needs assistance due to their child-rearing.

The first output control unit may present the evaluation subject with a plurality of questions belonging to any of the question groups in response to information related to the evaluation subject's pregnancy being input to the subject terminal.

The above-mentioned configuration makes it possible to determine that the person being evaluated is planning to have a child, and uses this as a trigger to ask questions to the person being evaluated without missing an opportunity. This makes it possible to promptly assess whether the person being evaluated is in need of support or is likely to become so, even from the pregnancy stage.

The evaluation device may further include a score management unit that stores the calculated support need score in a memory unit in association with identification information that uniquely identifies the person being evaluated, and the score management unit may store the support need score so that it can be read by a supporter terminal used by a supporter who provides support to the person being evaluated to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing.

The above-mentioned configuration allows supporters to quickly determine whether the person being evaluated is in need of support or is likely to become so, and prepare to provide support at the appropriate time. It also enables the person being evaluated to receive support at the appropriate time, before physical and mental exhaustion makes childcare difficult.

The evaluation system (evaluation system 100) according to the present disclosure includes the evaluation device described above and a subject terminal operated by the subject and communicatively connected to the evaluation device. The subject terminal is equipped with a first output control unit that presents the plurality of questions to the subject, an input control unit that accepts input of the group of answers to the plurality of questions from the subject, a transmission unit that transmits the accepted group of answers to the evaluation device, a reception unit that receives from the evaluation device a support need score corresponding to the transmitted group of answers, a support need type determined based on the regional characteristic data and the answer group score, and support information identified based on the support need type, and a second output control unit that presents the received support need score, support need type, and support information to the subject.

The control program for a subject terminal according to the present disclosure is a control program for causing a computer to function as a subject terminal that communicates with an evaluation device that evaluates the degree of support-needing status of a subject who has or plans to have a child, requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing. The control program causes the computer to function as a first output control unit that presents to the subject at least a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental or personality characteristics and a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make child-rearing difficult for the subject; an input control unit that accepts input of a set of answers to the set of questions from the subject; and a second output control unit that presents to the subject a support-needing score that indicates the degree of support-needing status and that is received from the evaluation device in response to the accepted set of answers.

The above-described configuration makes it possible to build a system that utilizes information and communications technology and the evaluation method disclosed herein to assess the degree to which a caregiver needs assistance due to their child-rearing.

The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and various modifications are possible within the scope of the claims. Embodiments obtained by appropriately combining the technical means disclosed in different embodiments are also included in the technical scope of the present invention.

1. Evaluation device, 2. Subject terminal, 3. Supporter terminal, 4. Service provision server, 5. Measurement system, 10. Control unit, 11. Communication unit, 12. Question database, 13. Evaluation result database, 14. Acquisition unit, 15. Calculation unit, 16. Management unit (score management unit, identification unit), 17. Measurement result database, 18. Regional characteristics database, 19. Support information database, 20. Control unit, 21. Communication unit (transmission unit, reception unit), 22. Display unit, 23. Operation unit, 24. Question presentation unit (first output control unit), 25. Answer processing unit (input control unit), 26. Result presentation unit (second output control unit), 31. Analysis unit, 32. Adjustment unit, 33. Classification unit, 100. Evaluation system

Claims (17)

