Evaluation method, evaluation device, evaluation system, and control program

Abstract

To provide an evaluation method, an evaluation device, an evaluation system, and a control program for objectively evaluating a caregiver's state of requiring help when caring a child.SOLUTION: In an evaluation device that performs an evaluation method, an acquisition unit 14 acquires at least a first answer set given in response to a first question set about a developmental characteristic or personal characteristic of an evaluation target, and a second answer set given in response to a second question set about an evaluation target's thinking propensity which makes it difficult for the evaluation target to care a child. A calculation unit 15 calculates scores of the respective answer sets by statistically processing each of the answer sets, and calculates a help requiring score by integrating the scores of the respective answer sets.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation method, an evaluation device, an evaluation system, and a control program for evaluating the degree of support required for child-rearing by a caregiver. [Background technology]

[0002] The physical and mental health of caregivers, including mothers, has a significant impact on parenting behavior and on the development of children. For example, pregnancy and childbirth can place a significant burden on caregivers, especially mothers, not only physically but also psychologically. Therefore, it is extremely important to extend support to caregivers from the perinatal period onwards.

[0003] Various efforts have been made to provide appropriate interventions and support tailored to the target recipients (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. [Prior art documents] [Non-patent literature]

[0004] [Non-Patent Document 1] Tomoko Shiino, "The Effects of Perinatal Social Support on Mother-Child Relationships," Stress Science Research, Vol. 31, pp. 74-75, 2016 [Non-patent document 2] Daisuke Fujisawa, Atsuo Nakagawa, Miyuki Tajima et al., "Development of the Japanese Version of the Quick Inventory Self-Report Depression Scale (Japanese Version of QIDS-SR)," Stress Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43-52, July 2010 [Non-patent document 3] 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 [Non-patent document 4] 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 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] However, the EPDS is a scale used to screen for individuals suffering from depression, and it only determines the presence of specific psychiatric disorders such as depressive symptoms, child-rearing neurosis, and postpartum depression.

[0006] However, support for raising children should be provided not only to those who are clearly suffering from mental illness, but also to those who are at risk of developing a mental illness before it becomes a serious problem.Furthermore, it should be provided to all those with experience in child-rearing who are experiencing vague feelings of exhaustion that are unique to child-rearing, such as anxiety, loneliness, fatigue, or simply needing someone to listen to them, even if they are not at the risk of developing a mental illness.

[0007] 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 of child-rearing." There is a need for an objective and quantitative assessment of the subjective and vague "distress" felt by such caregivers, i.e., the degree of mental support required. Ultimately, it is desirable to build a system that can provide appropriate support to such assessed caregivers at the appropriate time. Here, "caregivers" refers not only to the child's biological mother and father, but also to anyone with a responsibility to raise the child.

[0008] An object of one aspect of the present invention is to provide a method, device, system, etc. for objectively evaluating a caregiver's need for support in child-rearing. [Means for solving the problem]

[0009] In order to solve the above problem, one embodiment of the evaluation method of the present disclosure is a method for evaluating 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 child-rearing. The 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 need score that represents the subject's degree of support need; the acquiring step includes acquiring 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; and the calculating step includes 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 need score.

[0010] An evaluation device according to one embodiment of the present disclosure is an evaluation device that 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 child-rearing. The evaluation device includes an acquisition unit that acquires a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions that inquire 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 degree of support required by the subject. The acquisition unit 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 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.

[0011] A control program for a subject terminal according to one embodiment 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 required by 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 characteristics 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 score that indicates the degree of support required, received from the evaluation device in response to the accepted set of answers.

[0012] 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 a computer to operate as each part of the software elements included in the evaluation device, a control program for the subject terminal that causes a computer to operate 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. [Effects of the Invention]

[0013] According to one aspect of the present invention, it is possible to objectively evaluate a caregiver's need for support in child-rearing. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0014] [Figure 1] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example of a configuration of a main part of an evaluation device. [Figure 2] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the schematic configuration of an evaluation system for evaluating a caregiver's need for support. [Figure 3]FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a question database. [Figure 4] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a question database. [Figure 5] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of response data. [Figure 6] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of an evaluation result database. [Figure 7] FIG. 2 is a sequence diagram showing the flow of processing executed by each device in the evaluation system. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen displayed on a subject terminal. [Figure 9] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of a result screen displayed on a supporter terminal. [Figure 10] This is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. [Figure 11] This is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. [Figure 12] This is a table showing some of the 118 questions presented to survey participants. [Figure 13] This is a table showing some of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and the QIDS. [Figure 14] This is a table showing some of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and the QIDS. [Figure 15] This is a table showing some of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and the QIDS. [Figure 16] This is a table showing some of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the 21 factors and the QIDS. [Figure 17] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of an evaluation system according to a second embodiment. [Figure 18] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of a measurement system for observing an observation subject. [Figure 19] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of measurement data. [Figure 20] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the configuration of a main part of an evaluation device according to a second embodiment. [Figure 21]FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of situation data. [Figure 22] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a regional characteristics database. [Figure 23] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a support information database. [Figure 24] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example of a result screen displayed on the subject terminal. [Figure 25] 10 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing executed by the evaluation device according to the second embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0015] [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 who is raising the child (for example, developmental characteristics, personality characteristics, how they tend to perceive the difficulties of child-rearing, etc.) are significantly related to the level of need for support. 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 need for support, and have completed the present invention.

[0016] The inventors have further discovered that the environment surrounding a caregiver is also significantly related to the level of need for support. In other words, the inventors have conceived that by incorporating environmental factors in addition to the caregiver's personal factors as factors related to the level of need for support, it is possible to more accurately assess the level of need for support in a caregiver, and have thus completed the present invention. Furthermore, the inventors have newly discovered that, in addition to assessing personal and environmental factors separately, how a caregiver accepts the influences of the environment surrounding them based on their own characteristics is also significantly related to 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.

[0017] Previously, there was no technique for comprehensively and quantitatively addressing the sense of exhaustion felt by caregivers by focusing on personal factors such as the caregiver's developmental characteristics and combining them with environmental factors. Continuously observing the caregiver's personal and environmental factors, including before, during, and after birth, allows for an assessment of the caregiver's level of need for support. This promotes self-care for the caregiver 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.

[0018] The following describes in detail an embodiment of the comprehensive support-need assessment scale developed by the inventors and a procedure for quantitatively assessing the support-need state of caregivers using the scale. The comprehensive support-need assessment scale, for example, includes a set of self-description questions that focus on at least the individual factors of the caregiver, including personal and environmental factors. The background and rationale for constructing the set of questions will be described in detail at the end of this embodiment.

[0019] <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 DB12), and an evaluation result database 13 (hereinafter referred to as evaluation result DB13). Furthermore, the evaluation system 100 may include a supporter terminal 3 and a service providing server 4 as necessary.

[0020] The evaluation device 1 is an information processing device that evaluates the support need state of the caregiver who is the evaluation subject. The subject terminal 2 is an information processing device used by the evaluation subject. The supporter terminal 3 is an information processing device used by a supporter who supports the evaluation subject. Possible supporters include, for example, the local government in the area where the evaluation subject lives, the medical institution to which the evaluation subject visits, family members who are in a position to support the evaluation subject, or housekeeping / childcare service providers.

[0021] In this embodiment, as an example, an organization that provides an evaluation service for evaluating a caregiver's need for support 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 for providing the evaluation service. The childcare support application may be distributed free of charge or for a fee.

