Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Mindfulness
Description
Many individual-level behavioral interventions improve health and well-being. However, most interventions exhibit considerable heterogeneity in response. Put differently, what might be effective on average might not be effective for specific individuals. From an individual’s perspective, many healthy behaviors exist that seem to have a positive impact. However, few existing tools support people in identifying interventions that work for them, personally.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
ContributorsPhatak, Sayali Shekhar (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (Committee member) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Committee member) / Johnston, Erik W., 1977- (Committee member) / Swan, Pamela D (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Excessive gestational weight gain (EGWG) affects 50% of US pregnant women and may be an important contributor to obesity in both the mother and child. Novel strategies to prevent EGWG are needed to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes for the mother and child. This dissertation presents three manuscripts that 1) propose a novel model to explain how prenatal yoga may prevent EGWG through behavioral, psychological/emotional, and physical factors, 2) test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a prenatal yoga intervention to prevent EGWG compared to a pregnancy education comparison group, and 3) qualitatively investigate pregnant women’s experiences participating in a prenatal yoga intervention to prevent EGWG. In manuscript two, 49 women were recruited and randomized to a 12-week prenatal yoga intervention (n=23) or a time-matched pregnancy education comparison group (n=26). A satisfaction survey was administered at post-intervention to assess feasibility outcomes (e.g., acceptability, demand). Mindfulness, emotion regulation, self-awareness, sleep quality, depression, anxiety, and perceived stress were assessed at baseline and post-intervention (12-weeks) and GWG was assessed weekly. Linear mixed models were used to analyze pre-post changes in primary (i.e., GWG during pregnancy) and secondary (i.e., mindfulness, emotion regulation, self-awareness, sleep quality, depression, anxiety, and stress) outcomes. In manuscript three, interviews were conducted with pregnant women who participated in the prenatal yoga intervention (n=13). Interview responses were summarized using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Findings in manuscript two suggest that prenatal yoga was a feasible method to prevent EGWG with high enjoyment and satisfaction reported among participants. The average number of prenatal yoga sessions attended was 8.84 (SD = 3.85). There was no significant group differences on the rate of GWG or total GWG throughout the intervention and a significant group x time interaction effect for stress (p=.03). In manuscript three, twelve themes were identified among the data and were organized into the following categories (three themes each): 1) experiences of prenatal yoga, 2) prenatal yoga and weight, 3) barriers to prenatal yoga, and 4) facilitators of prenatal yoga. This initial evidence suggests that prenatal yoga has potential as a strategy to prevent EGWG in pregnant women.
ContributorsGreen, Jennifer (Author) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Thesis advisor) / Larkey, Linda K (Committee member) / Leiferman, Jenn A (Committee member) / Buman, Matthew P (Committee member) / Oh, Chien C (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019