Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

149741-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The gold standard for bone measurement is DXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry). Typically, to observe changes in bone by DXA, a minimum of a 4-month intervention is required. Serum osteocalcin (OST) (a bone formation marker) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the calcaneus can be used as indicators of bone change

The gold standard for bone measurement is DXA (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry). Typically, to observe changes in bone by DXA, a minimum of a 4-month intervention is required. Serum osteocalcin (OST) (a bone formation marker) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of the calcaneus can be used as indicators of bone change but the sensitivity and time course of these indices to short term interventions are unknown. The purpose of this study was twofold: to compare monthly changes in OST and QUS in response to jump training and to evaluate the relationship between DXA, OST and QUS. Young women with QUS t-scores less than 1.0 were randomized into a jump training (J) (n=16) or control (C) (n=16). J consisted of a progressive routine of 1 and 2-footed jumping performed 3 days per week for 4 months. Body composition, QUS and OST were measured at baseline, and monthly for 4 months. DXA and 24-hour dietary recalls were completed at baseline and 4 months. Low attrition rate (12.5%) and high compliance (98%) with the exercise intervention was recorded. No significant correlations between QUS and OST existed. No significant differences were observed between groups at baseline in body composition or bone variables. Monthly increases in OST were observed but there were no significant differences over time between groups in any bone variables. OST and QUS may be indicative of short term bone changes but these variables were not specifically sensitive to the jumping intervention in this population of women.
ContributorsHeumann, Kristin Joelle (Author) / Swan, Pamela D (Thesis advisor) / Alvar, Brent (Committee member) / Chisum, Jack (Committee member) / Lee, Chong (Committee member) / Vaughan, Linda (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
157388-Thumbnail Image.png
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

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.
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