[0022] By installing the child-rearing support application on the subject terminal 2 and the supporter terminal 3, the subject and the supporter can receive the above-mentioned evaluation service.

[0023] The service providing server 4 supplies the child-rearing support application to the recipient terminal 2 and the supporter terminal 3. The service providing server 4 may supply applications with different specifications to the recipient and the supporter. The service providing server 4, which has the function of distributing the child-rearing support application, may belong to the service provider that developed the child-rearing support application, or may belong to a distribution contractor that has been entrusted with distribution by the service provider.

[0024] Alternatively, the evaluation device 1 may have the functions 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 evaluation device 1 itself.

[0025] The evaluation device 1, the subject terminal 2, the supporter terminal 3, and the service providing server 4 are communicatively connected to each other. For example, the evaluation device 1 and the service providing server 4 are connected to the subject terminal 2 and the supporter terminal 3 via a wide area communication network such as the Internet.

[0026] The subject terminal 2, which has installed the child-rearing support application provided by the service providing server 4, can acquire question data read from the question DB 12 and present it on its own terminal so that the subject can answer. The subject terminal 2 generates answer data based on the answers entered by the subject and transmits it to the evaluation device 1.

[0027] The evaluation device 1 performs statistical processing on the response group included in the received response data to evaluate the support need state of the evaluation target. The evaluation device 1 stores result data indicating the evaluation result in the evaluation result DB 13. The result data stored in the evaluation result DB 13 is fed back to the target terminal 2 of the evaluation target, who is the respondent. Note that the result data may be transmitted to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter linked to the evaluation target, as necessary.

[0028] The supporter terminal 3 on which the child-rearing support application provided by the service providing server 4 is installed can acquire the result data stored in the evaluation result DB 13.

[0029] <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, which will be described later, can be realized by a control device such as a CPU reading out a program stored in a storage device realized by a ROM (read only memory) or the like into a RAM (random access memory) and executing the program. The communication unit 11 transmits and receives data to and from external devices via a network.

[0030] The control unit 10 includes, for example, 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 to be evaluated to a plurality of questions asking about the person's personal factors or environmental factors. The group of answers is included in, for example, answer data transmitted from the subject terminal 2.

[0031] Specifically, the acquiring unit 14 acquires at least a first answer group and a second answer group included in the answer data. The first answer group is a group of answers given by the subject to a first question group asking about the subject's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics. The second answer group is a group of answers given by the subject to a second question group asking about the subject's thinking tendencies that make child-rearing difficult for the subject.

[0032] Furthermore, if the response data includes a third response group and a fourth response group, the acquiring unit 14 may also acquire these response groups as necessary. The third response group is a group of responses from the subject to the third question group asking about the subject's acceptability of support from those around them. The fourth response group is a group of responses from the subject to the fourth question group asking about the state of environmental resources that affect the increase or decrease in the subject's physical and mental burden.

[0033] Furthermore, if the answer data includes a fifth answer group, the acquiring unit 14 may acquire this answer group as necessary. The fifth answer group is a group of answers given by the subject to a fifth question group asking about the characteristics of the child the subject is raising.

[0034] The group of questions and answers is divided into five categories, first to fifth, according to the content as described above, each of which is called a domain.

[0035] The acquisition unit 14 processes the response data received from the target person 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.

[0036] The calculation unit 15 statistically processes the group of acquired answers to calculate a support-needed score that indicates the degree of the support-needed state of the evaluation subject. 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 the support-needed state.

[0037] As an 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 the present embodiment, as an example, the higher the support-needed score, the greater the degree of support required, i.e., the more the subject feels distressed by child-rearing. In another example, the calculation unit 15 may calculate another score (e.g., child-rearing happiness level) in which the higher the score, the more favorable the condition that can be evaluated.

[0038] The management unit 16 stores the calculated support-needing score in the evaluation result DB 13 in association with identification information that uniquely identifies the person to be evaluated.

[0039] (Target device 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.

[0040] The control unit 20 may be configured by a control device such as a CPU or a dedicated processor. Each of the units of the control unit 20, which will be described later, can be realized by a control device such as a CPU reading out a program stored in a storage device realized by a ROM or the like into a RAM or the like and executing the program. The communication unit 21 (transmitter, receiver) transmits and receives data to and from external devices via a network.

[0041] The display unit 22 is an output device that visually presents to the person being evaluated information processed by the control unit 20. For example, the display unit 22 is configured by a liquid crystal display (LCD; Liquid Crystal Display) or an organic EL (Electro-Luminescence) display.

[0042] The operation unit 23 is an input device for accepting operations by the person being evaluated. The operation unit 23 inputs an instruction signal corresponding to the accepted operation to the control unit 20. As an example, the operation unit 23 may constitute a touch panel together with the display unit 22. The operation unit 23 is configured to include a device capable of detecting contact (including proximity) of an indicator such as the finger of the person being evaluated 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 by a keyboard, a mouse, etc.

[0043] The control unit 20 includes, for example, a question presenting unit 24, an answer processing unit 25, and a result presenting unit 26. The question presenting unit 24 (first output control unit) presents a plurality of questions to the person being evaluated. The question presenting unit 24 may read out 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, in the answer field, options corresponding to the degree to which the content of the question applies are arranged so that the options are selectable. In this embodiment, for example, five options are assigned option numbers 1 to 5 according to a five-point scale, namely, "1: Not at all applicable," "2: Not very applicable," "3: Moderately applicable," "4: Somewhat applicable," and "5: Very applicable," and are displayed so that the options are selectable.

[0044] The question presenting 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 to be evaluated can be made aware of the domain to which the question belongs when answering. In the latter case, on the other hand, the person to be 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 appropriately decided by the questioner (here, the service provider) depending on whether or not it is necessary to make the answerer aware of the intention of the question.

[0045] The answer processing unit 25 (input control unit) receives input of a group of answers to a plurality of questions from the person to be evaluated. For example, the answer processing unit 25 associates an option number corresponding to one option designated by the person to be evaluated for each question with the question and stores the answer number in a storage unit (not shown) built into the terminal itself.

[0046] When the person to be evaluated has finished answering all the questions, the answer processing unit 25 generates answer data including a group of answers linked to option numbers for each question, and transmits the data to the evaluation device 1 via the communication unit 21.

[0047] The result presenting unit 26 (second output control unit) presents the support need score received by the communication unit 21 and provided by the evaluation device 1 to the evaluation subject. For example, the result presenting unit 26 causes the display unit 22 to display the support need score.

[0048] As described above, the subject's everyday sense of exhaustion is quantified and displayed numerically. This allows the subject to objectively grasp the extent of their need for support. In addition, the subject can use their past support needs scores as a comparison. Therefore, 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.

[0049] <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, namely, first to fifth domains. 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.

[0050] The first domain, to which the first question group belongs, relates to the developmental or personality characteristics of the person being evaluated. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 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 question group belongs, relates to the person's thinking tendencies that make child-rearing difficult for the person being evaluated. More specifically, the second question group may include questions about the difficulties the person feels in child-rearing. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 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 question group belongs, relates to the person's acceptability of support from those around them. More specifically, the third question group may include questions about how the person being evaluated perceives and feels support from those around them. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 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 question group 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 assessee 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.

[0051] The data structure of each question group will be explained using the first question group 121 as an example. The other question groups have the same data structure as 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.

