Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Diet
- All Subjects: Digital Health
Description
Background: Previous research suggests a healthy eater schema (i.e., identifying yourself as a healthy eater) may be a useful concept to target in interventions. A "stealth" intervention that discussed the moral issues related to food worked better at promoting healthful eating than an intervention focused on the health benefits. No research has explored the relationship between moral foundations, a theoretical model focused on delineating core "foundations" for making a moral decision, and healthy eater self-identity or self-efficacy. Purpose: We explored the relationship between moral foundations (i.e., harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, & purity/sanctity) and health eater self-identity and fruit and vegetable self-efficacy (FVSE). Methods: 542 participants completed an online cross-sectional survey, which included moral foundations (i.e., MFQ), political views, healthy eater self-identity (i.e., HESS), and FVSE measures. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between moral foundations between healthy eater self-identity after controlling for age, gender, major, BMI, and political beliefs. OLS regression was used to explore the relationship between self-efficacy and the moral foundations after controlling for the covariates. Results: 75.6% of the sample were college students, with a mean age of 25.27 (SD=8.61). 25.1% of students were nutrition majors. Harm/care, authority/respect, and ingroup/loyalty were significantly associated with healthy eater schema, (i.e., OR=1.7, p<.001, OR=1.5, p=.009, and OR=1.4, p=.027, respectively). Ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity were related to FVSE (p=.006, p=.002, p=.04, respectively). Conclusion: Among college students, harm/care and authority/respect were associated with a healthy eater schema. Future research should explore possible uses of these moral foundations in interventions (e.g., a plant-based diet based on reduced harm to animals or eating fewer processed views based on "traditional" values).
ContributorsKiser, Sarah (Author) / Hekler, Eric B. (Thesis advisor) / Ohri-Vachaspati, Punam (Committee member) / Wharton, Christopher (Christopher Mack), 1977- (Committee member) / Johnston, Carol (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
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