An evaluation method executed by a computer to evaluate the degree of support-needing state of an evaluation subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing, comprising:
The computer acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
and a step of calculating a support-needed score representing the degree of the support-needed state of the person to be evaluated by the computer statistically processing the group of the obtained answers,
In the step of acquiring, at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
In the calculating step, a statistical process is performed for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and the scores for each response group are integrated to calculate the support requirement score;
In the calculating step,
Measurement data indicating the state of the subject of observation, measured by a measurement system that observes the subject of evaluation; and
Regional characteristic data indicating childcare characteristics of the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
The evaluation method adjusts the support requirement score based on at least one of the data above. In the calculating step,
The evaluation method described in claim 1 further adjusts the support needed score based on measurement data indicating the status of the subject measured by a measurement system that observes the child being raised by the subject. An evaluation method executed by a computer to evaluate the degree of support-needing state of an evaluation subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing, comprising:
The computer acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
and a step of calculating a support-needed score representing the degree of the support-needed state of the person to be evaluated by the computer statistically processing the group of the obtained answers,
In the step of acquiring, at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers from the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
In the calculating step, a statistical process is performed for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and the scores for each response group are integrated to calculate the support requirement score;
The acquiring step further includes acquiring a fifth group of answers from the subject to a fifth group of questions inquiring about characteristics of the child that the subject is raising;
In the calculating step,
Furthermore, the support required score is adjusted based on measurement data indicating the status of the subject of observation measured by a measurement system that observes the child being raised by the subject of evaluation;
In adjusting the support score,
Calculating the answer group score for the fifth answer group;
An evaluation method in which the answer group score for the fifth answer group is adjusted upward when the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater need for support. An evaluation method executed by a computer to evaluate the degree of support-needing state of an evaluation subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing, comprising:
The computer acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
and a step of calculating a support-needed score representing the degree of the support-needed state of the person to be evaluated by the computer statistically processing the group of the obtained answers,
In the step of acquiring, at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
In the calculating step, a statistical process is performed for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and the scores for each response group are integrated to calculate the support requirement score;
The plurality of questions further includes a question asking about environmental factors of the person being evaluated;
The acquiring step further comprises:
a third group of answers by the subject to a third group of questions inquiring about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them; and
and obtaining a fourth set of answers from the subject to a fourth set of questions inquiring about the state of environmental resources related to an increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden of the subject;
The calculating step further comprises:
adjusting the support requirement score based on regional characteristic data indicating the characteristics of childcare in the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
In adjusting the support score,
Calculating the answer group score for the third answer group;
Calculating the answer group score for the fourth answer group;
An evaluation method in which, when the regional characteristic data indicating the characteristics of the region in which the subject of evaluation lives indicates characteristics that increase the degree of need for support, the answer group score for at least one of the third answer group and the fourth answer group is adjusted upward. The plurality of questions further includes a question asking about environmental factors of the person being evaluated;
The acquiring step further comprises:
a third group of answers by the subject to a third group of questions inquiring about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them; and
The evaluation method described in any one of claims 1 to 3, further comprising obtaining a fourth set of answers from the subject to a fourth set of questions inquiring about the state of environmental resources that are involved in the increase or decrease in the physical and mental burden of the subject. The evaluation method of any one of claims 1, 2, and 4, wherein the acquiring step further acquires a fifth set of responses from the subject to a fifth set of questions inquiring about characteristics of the child the subject is raising. a step in which the computer determines a support need type indicating the type of support required by the subject of evaluation based on the regional characteristic data and the answer group score of the subject of evaluation;
The evaluation method according to claim 4 , further comprising a step of: the computer specifying support information to be provided to the person being evaluated according to the determined type of support required. An evaluation device for evaluating the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about the person's personal factors or environmental factors;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The calculation unit further
Measurement data indicating the state of the subject of observation, measured by a measurement system that observes the subject of evaluation; and
Regional characteristic data indicating childcare characteristics of the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
The evaluation device adjusts the support-needed score based on at least one of the data above. An evaluation device for evaluating the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The acquisition unit further acquires a fifth group of answers from the subject to a fifth group of questions inquiring about characteristics of the child that the subject is raising,