[0052] The domain column stores a domain ID and a 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 may be any identification information that allows the evaluation device 1 to distinguish the first domain from other domains, for example, "D1."

[0053] 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 the question groups. As an example, the first question group 121 is grouped into six factor groups: "Inattention Tendency," "Emotional Control," "Impulse to Systemize," "Simultaneous / Holistic Processing," "Difficulty Entraining," and "Attachment Problems." Note that one domain may be composed of one or more factor groups, and one factor group may include one or more questions.

[0054] The question column stores the question ID and the question sentence 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 in the first procedure, and a value of "1" is stored for questions whose answers should be scored in the second procedure.

[0055] 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.

[0056] Therefore, a first procedure "0" is associated with a negative question so that a higher score is derived the more the content of the negative question applies to the question. For example, the first procedure may be a procedure such that "the option number selected by the subject to be evaluated is used as the question score of the question." Conversely, a second procedure "1" is associated with a positive question so that a higher score is derived the more the content of the positive question applies to the question. For example, the second procedure may be a procedure such that "'6 - option number' is used as the question score of the question." When determining a question score based on an answer to a question, the calculation unit 15 refers to the reversal flag of 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 determines the question score to be 6 - 4 = 2 points.

[0057] Of the first question group 121 to the fifth question group 125 shown in Figures 3 and 4, a set of question IDs and question sentences stored in the question column is provided to the subject terminal 2 of the person to be evaluated. This allows the subject terminal 2 to display the question sentences and options 1 to 5 on the display unit 22.

[0058] (Response data) 5 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of 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.

[0059] The answer basic information 50 may, for example, 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 answer date. More specifically, the status indicates whether the evaluation subject is prenatal, i.e., pregnant, or postpartum. If the evaluation subject is pregnant, the status may further include information on the number of weeks of pregnancy, and if the evaluation subject is postpartum, the status may further include information on the age of the baby in months.

[0060] In this embodiment, as an example, the subject of evaluation is assumed to be a biological mother, who is a typical caregiver of a child, but 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, and 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."

[0061] The answer group 51 includes a pair of a question ID that uniquely identifies a question and an option number selected by the person to be evaluated for that question. The answer group 51 may have an answer group for each domain. For example, if the person to be evaluated answers all questions in the first to fifth domains, the answer group 51 includes a first answer group 52, second to fourth answer groups (not shown), and a fifth answer group 53.

[0062] If the evaluation subject is a pregnant woman, the fifth question group 125 inquiring about the characteristics of the baby is not presented to the pregnant woman, or even if presented, the pregnant woman cannot answer. Therefore, in the response data transmitted from the subject terminal 2 of the pregnant woman, the answer group 51 may include a fifth answer group 53 in which the answer column has a blank value, or the fifth answer group 53 itself may not be included in the answer group 51. The calculation unit 15 performs statistical processing based on the answer group 51 transmitted from the subject terminal 2, and can calculate the support need score of the evaluation subject who is the respondent.

[0063] (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 requirement score. The evaluation result DB 13 may further have a column for the average pregnancy score. The following information is stored in each column.

[0064] The column for evaluation subject ID stores identification information for uniquely identifying the evaluation subject on the evaluation system 100. The column for status stores information on whether the evaluation subject is in prenatal or postnatal status at the time of the evaluation subject's response, as well as the number of weeks pregnant or the baby's age in months. The column for response date stores the date on which the evaluation subject responded. The column for support requirement score 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 column for average pregnancy score stores the average support requirement score calculated based on responses made at least once before birth, if the evaluation subject's status is postnatal.

[0065] 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.

[0066] The calculation unit 15 may calculate an average of the support need scores obtained from multiple evaluations conducted in the past for the same evaluation subject. For example, the calculation unit 15 calculates an average of the support need scores from evaluations conducted once or more before birth for the same evaluation subject. The management unit 16 may store the calculated average support need scores for the pregnancy period in a column of the average pregnancy period score.

[0067] As described above, the evaluation result DB13 constructed by the management unit 16 can be viewed as needed by anyone with the necessary authority. 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 terminal 2 or the supporter terminal 3, and read and view only the evaluation results associated with the person being evaluated as result data.

[0068] <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 has been registered in advance in the evaluation device 1 or the service providing server 4 arrives.

[0069] In step S101, the question presenter 24 detects the occurrence of a trigger event that poses a question. When the question presenter 24 detects the occurrence of a trigger event, the process proceeds from YES in S101 to S102.

[0070] In step S102, the question presenting unit 24 acquires a set of questions to be presented to the person to be evaluated. Specifically, the question presenting unit 24 acquires question data including question sentences to be presented to the person to be evaluated. There are no particular limitations on where the question presenting unit 24 acquires the question data. For example, the question presenting unit 24 may read out pre-stored question data from a memory unit (not shown) built into the subject 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.

[0071] In step S103, the question presenting unit 24 presents the group of questions to the person to be evaluated. Specifically, the question presenting 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.

[0072] In step S104, the response processing unit 25 accepts responses from the person to be evaluated. Specifically, the response processing unit 25 identifies the option selected by the person to be evaluated via the operation unit 23, associates the option number corresponding to the option with the question ID of the question, and temporarily stores the associated option number in a storage unit (not shown). When the response processing unit 25 accepts answers to all questions, the process proceeds from YES in S104 to S105.

[0073] In step S105, the answer processing unit 25 generates answer data and transmits it to the evaluation device 1. Specifically, the answer processing unit 25 generates the answer basic information 50 shown in FIG. 5 , generates an answer group 51 including pairs of question IDs and choice numbers equal to the number of questions, and transmits the answer data including the answer basic information 50 and the answer group 51 to the evaluation device 1.

[0074] In step S106 (acquiring step), the acquiring unit 14 of the evaluation device 1 acquires a group of answers by the person to be evaluated to a plurality of questions inquiring about the person's personal factors or environmental factors. Specifically, the acquiring unit 14 acquires answer data received by the communication unit 11 from the subject terminal 2. In this embodiment, the group of answers 51 included in the answer data includes at least a first group of answers 52 by the person to be evaluated to a first group of questions inquiring about the person's developmental characteristics or personality characteristics, and a second group of answers by the person to be evaluated to a second group of questions inquiring about the person's thinking tendencies that work in the direction of making child-rearing difficult for the person to be evaluated.

[0075] In step S107 (calculating 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.

[0076] In step S108, the management unit 16 (score management unit) stores the calculated support need score in the storage unit in association with identification information that uniquely identifies the person to be evaluated. 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 to be evaluated stored in the evaluation result DB 13 is stored so as to be readable by the support provider terminal 3 used by a support provider who provides the person to be evaluated with support to reduce the physical and mental burden associated with child-rearing.

[0077] In step S109, the management unit 16 or the service providing server 4 transmits the result data to the subject terminal 2 of the subject to be 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 an average pregnancy score, or a graph showing the support need score obtained in previous evaluations of the subject in chronological order. Furthermore, the result data may include an advice message addressed to the subject to be evaluated. The advice message may be an appropriate one selected from pre-prepared standard phrases, for example, depending on the analysis results of the response group.

[0078] Here, if the correspondence between the evaluation target and the supporter is managed in advance, the management unit 16 or the service providing server 4 may transmit the same result data to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter linked to the above-mentioned evaluation target. Alternatively, the result data sent to the supporter may include a warning message indicating the content of support that is predicted to be required for the above-mentioned evaluation target. Alternatively, result data for multiple evaluation targets supervised by the supporter may be transmitted collectively to the supporter terminal 3 of the supporter.

