Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: redistribution
- Creators: Johnston, Erik W., 1977-
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
This dissertation examines whether participatory budgeting (PB) processes, as a case of participatory governance and an innovative approach to local governance, promote inclusive and deliberative government decision-making and social justice outcomes. The first chapter introduces the case of the dissertation, PB in the city of Seoul, South Korea. It reviews the history of PB and the literature on PB in South Korea and discusses three issues that arise when implementing legally mandated PB. The second chapter explores whether inclusive PB processes redistribute financial resources even without the presence of explicit equity criteria, using the last four years of PB resource allocation data and employing multi-level statistical analysis. The findings show that having a more inclusive process to encourage citizen participation helps poorer districts to win more resources than wealthier ones. The third chapter is a follow-up exploratory study; the possible reasons behind the redistributive effects of PB are discussed using interview data with PB participants. The findings suggest that the PB process could have been redistributive because it provided an opportunity for the people living in the comparatively poorer neighborhoods to participate in the government decision-making process. Additionally, when scoring proposals, participants valued ‘needs’ and ‘urgency’ as the most important criteria. The last chapter examines the 32 PB meetings in order to find the combinations of conditions that lead to a deliberative participatory process, employing qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). This dissertation contributes to the field of public management, and particularly participatory governance by providing a review of the literature on PB in South Korea, presenting empirical evidence on the redistributive effect of PB without explicit equity criteria, and finding the combinations of meeting conditions that could be used to promote deliberation in the context of PB.
ContributorsNo, Wŏn (Author) / Schugurensky, Daniel, 1958- (Thesis advisor) / Bretschneider, Stuart (Committee member) / Johnston, Erik W., 1977- (Committee member) / Hsueh, Lily (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018