Further provided is an adjustment unit that adjusts the support requirement score,
The adjustment unit
adjusting the support required score based on measurement data indicating the status of the subject of observation measured by a measurement system that observes the child being raised by the subject of evaluation;
The calculation unit further
Calculating the answer group score for the fifth answer group;
In adjusting the support need score, the adjustment unit
An evaluation device that adjusts the answer group score for the fifth answer group upward when the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater need for support. An evaluation device for evaluating the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the mental and physical burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers from the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The plurality of questions further includes a question asking about environmental factors of the person being evaluated;
The acquisition unit further
a third group of answers by the subject to a third group of questions inquiring about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them; and
and obtaining a fourth set of answers from the subject to a fourth set of questions inquiring about the state of environmental resources related to an increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden of the subject;
Further provided is an adjustment unit that adjusts the support requirement score,
The adjustment unit
adjusting the support requirement score based on regional characteristic data indicating the characteristics of childcare in the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
The calculation unit further
Calculating the answer group score for the third answer group;
Calculating the answer group score for the fourth answer group;
In adjusting the support need score, the adjustment unit
An evaluation device that adjusts upward the answer group score for at least one of the third answer group and the fourth answer group when the regional characteristic data, which indicates the characteristics of the region in which the subject of evaluation lives, indicates characteristics that increase the degree of need for support. An evaluation system including two or more computers, which evaluates the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about the person's personal factors or environmental factors;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The calculation unit further
Measurement data indicating the state of the subject of observation, measured by a measurement system that observes the subject of evaluation; and
Regional characteristic data indicating childcare characteristics of the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
An evaluation system that adjusts the support requirement score based on at least one of the data above. An evaluation system including two or more computers, which evaluates the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The acquisition unit further acquires a fifth group of answers from the subject to a fifth group of questions inquiring about characteristics of the child that the subject is raising,
Further provided is an adjustment unit that adjusts the support requirement score,
The adjustment unit
adjusting the support required score based on measurement data indicating the status of the subject of observation measured by a measurement system that observes the child being raised by the subject of evaluation;
The calculation unit further
Calculating the answer group score for the fifth answer group;
In adjusting the support need score, the adjustment unit
An evaluation system that adjusts the answer group score for the fifth answer group upward when the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater need for support. An evaluation system including two or more computers, which evaluates the degree of support required for a subject who has or plans to have a child, in order to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with childcare,
an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about at least personal factors of the person to be evaluated;
a calculation unit that statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support need score that represents the degree of the support need state of the person to be evaluated,
The acquisition unit includes at least
a first set of answers by the subject to a first set of questions inquiring about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics;
and obtaining a second set of answers by the subject to a second set of questions inquiring about the subject's tendency to think in a way that makes child-rearing difficult for the subject;
The calculation unit performs statistical processing for each of the response groups to calculate a score for each response group, and integrates the scores for each response group to calculate the support need score.
The plurality of questions further includes a question asking about environmental factors of the person being evaluated;
The acquisition unit further
a third group of answers by the subject to a third group of questions inquiring about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them; and
and obtaining a fourth set of answers from the subject to a fourth set of questions inquiring about the state of environmental resources related to an increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden of the subject;
Further provided is an adjustment unit that adjusts the support requirement score,
The adjustment unit
adjusting the support requirement score based on regional characteristic data indicating the characteristics of childcare in the region in which the subject of evaluation resides;
The calculation unit further
Calculating the answer group score for the third answer group;
Calculating the answer group score for the fourth answer group;
In adjusting the support need score, the adjustment unit
An evaluation system that adjusts upward the answer group score for at least one of the third answer group and the fourth answer group when the regional characteristic data, which indicates the characteristics of the region in which the person being evaluated lives, indicates characteristics that increase the degree of need for support. A control program for causing a computer to function as the evaluation device according to claim 8 , the control program causing the computer to function as the acquisition unit and the calculation unit. 11. A control program for causing a computer to function as the evaluation device according to claim 9 , wherein the control program causes the computer to function as the acquisition unit, the calculation unit, and the adjustment unit. A control program for causing a computer to function as the evaluation system according to claim 11 , the control program causing the computer to function as the acquisition unit and the calculation unit. 14. A control program for causing a computer to function as the evaluation system according to claim 12 or 13 , the control program causing a computer to function as the acquisition unit, the calculation unit, and the adjustment unit.