[0079] In step S110, the result presentation unit 26 of the subject terminal 2 acquires the result data received from the evaluation device 1 by 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 the subject can view it.

[0080] <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 presenting unit 26. The result presenting 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.

[0081] The support need score is an index that indicates the degree to which the subject of evaluation needs support. In the present embodiment, as an example, the higher the value, the greater the need for support. In other words, the support need score indicates the degree to which the subject of evaluation feels that childcare is a burden. Therefore, the result presentation unit 26 may place a UI component, such as a gauge shown in the figure, on the result screen 200 that visually indicates the degree to which the subject of evaluation feels burdened. This allows the subject of evaluation to intuitively grasp their current situation. Furthermore, the result presentation unit 26 may place an advice statement corresponding to the support need score on the result screen 200. The subject of evaluation can check the advice statement corresponding to their support need score and use it for self-care.

[0082] FIG. 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 arranged on the result screen 300. The result data list 301 is a UI widget for listing result data for multiple evaluation subjects supervised by the supporter. In the result data list 301, result data whose support need score exceeds a predetermined threshold may be displayed in a different display mode from other result data. This makes it easier for the supporter to identify evaluation subjects who are in a state requiring a high level of support. Furthermore, a warning message according to the support need score may be arranged on the result screen 300. The supporter can check the warning message and understand what kind of support or preparation should be provided for each evaluation subject based on the support need score.

[0083] <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.

[0084] First, the calculation unit 15 determines a question score based on the answered option number for each question. A reversal flag is set for each question as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4. 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.

[0085] The calculation unit 15 calculates a domain-specific score for each domain. As an example, the calculation unit 15 calculates an average of the question scores of the questions belonging to the same domain, and sets this as the domain-specific score.

[0086] In this embodiment, questions belonging to the same domain are further grouped by factor group. Therefore, the calculation unit 15 may calculate an average score of the question scores for each factor group and use this as the factor score. The calculation unit 15 may also calculate the domain score from the average score of the factor scores within the same domain.

[0087] Finally, the calculation unit 15 calculates the support-needed score by adding up the domain-specific scores of the five (or four) domains from the first domain to the fifth (or fourth domain).

[0088] (Modification of calculation procedure) The calculation unit 15 may further derive a deviation value 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 deviation value may be determined appropriately.

[0089] <About the survey to build a group of questions> 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.

[0090] Specifically, we conducted interviews with four experienced professionals (one liaison nurse, one clinical psychologist, and two social workers) who are currently involved in child-rearing support at obstetrics and gynecology clinics and child-rearing support centers, and conducted an exploratory content analysis of the factors. During the interviews, each individual was asked to provide as detailed a description as possible of the characteristics of cases in which they felt support was needed in actual clinical settings. The resulting interview data was then content analyzed, and as many questions as possible were created to broadly cover the constructs. Three researchers, including the present inventors, reviewed these candidate questions and examined their appropriateness. After narrowing down the number of questions to a manageable number, the questions were then repeatedly reviewed 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.

[0091] The inventors examined the extracted questions and found that the main domains were the mother's personality, environment, and child. Using these extracted questions, a quantitative survey was conducted targeting mothers currently raising children. Specifically, the survey consisted 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.

[0092] (Research collaborator) The survey subjects were mothers in Japan raising children whose youngest child was between the ages of 0 and 3. The survey was conducted on 4,800 people who met the above criteria from the sample held by the research company, and of these, 1,031 valid responses were analyzed from those who agreed to participate.

[0093] (Survey period) It was October 2019.

[0094] (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, in order to measure factors related to the need for support in childcare, respondents were asked to respond to 118 uniquely selected questions using a 5-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.

[0095] (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 the minimum number of items in each domain. Factor scores were calculated for each resulting factor. Finally, a logistic regression analysis was performed using QIDS severity as the outcome variable.

[0096] (result) (1) Domain 1: Mother's developmental characteristics and personality characteristics A maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on 41 questions related to development and personality traits. 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 loading were deleted, and the factor analysis was repeated, ultimately resulting in the adoption of the following 22 questions.

[0097] The following questions had high loadings 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 explanations have been given many times (0.435)." For this reason, the first factor to which these four questions belonged was named the "carelessness tendency" factor.

[0098] On 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. Therefore, the second factor to which these four questions belong was named the "Emotional Control" factor.

[0099] On the third factor, the following questions loaded highly: "I have my own 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 (0.453)." These questions relate to the urge to fit things into a framework that one sets for oneself. Therefore, the third factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "urge to systemize" factor.

[0100] On the fourth factor, the following items 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 items are related to simultaneous / parallel tasks and grasping the big picture and context. Therefore, the fourth factor, to which these four items belong, was designated the "Simultaneous / Whole Processing" factor.

[0101] The following questions had high loadings on the fifth factor: "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 checkups and health examinations (0.566)," "I feel uneasy unless someone is by my side (0.501)," and "Even when given advice on child-rearing, I want to do it my own way as much as possible (0.375)." The fifth factor, to which these four questions belonged, was designated the "difficulty in conforming" factor.

[0102] The sixth factor included the following questions: "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 were based on the question of whether or not one received a healthy upbringing from their parents. These two questions are related to a poor upbringing, and Factor 6, to which they belong, was interpreted as the "attachment problems" factor.

[0103] 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 has received from their caregiver.

[0104] (2) Second domain: Difficulty The same procedure was used to divide the 22 questions regarding feelings of difficulty into five factors, and three items with factor loadings below .240 were deleted, resulting in the final 19 questions listed below.

[0105] The first factor had high loadings for the following questions: "When raising children, I often feel helpless and anxious (0.882)," "Sometimes I don't know what to do about raising children (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.

[0106] On the second factor, the following questions had high loadings: "I think I have a relatively large amount of time to do what I want (0.824)," "I think I can take even a short amount of time to relax (0.758)," "I think I am able to relieve stress in moderation (0.745)," and "I think I am able to manage my time well (0.571)." These questions are related to whether or not one can successfully manage child-rearing. Therefore, the second factor, to which these four questions belong, was interpreted as the "coping potential" factor.

[0107] 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 around makes me feel warm (0.692)." The third factor, to which these three questions belong, was interpreted as the "love for children" factor.

[0108] On the fourth factor, the following questions had high loadings: "I can overcome a certain degree of difficulty (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.

[0109] The fifth factor is made up of the following questions: "When my child won't stop crying, I think 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 wrong. For this reason, the fifth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Self-blame" factor.

[0110] As described above, the second group of questions, which inquires about the subject's tendencies in thinking that may make child-rearing difficult for the subject, may have multiple factor groups. Specifically, the second group of questions may have a first factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's vague anxieties about child-rearing. The second group of questions may have a second factor group consisting of questions inquiring about whether the subject believes that he or she is managing everything related to child-rearing well. The second group of questions may have a third factor group consisting of questions inquiring about the subject's affection for his or her child. The second group of questions may have a fourth factor group consisting of questions inquiring about whether the subject is able to view himself or herself positively. The second group of questions may have a fifth factor group consisting of questions inquiring about whether the subject tends to blame himself or herself for poor child-rearing.

