A. Zabirova et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 1), 99 – 108 101
Fig. 1. Map of Tomioka and Okuma.
questions“ Do you have someone who listens to your concerns and complaints?”,“ Do you listen to someone’ s concerns and complaints?” and“ Do you have someone who looks after you when you are sick for a few days?” The question was scored“ 0” if respondents answered“ no one” for all of the three questions. Reciprocity was scored between“ 1” and“ 3” if respondents answered“ one or more persons exist,” depending on the number of questions to which they gave this reply. The evaluation of quality of life was conducted using the validated Japanese iteration of the Health-Related Quality of Life Short Form-8( SF-8). This instrument gauges health status across eight dimensions: general health, physical functioning, physical role( limitations in the role due to physical health dysfunction), bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, mental health, and emotional role( limitations in the role due to emotional health dysfunction). Responses were collected on a five- or six-point scale ranging from“ 1”( very well / no interference) to“ 5” or“ 6”( very poor / unable to function). The SF-8 is interpreted based on scale scores encompassing two overarching classifications: the physical component summary( PCS, comprising general health, physical functioning, physical role, and bodily pain) and the mental component summary( MCS, encompassing vitality, social functioning, mental health, and emotional role). Scores surpassing 50 ± 10 were deemed indicative of good health and guided by the average values among the Japanese population. We classified scores < 50 and ≥50 on both the PCS and MCS based on previous studies( Tokuda et al., 2009).
2.3 Statistical analysis
If responses were found to be incomplete or contradictory( i. e., if multiple answers were selected incorrectly), we regarded them as missing, and a pairwise exclusion of such values was applied. Data were categorized based on distributions for age into two groups, < 65 and ≥65. The chi-square test was used to clarify the differences between each ITR level and each variable. The“ no responses” were excluded from the chi-square test. A multinomial logistic regression analysis was applied to the reference group“ already returned,” to clarify the association with ITR. The items in the multinomial logistic regression analysis were selected among those that resulted in statistically significant differences in the chi-square test for ITR. The age was added to the model as covariates. Contents of SC were divided between those who scored“ 0” and others in the models. Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29, and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
3 Results
Table 1 shows the results of sociodemographic factors, radiation risk perception, DTW, SC, and HR-QOL in the chisquare test among each level of ITR. Of the 1,338 responding residents, 119( 8.9 %) had already returned, 131( 9.8 %) wanted to return, 279( 20.9 %) were undecided, and 809( 60.5 %) did not want to return at the time of the survey.