Filtering by
- Status: Published
In an effort to address the lack of literature in on-campus active travel, this study aims to investigate the following primary questions:<br/>• What are the modes that students use to travel on campus?<br/>• What are the motivations that underlie the mode choice of students on campus?<br/>My first stage of research involved a series of qualitative investigations. I held one-on-one virtual interviews with students in which I asked them questions about the mode they use and why they feel that their chosen mode works best for them. These interviews served two functions. First, they provided me with insight into the various motivations underlying student mode choice. Second, they provided me with an indication of what explanatory variables should be included in a model of mode choice on campus.<br/>The first half of the research project informed a quantitative survey that was released via the Honors Digest to attract student respondents. Data was gathered on travel behavior as well as relevant explanatory variables.<br/>My analysis involved developing a logit model to predict student mode choice on campus and presenting the model estimation in conjunction with a discussion of student travel motivations based on the qualitative interviews. I use this information to make a recommendation on how campus infrastructure could be modified to better support the needs of the student population.
Methods: This was an exploratory qualitative research study. Participants were African American, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian women, between the ages of 26 and 38, who have experienced stillbirth within the past 3 years. Participants completed a 20-30 minute phone interview.
Results: Fourteen women participated in the study (M age = 31.02 ± 5.97 years; M time since stillbirth = 1.47 ± 0.94 years). Women’s perceptions about physical activity and mindfulness to cope with grief were coded into the following major themes: perception of health care after stillbirth (satisfaction with the level of care provided), recommendations about inter-conception health care from physician (relating to mental, emotional, and physical health), grief (comfort with communicating with the physician), coping mechanisms, perception of the relationship between physical activity and mood, barriers to participating in physical activity (social and behavioral), pre-pregnancy physical activity, and perception of mindful approach (e.g., yoga) as a coping mechanism.
Conclusion: This was the first study to explore perceptions of health care and the use of physical activity and/or mindful approaches (e.g., yoga) to cope with grief after stillbirth in women of racial/ethnic minority. Findings from this study may help inform health care professionals alter their care practices and introduce physical activity and mindfulness based approaches as coping mechanisms to mothers of stillborn babies.
The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of three widely used wearable sensors in research settings for 24 h monitoring of sleep, sedentary, and active behaviors in middle-aged women.
Methods
Participants were 21 inactive, overweight (M Body Mass Index (BMI) = 29.27 ± 7.43) women, 30 to 64 years (M = 45.31 ± 9.67). Women were instructed to wear each sensor on the non-dominant hip (ActiGraph GT3X+), wrist (GENEActiv), or upper arm (BodyMedia SenseWear Mini) for 24 h/day and record daily wake and bed times for one week over the course of three consecutive weeks. Women received feedback about their daily physical activity and sleep behaviors. Feasibility (i.e., acceptability and demand) was measured using surveys, interviews, and wear time.
Results
Women felt the GENEActiv (94.7 %) and SenseWear Mini (90.0 %) were easier to wear and preferred the placement (68.4, 80 % respectively) as compared to the ActiGraph (42.9, 47.6 % respectively). Mean wear time on valid days was similar across sensors (ActiGraph: M = 918.8 ± 115.0 min; GENEActiv: M = 949.3 ± 86.6; SenseWear: M = 928.0 ± 101.8) and well above other studies using wake time only protocols. Informational feedback was the biggest motivator, while appearance, comfort, and inconvenience were the biggest barriers to wearing sensors. Wear time was valid on 93.9 % (ActiGraph), 100 % (GENEActiv), and 95.2 % (SenseWear) of eligible days. 61.9, 95.2, and 71.4 % of participants had seven valid days of data for the ActiGraph, GENEActiv, and SenseWear, respectively.
Conclusion
Twenty-four hour monitoring over seven consecutive days is a feasible approach in middle-aged women. Researchers should consider participant acceptability and demand, in addition to validity and reliability, when choosing a wearable sensor. More research is needed across populations and study designs.