[0111] (3) Third Domain: Support Awareness 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 deemed appropriate, and the same factor analysis was conducted again specifying the four-factor solution, followed by promax rotation.

[0112] On the first factor, the following questions had high loadings: "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.

[0113] On the second factor, the following items had high loadings: "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 listen to my advice about childrearing (0.571)," and "There are people outside of my family who help me with childrearing (0.210)." These items relate to help with childrearing within the family. Therefore, the second factor, to which these four items belong, was interpreted as the "parental support" factor.

[0114] 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 the husband's (partner's) psychological understanding and support rather than physical support for childcare. Therefore, the third factor, to which these two questions belong, was named the "husband's psychological support" factor.

[0115] 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)," "Friends who share my child's interests (other moms, online connections, etc.) are stressful (-0.221)," and "I am able to use online information about child-rearing effectively (0.213)." These questions relate to whether one is in an environment or relationship where one can receive support from the people and information around them. Therefore, the fourth factor, to which these five questions belong, was designated the "Support Receptivity" factor.

[0116] 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 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.

[0117] (4) Environmental Resources A maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted on 33 environmental questions. A five-factor solution was selected based on the same criteria as for the other dimensions, and items with factor loadings below .30 for any factor were deleted. The same procedure was repeated, and 20 items were ultimately adopted.

[0118] 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. Therefore, the first factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Relationships with Medical Professionals" factor.

[0119] The second factor is "My husband (partner) is difficult to deal with (0.893)," "I think my husband (partner) is very particular (0.702)," "My husband (partner) often makes me feel like I'm in control (0.536)," and "I think my husband (partner) is good at controlling his emotions." The second factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Partner's temperament" factor.

[0120] 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.

[0121] The fourth factor is "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 5) The fourth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Partner's Autonomy" factor.

[0122] The fifth factor is composed of the following questions: "(If you have older children) Your older child is a lot of work (0.867)," "(If you have older children) Your older child acts like a baby (0.780)," "(If you have older children) Your older child is ill or disabled (0.434)," and "You are caring for a parent or grandparent (0.328)." These questions relate to the child-rearing and caregiving responsibilities you are taking on, in addition to raising the child you are currently raising (for example, your youngest child). Therefore, the fifth factor, to which these four questions belong, was designated the "Child-rearing and Caregiving Burden" factor.

[0123] As described above, the fourth group of questions, which inquires about the state of environmental resources that contribute to 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.

[0124] (5) Child characteristics For the seven questions about factors related to childcare that were the subject of evaluation, one factor was designated based on the same judgment, and items with factor loadings below 0.360 were deleted.Finally, factor analysis was conducted again, and five items were adopted.

[0125] On 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 parenting fatigue and difficulties. Therefore, the first factor to which these five questions belonged was designated the "child's temperament and state" factor.

[0126] (Correlation with QIDS) Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the 21 factors obtained through factor analysis of 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.

[0127] In the first domain (maternal 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 problems (r=0.256)." In the second domain (feelings 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)," as well as significant correlations with the factors "receptivity to support (r=-0.298)" and "support from husband (r=-0.239)." In the fourth domain (environmental resources), significant correlations were 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), significant correlations were found with the factor "child's temperament (r=0.256)."

[0128] (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 forced entry methods for domains 1 to 5, with the QIDS as the dependent variable and each factor as an independent variable. Mothers who scored high on the factors of "Lack of self-confidence," "Coping potential," "Self-blame," "Psychological support," "Tendency to be inattentive," "Difficulty conforming," "Attachment problems," "Partner's temperament," 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.

[0129] [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.

[0130] Furthermore, the present inventors have 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 a series of questions about child rearing that the caregivers themselves answer, may experience problems such as lack of sleep or mental stress. In other words, the present inventors have come up with the idea that by adopting hidden personal factors that the caregiver himself or herself is not aware of as factors related to the level of support required, it is possible to more accurately assess the level of support required by the caregiver, and have completed the present invention.

[0131] Below, we will explain an evaluation system that more accurately evaluates the support-needed state of a caregiver by taking into account personal factors that the person being evaluated is not aware of, in addition to the comprehensive support-needed assessment scale described in embodiment 1. Furthermore, we will explain an evaluation system that can determine the type of support needed for each caregiver based on the evaluation results and present support that is appropriate for each individual caregiver.

[0132] <Evaluation system overview> FIG. 17 is a diagram showing a schematic configuration of an 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 DB17) 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 DB18) as a second additional component 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 additional component group and the second additional component group. Furthermore, the evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment may include a support information database 19 (hereinafter referred to as support information DB19) as a third additional component, in addition to the first additional component group or the second additional component, as necessary.

[0133] 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 the 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 on the observed subjects, and uploads the measurement data including the measurement values ​​to the measurement result DB 17.

[0134] The measurement result DB 17 stores the measurement data uploaded from each of the measurement systems 5 provided for each person to be evaluated.

[0135] The regional characteristics DB 18 stores regional characteristic data related to the increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing for each region. For example, to create the regional characteristics DB 18, items related to the increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden associated with child-rearing that can be extracted from existing regional statistical data are analyzed for each region. In the regional characteristics DB 18, the regional characteristics identified based on the results of the above analysis are defined for each region as regional characteristic data.

[0136] The support information DB 19 stores support information that contributes to reducing the physical and mental burden of child-rearing on caregivers. The support information is stored in the support information DB 19, categorized, for example, by region, type of support required, and level of support required. This makes it possible to output support information that is suited to the evaluated caregiver.

[0137] The evaluation device 1 may store the measurement result DB 17, the regional characteristic DB 18, and the support information DB 19 in an external storage device such as a cloud server, for example. Alternatively, the evaluation device 1 may store the measurement result DB 17, the regional characteristic DB 18, and the support information DB 19 in a storage device built into the evaluation device 1.

[0138] In this embodiment, information specifying the residential area of ​​the caregiver, who is the subject of evaluation, is supplied from the subject terminal 2 to the evaluation device 1. The information specifying the residential area will be referred to as area identification information hereinafter. The timing at which the area 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 answer data including an answer to the question asking about the support-requiring state and area identification information as the answer to the question asking about the residential area to the evaluation device 1. Examples of the area identification information include a postal code, a prefecture name, and a city, ward, town, or village name.

[0139] <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 needed.

[0140] 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 to upload a group of measurement values ​​measured on the observed subject to the measurement result DB 17. The control device 60 may be configured by, for example, a CPU or a dedicated processor.

[0141] The communication device 61 transmits and receives data via a communication network such as the Internet to and from an external device, for example, a storage device that stores the measurement result DB 17. The control device 60 and the communication device 61 may be provided in a single housing, for example, as a PC, tablet, or the like.

[0142] The sensing device 62 observes the subject and periodically acquires measurement values ​​relating to the subject. The measurement values ​​may be accumulated for a certain 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.

[0143] Multiple sensing devices 62 may observe one subject from various viewpoints. Also, one sensing device 62 may observe multiple subjects, i.e., child B and caregiver R. Specific examples of the sensing device 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. The sensing device 62 is not limited to the specific examples described 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.

[0144] In this embodiment, as an example, six sensing devices 62 shown in the figure 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 baby bed, futon, pillow, mat, bassinet, bouncer, baby chair, stroller, etc. They may also be attached to child B's clothing, baby carrier, toys, etc.

[0145] 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 the child B measured by the temperature sensor 621 at predetermined time intervals to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data.

