Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: White collar workers
- Creators: Huberty, Jennifer L
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
The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a theory-driven and a atheoretical reminder point-of-choice (PoC) prompt interventions on reducing workplace sedentary behavior in office workers with self-reported low usage (<4 hours per day) of their sit-stand workstations in the standing position. The design of this study was a cross-over trial including randomization into either the theory-driven or atheoertical reminder condition, after completion of a no prompt control condition. Participants (N=19) included full-time, primarily female, Caucasian, middle-aged office workers. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of these two PoC prompt conditions on reducing sedentary behaviors through the use of a Therapy Evaluation Questionnaire. The secondary aim of this study was to assess the preliminary efficacy of the two PoC prompt conditions on reducing sedentary behaviors relative to no-prompt control using the activPAL micro device. For the primary aim, descriptive means adjusted for ordering effect were computed. For the secondary aim, mixed-effects regression models were used to cluster for observations within-persons and were adjusted for age, gender, race, job-type, and ordering effects. During the no-prompt control, participants spent 267.90 ± 68.01 sitting and 170.20 ± 69.34 min/8hr workday standing. The reminder PoC prompt condition significantly increased sanding time (b[se] = 24.52 [11.09], p=0.034) while the theory-driven PoC condition significantly decreased time spent in long sitting bouts b[se] = -34.86 [16.20], p=0.036), both relative to no prompt control. No statistically significant reductions in sitting time were seen in either PoC prompt condition. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences between the two PoC prompt conditions were observed. This study provides feasibility insight in addition to objective measures of sedentary behaviors regarding the use of PoC prompt interventions in the workplace.
ContributorsLarouche, Miranda (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Ainsworth, Barbara E (Thesis advisor) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018