Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Digital Health
- All Subjects: Morality
- Creators: Hekler, Eric B.
Description
Health knowledge alone does not appear to lead to sustained healthy behavior, suggesting the need for alternative methods for improving diet. Recent research shows a possible role of moral contexts of food production on diet related behaviors; however no studies have been conducted to specifically explore the relationship between moral constructs and food consumption. This study examined the relationship between fast food consumption and two measures of morality, Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), specifically harm/care and purity/sanctity foundations, and the Ethical Concern in food choice (EC) questionnaire, which includes animal welfare, environment protection, political values, and religion subscales. The study also examined the association between the measures of morality. 739 participants, primarily female (71.4%) and non-Hispanic Whites (76.5%), completed an online survey that included the MFQ, the EC questionnaire, and a brief fast food screener. Participant's morality scores in relation to their fast food consumption were examined first using bivariate ANOVA analysis and then using logistic regression to control for covariates. The MFQ foundations were compared with the EC subscales using Pearson correlation coefficient. Significant bivariate relationships were seen between fast food consumption and the MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscales (p<0.05). However these significant bivariate relationships did not hold after controlling for gender, race, university education, and religion in the logistic regression analysis. The foundations of the MFQ were positively correlated with the subscales for the EC questionnaire (r values ranging from .233-.613 (p<0.01). MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscale were the two most highly correlated (r=.613, p<0.01) showing that moral intuitions may be associated with eating decision making. The study did not find significant associations between MFQ or EC scores and fast food consumption.
ContributorsMartinelli, Sarah (Author) / Ohri-Vachaspati, Punam (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (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