[0146] The microphone 622 acquires 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 the laughter and crying of Child B, the voice of Caregiver R, etc., and is used to analyze Child B's situation, the interaction between Child B and Caregiver R, etc.

[0147] The camera 623 captures video of the subject of observation. The control device 60, for example, periodically uploads 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, and the like.

[0148] The respiratory and heart rate sensor 624 measures the respiratory rate, heart rate, etc. of the subject of observation. 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 time intervals to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data.

[0149] The weight sensor 625 measures the movement 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 baby 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 the movement of baby B, such as rolling over, crawling, and kicking legs.

[0150] The distance measurement sensor 626 measures the positional relationship 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 measurement sensor 626 to the measurement result DB 17 as measurement data. Based on the change over time in the distance between child B and caregiver R, 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, etc. The distance measured in this way is used to analyze the interaction between child B and caregiver R, etc.

[0151] The data acquisition device 63 may acquire measurement data related to the observation subject 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 the 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 personal life repository (PLR) data for the caregiver R. The data acquisition device 63 acquires and manages PLR data, such as weight, sleep time, food intake, and exercise volume, entered daily by the caregiver R. The data acquisition device 63 may be a wearable device that can directly observe the 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 may upload the measurement data to the measurement result DB 17 using the communication function of the data acquisition device 63 itself.

[0152] <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. As shown in FIG.

[0153] The measurement data 68 shows an example of measurement data generated by the measurement system 5 for child B. The measurement data 68 includes, for example, information indicating the measurement date or measurement period, an evaluation subject ID that uniquely identifies the caregiver R who is the evaluation subject, and a group of various measurement values ​​measured by each sensing device 62.

[0154] Measurement data 69 shows an example of measurement data generated by the measurement system 5 regarding caregiver R. The measurement data 69 includes, for example, 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.

[0155] The measurement system 5 may be configured to periodically transmit only the measurement data 68 about child B to the measurement result DB 17, or may be configured to transmit both the measurement data 68 about child B and the measurement data 69 about caregiver R to the measurement result DB 17. The measurement system 5 may transmit the measurement data 68 and the measurement data 69 to the measurement result DB 17 separately, or may transmit both together as one data.

[0156] In the measurement result DB 17, the measurement value groups included in the measurement data 68 and the measurement data 69 are stored in association with the measurement date or measurement period for each evaluation subject ID.

[0157] When evaluating the degree of support required by the subject, the evaluation device 1 can refer to the measurement result DB 17. Then, the evaluation device 1 can calculate the support required score more accurately by taking into consideration the conditions of child B and caregiver R analyzed based on the measurement data of the subject over a predetermined period of time.

[0158] <Configuration of evaluation device> 20 is a diagram showing the configuration of the main parts of the evaluation device 1 according to this embodiment. The control unit 10 in the evaluation device 1 according to embodiment 2 further includes an adjustment unit 32 in addition to the group of elements included in the control unit 10 according to embodiment 1. The control unit 10 according to embodiment 2 may include at least one of an analysis unit 31 and a classification unit 33, as necessary.

[0159] The adjustment unit 32 adjusts the support requirement score calculated by the calculation unit 15, taking into consideration the situation of the caregiver R and his / her child B, who are the subject of evaluation, as determined from data stored in at least one of the measurement result DB17 and the regional characteristics DB18.

[0160] For example, when the condition of the subject or their child indicated by the measurement data stored in the measurement result DB 17 is one that increases the level of support needed, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support needed score upward. Conversely, when the condition of the subject or their child indicated by the measurement data is one that decreases the level of support needed, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support needed score downward.

[0161] Alternatively, for example, when the regional characteristics of the region where the evaluation subject lives, which are 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 needed score upward. Conversely, when the regional characteristics of the region where the evaluation subject lives, which are indicated by the regional characteristic data, are characteristics that decrease the level of support needed, the adjustment unit 32 may revise the calculated support needed score downward.

[0162] 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.

[0163] Alternatively, the analysis unit 31 may analyze the number of cries based on the voice data of child B. Furthermore, the analysis unit 31 may identify 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 the voice data, video data, and distance data of child B. If the analysis unit 31 estimates based on the identified 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 one that increases the level of support required.

[0164] The analysis unit 31 may be realized by an analyzer using artificial intelligence (AI) that takes 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 crying audio data of Infant B as an input value and outputs the cause of Infant 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 measurement data (crying audio data) of the observed person and results of actual investigations of the situation of each observed person (reason for crying actually recognized by the caregiver). Furthermore, the analysis unit 31 may determine whether caregiver R is taking measures that are consistent with the cause of Infant B's crying.

[0165] Situation data indicating the situation of the observed subject analyzed by the analysis unit 31 based on the measurement data is output to the adjustment unit 32. The adjustment unit 32 adjusts the support need score based on the situation data.

[0166] The classification unit 33 classifies the type of support required for the evaluation subject whose support need score has been calculated. As described in the first embodiment, factors related to the increase or decrease in the mental and physical burden of child-rearing are broadly classified into five domains, which are further classified into 21 factor groups. It is expected that, depending on the caregiver, the degree of support required may vary between domains or factor groups. The classification unit 33 may classify the type of support required based on such a deviation.

[0167] 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 is 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 who has been calculated to have a high domain-specific score in the third domain D3, “Support Recognition,” as a “Support Recognition Required Type.” Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may classify the support required type of a subject who has been calculated to have a high domain-specific score in the fourth domain D4, “Environmental Resources,” as a “Environmental Resource Required Type.” Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may classify the support required type of a subject who has been calculated to have a high domain-specific score in the fifth domain D5, “Child Characteristics,” as a “Child Care Help Required Type.”

[0168] In another example, the classification unit 33 may determine the support need type of the evaluation 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 evaluation 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 evaluation 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.

[0169] Furthermore, the classification unit 33 may classify the type of support required of the person to be evaluated based on area characteristic data indicating the level of availability of administrative services, the number of parks, the number of public health nurses, and the like.

[0170] The support need type to be classified by the classification unit 33 is not limited to the domain or factor group of the comprehensive support need assessment scale described in the first embodiment.

[0171] 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 different 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.

[0172] Then, question clusters that show a significant correlation with the region may be adopted as the type of support required, such as "evaluation subjects in this region tend to get high scores in this question cluster." For example, (4) the support required type of an evaluation subject living in a specific region who gets a high score in the question cluster regarding parental cooperation systems may be classified as the "parental cooperation required type."

[0173] Alternatively, the classification unit 33 may be realized by a classifier that receives as input values ​​the region identification information of the region where the person to be evaluated lives and the domain-specific score of the person to be evaluated, and outputs as an output value the support need type. 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 to be evaluated, and the support need type actually determined for the person to be evaluated by an expert or the like.

[0174] 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 identified support information in the evaluation result DB 13 in association with the evaluation target ID.

[0175] <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 subject to be evaluated.

[0176] As an example, the situation data has two columns: "Consideration Items" and "Assessment Results." "Consideration Items" 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.

[0177] The items to be considered may be selected in advance by an engineer or the like who constructs the analysis unit 31. For example, items that are closely related to the characteristics of the child that act in a direction that increases caregiver R's degree of fatigue or difficulty in child-rearing may be extracted as "items to be considered."

[0178] In the illustrated example, the more "+" symbols there are, the more the child's characteristics affect the caregiver's level of fatigue and difficulty in raising the child. The "-" symbol means the opposite. For example, the analysis unit 31 may determine that the more "+" symbols there are, the shorter the sleeping time of child B is compared to the sleeping time of infants of the same age.

[0179] The adjustment unit 32 adjusts a predetermined domain-specific score among the five domains according to the situation data output as shown in the figure. As an example, in the example shown in the figure, 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 of the fifth domain D5, "child characteristics," based on the assessment result of the situation data. Specifically, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score of the fifth domain upward as the assessment result has more "+"s, and adjusts the domain-specific score of the fifth domain downward as the assessment result has more "-"s.

[0180] When the consideration items that can be analyzed from the measurement data of the observed subject are not limited to "child characteristics" but also include consideration items related to other domains such as "developmental characteristics and personality characteristics" in the first domain and "sense of difficulty" in the second domain, the adjustment unit 32 may adjust the domain-specific scores of the other domains or directly adjust the support requirement score, which is the overall value thereof. Also, a column for "domain to be adjusted" may be provided in the situation data, and the domain to be adjusted based on the judgment result may be specified in advance.

[0181] As described above, by taking into account factors that the person being evaluated is not even aware of based on the measurement data, it is possible to calculate the support required score more accurately.

[0182] <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 referring to the regional characteristics determined for each region.

[0183] As an example, the rule table 181 has three columns: "Consideration Items," "Support Recognition," and "Environmental Resources."

[0184] The "items for consideration" indicate evaluation items of regional characteristics that should be taken into consideration when adjusting the support required score. The items for consideration may be selected in advance by an engineer who builds the adjustment unit 32. For example, items that are closely related to "perception of support" 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 "items for consideration." The items for consideration that are closely related to "perception of support" and "environmental resources" may be items that can be collected from existing regional statistical data, for example.

[0185] "Support Perception" indicates the evaluation rules for regional characteristics related to the third domain "Support Perception" for each consideration item. Specifically, the column specifies whether a region with characteristics that meet the conditions described 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 a certain region meets the condition "has a high number of single-parent families," the region will be evaluated as having regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the third domain according to rule table 181.

[0186] "Environmental Resources" indicates the evaluation rules for regional characteristics related to the fourth domain, "Environmental Resources," for each consideration item. Specifically, the column specifies whether a region with characteristics that meet the conditions described 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 childcare centers" applies to a certain region, the region will be evaluated as having regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of the fourth domain according to rule table 181.

[0187] 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.

[0188] By referring to the rule table 181, it is possible to determine the regional characteristics for each region based on the statistical data for each region, and obtain the reference table 182, which will be described later.

[0189] For example, the 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.”

[0190] The "area identification information" indicates identification information that identifies the area that the person to be evaluated lives in. The area identification information may be, for example, a postal code, a city, town, or village name, or the like.

[0191] "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 means the opposite. 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.

[0192] The more "+" symbols there are in the "Regional Characteristics Related to Perceived Support" column among the "Regional Characteristics," the more it means that the regional characteristics of that region have regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of Domain 3. The more "+" symbols there are in the "Regional Characteristics Related to Environmental Resources" column among the "Regional Characteristics," the more it means that the regional characteristics of that region have regional characteristics that increase the domain-specific score of Domain 4.

[0193] The adjustment unit 32 reads out the regional characteristics associated with the regional identification information indicating the residential area of ​​the person to be evaluated from the reference table 182, and adjusts the support-needed score according to the read regional characteristics. For example, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score of the third domain upward as the number of "+" signs in the "regional characteristics related to support perception" of the residential area of ​​the person to be evaluated increases. Also, the adjustment unit 32 adjusts the domain-specific score of the fourth domain upward as the number of "+" signs in the "regional characteristics related to environmental resources" of the residential area of ​​the person to be evaluated increases.

[0194] The consideration items in the rule table 181 are not limited to those related to "recognition of support" and "environmental resources," and may include consideration items related to other domains, such as "developmental characteristics and 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 of the other domains according to the rule table 181, or may directly adjust the support-needed score, which is the overall value thereof.

[0195] Alternatively, the items to be considered in the rule table 181 may include items other than the items 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 apparent as being related to childcare, such as regional industries. These items that may not at first glance be apparent as being 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.

[0196] <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)," "target type," and "target area."

[0197] "Support information" indicates the name of support information to support childcare provided to the caregiver R, who is the subject of evaluation. This column may store the name of the facility or organization that provides the support information instead of the name of the support information.

[0198] "URL" indicates the URL for accessing the corresponding support information.

[0199] "Subject type" indicates the type of support required by the person being evaluated, for which it is appropriate to provide the relevant support information.

[0200] "Target area" indicates the area in which the person being evaluated resides that is suitable for providing relevant support information.

[0201] The support information DB 19 may further include a column for “support need score” (not shown). The “support need score” indicates a range of the support need score of the evaluation subject that is suitable for providing the corresponding support information.

[0202] The management unit 16 extracts support information suitable for providing to the person being evaluated based on the support need type assigned to the person being evaluated and the area in which the person being evaluated lives from the support information DB 19. The management unit 16 registers the extracted one or more pieces of support information in the evaluation result DB 13 together with the calculated support need score.

[0203] As a result, the person to be evaluated is provided with support information suited to their residential area and type of support required. The support information may be transmitted to a supporter terminal 3 owned by a supporter of the person to be evaluated.

[0204] <Screen example> 24 is a diagram showing another example of the result screen displayed on the display unit 22 of the subject terminal 2. In addition to the support need score 201, the result screen 200 according to this embodiment may further include 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.

[0205] Through this result screen 200, the person being evaluated can understand their own support need score and the type of support they need. Furthermore, they can obtain the support information 203 they need.

[0206] <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.

[0207] In step S201, the calculation unit 15 calculates a domain score for each of the five domains based on statistical processing of the response data, as described in the first embodiment.

[0208] In step S202, the analysis unit 31 analyzes the condition of the person being observed based on the measurement data of the person being evaluated stored in the measurement result DB 17. For example, the analysis unit 31 may analyze the condition of the child of the person being evaluated.

[0209] 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 score for the fifth domain, "child characteristics."

[0210] In step S204, the adjustment unit 32 refers to the regional characteristic 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 of the third domain "support recognition" and the fourth domain "environmental resources."

[0211] In step S205, the calculation unit 15 adds up the adjusted scores for each domain to calculate the support-needed score.

[0212] In step S206, the classification unit 33 classifies the support need type of the person to be evaluated based on the regional characteristics.

[0213] In step S207, the management unit 16 extracts support information from the support information DB 19 based on the classified support need type and the residential area of ​​the person to be evaluated.

[0214] 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. In this way, 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.

[0215] [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.

[0216] The control blocks of the subject terminal 2 (particularly, the question presentation unit 24, the answer processing unit 25, and the result presentation unit 26) may be realized by a logic circuit (hardware) formed on an integrated circuit (IC chip) or the like, or may be realized by software.

[0217] When realized by software, the evaluation device 1 and the subject terminal 2 are equipped with a computer that executes instructions of a program, which is software that realizes each function. This computer is equipped with, for example, one or more processors, and a computer-readable recording medium that stores the program. The object of the present invention is achieved when the processor in the computer reads and executes the program from the recording medium. The processor can be, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit). The recording medium can be a "non-transitory tangible medium," such as a ROM (Read Only Memory), as well as a tape, disk, card, or semiconductor. The computer may be provided with a memory, a programmable logic circuit, or the like. The computer may further include a RAM (Random Access Memory) for expanding the program. The program may 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.

[0218] [Additional Notes] The evaluation method disclosed herein is a 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 method includes the steps of: acquiring a group of answers from the subject to a plurality of questions that inquire about at least personal factors of the subject (S106); and statistically processing the acquired group of answers to calculate a support required score that represents the degree of support required by 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) 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 (second domain) that inquire about the subject's thinking tendencies that tend to make child-rearing difficult for the subject; and the calculating step performs statistical processing for each of the answer groups to calculate a score for each answer group, and combines the scores for each answer group to calculate the support required score.

[0219] According to the above-described method, it is possible to evaluate at least the degree of support required for the subject due to childcare. For example, the evaluation method according to the present disclosure can be used to evaluate the tendency of the caregiver to suffer from a mental illness (for example, to predict the risk of developing depressive symptoms). This evaluation method can be used even before the subject actually has a child (for example, from the pregnancy stage).

[0220] 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 acceptability of 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 are involved in increasing or decreasing the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated.

[0221] The above-mentioned method makes it possible to comprehensively and quantitatively assess the degree of need for support in child-rearing for the subject, not just the state of mental illness or potential illness. This evaluation method can be used even before the subject actually has a child (for example, from the pregnancy stage).

[0222] The acquiring step may further acquire 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.

[0223] According to the above-mentioned method, after the subject has a child (for example, after birth), the characteristics of the child (including the condition, temperament, etc.) can be taken into account when evaluating the subject, which makes it possible to more accurately evaluate the degree of support required for childcare by the subject.

[0224] Each of the groups of questions may include a question that has been found to be significantly correlated with a predetermined scale for assessing depressive symptoms, thereby improving the accuracy of prediction of the risk of developing a mental disorder due to child-rearing.

[0225] Here, any known scale such as QIDS may be applied 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 Epidemiological 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, etc.

[0226] 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 regional characteristic data indicating the child-rearing characteristics of the region in which the subject resides.

[0227] According to the above-described method, it is possible to take into account personal factors that the person being evaluated who answers the questions is not aware of, and to more accurately assess the caregiver's need for support.

[0228] In the calculating step, the answer group score is 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 that the person is raising, and 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 answer group score for the fifth group of answers may be adjusted upward.

[0229] According to the above-mentioned method, it is possible to take into account characteristics of the child that the person being evaluated who answers the questions is not aware of, and to more accurately evaluate the caregiver's need for support.

[0230] In the calculating step, the answer group score is 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 is 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 are involved in increasing or decreasing the physical and mental burden on 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 degree of support required, the answer group score for at least one of the third and fourth answer groups may be adjusted upward.

[0231] According to the above-described method, it is possible to more accurately assess the level of support required by a caregiver by taking into account regional characteristics that the person being evaluated who answers the questions may not be aware of.

[0232] The evaluation method may further include a step of determining a support type indicating the type of support required by the person being evaluated based on the regional characteristic data and the answer group score of the person being evaluated, and a step of identifying support information to be provided to the person being evaluated according to the determined support type.

[0233] According to the above-described method, the subject of evaluation can be classified according to the type of support required, and support information suitable for the subject of evaluation can be provided according to that classification.

[0234] The evaluation device (evaluation device 1) according to the present disclosure evaluates the degree of support-needing of a subject who has or will have a child, requiring support to reduce the physical and mental burden of child-rearing. 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-needing score representing the subject's degree of support-needing. 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 make child-rearing difficult. 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-needing score. The above-described configuration achieves the same effects as the above-described evaluation method.

[0235] 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 are involved in increasing or decreasing the physical and mental burden of the person being evaluated.

[0236] The acquisition unit may further acquire a fifth group of answers from the subject to a fifth group of questions asking about characteristics of a child that the subject is raising.

[0237] The evaluation device may be equipped with an adjustment unit (adjustment unit 32) that adjusts the support required score based on at least one of 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.

[0238] The calculation unit calculates the answer group score for a fifth group of answers by the person being evaluated to a fifth group of questions inquiring about the characteristics of the child that the person is raising, and the adjustment unit may adjust the answer group score for the fifth group of answers upward if the measurement data indicating the child's condition indicates a situation in which the child's characteristics indicate a greater degree of need for support.

[0239] 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 ability to accept 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 are involved in increasing or decreasing the physical and mental burden on the person being evaluated, and the adjustment unit may adjust the answer group score for at least one of the third and fourth group of answers upward when the area characteristic data that indicates the characteristics of the area in which the person being evaluated lives indicates characteristics that increase the degree of support needed.

[0240] 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 answer group score of the person being evaluated, and a characteristics unit (management unit 16) that identifies support information to be provided to the person being evaluated according to the determined support type.

[0241] 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) that is communicatively connected to the evaluation device and operated by the person being evaluated. 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.

[0242] According to the above-described configuration, a system can be constructed that utilizes information and communication technology and the evaluation method of the present disclosure to evaluate the degree of support required due to a caregiver's child-rearing.

[0243] The first output control unit may present the subject with a plurality of questions belonging to any of the question groups in response to information related to the subject's pregnancy being input into the subject terminal.

[0244] With the above-mentioned configuration, it is possible to know that the subject is planning to have a child, and to use this as a trigger to ask questions to the subject without missing an opportunity, thereby making it possible to promptly evaluate the subject's state of need for support or their tendency to become so from the pregnancy stage.

[0245] The evaluation device may further include a score management unit that stores the calculated support needs 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 needs 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.

[0246] According to the above-mentioned configuration, the supporter can quickly grasp whether the person being evaluated is in need of support or has a tendency to become so, and can prepare to provide support at the appropriate time. In addition, the person being evaluated can receive support at the appropriate time before childcare becomes difficult due to physical and mental exhaustion.

[0247] The evaluation system (evaluation system 100) according to the present disclosure includes the above-described evaluation device and a subject terminal operated by the subject to be evaluated and communicatively connected to the evaluation device, wherein the subject terminal is equipped with a first output control unit that presents the plurality of questions to the subject to be evaluated, an input control unit that accepts input of the group of answers to the plurality of questions from the subject to be evaluated, 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, the support need type, and the support information to the subject to be evaluated.

[0248] 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 required by 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 developmental characteristics or personality characteristics of the subject and a second set of questions inquiring about the thinking tendencies of the subject 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 score that indicates the degree of support required, received from the evaluation device, in accordance with the set of answers accepted.

[0249] According to the above-described configuration, a system can be constructed that utilizes information and communication technology and the evaluation method of the present disclosure to evaluate the degree of support required due to a caregiver's child-rearing.

[0250] 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. [Explanation of symbols]

[0251] 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 characteristic 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

1. A computer-implemented evaluation method for assessing 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, 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.

2. 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.

3. A computer-implemented evaluation method for assessing 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, 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 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 response group score for the fifth response 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.

4. A computer-implemented evaluation method for evaluating 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, 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.

5. 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.

6. The evaluation method described in any one of claims 1, 2, and 4, wherein the obtaining step further obtains a fifth set of answers from the subject to a fifth set of questions inquiring about the characteristics of the child that the subject is raising.

7. A step in which the computer determines a support type indicating the type of support required by the subject of evaluation based on the regional characteristic data and the response 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Images