Browsing by Subject "Heuristics"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparative Risk: Good or Bad Heuristic?
    (Taylor & Francis, 2016-05) Schwartz, Peter H.; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine
    Heuristics and biases infect all human thought, leading to irrational thinking and behavior. Bioethics must recognize this psychological reality and develop new models for evaluating and supporting autonomous choice, as Blumenthal-Barby (2016) argues (Blumenthal-Barby 2016). Simply trying to eradicate heuristics and biases from medical decisions will not work and is deeply misguided. In many situations, a heuristic or bias can provide a shortcut to an effective decision (Gigerenzer 2008) or can counter the impact of other heuristics and biases. It is often impossible to determine whether a heuristic or bias harms or helps a decision, because of the complexity of thought and the difficulty of defining and measuring the quality of a decision or its rationality. The debate over whether patients should receive comparative risk information highlights these practical, ethical, and conceptual quandaries. Some experts have argued that patients facing certain types of choices should not be told whether their risk is above or below average, because this information may trigger a bias (Fagerlin et al. 2007). But careful consideration shows that the comparative risk heuristic can usefully guide decisions and improve their quality or rationality. Building on an earlier paper of mine (Schwartz 2009), I will argue here that doctors and decision aids should provide comparative risk information to patients, even while further research is conducted.*
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    PDK4 Augments ER–Mitochondria Contact to Dampen Skeletal Muscle Insulin Signaling During Obesity
    (American Diabetes Association, 2019-03) Thoudam, Themis; Ha, Chae-Myeong; Leem, Jaechan; Chanda, Dipanjan; Park, Jong-Seok; Kim, Hyo-Jeong; Jeon, Jae-Han; Choi, Yeon-Kyung; Liangpunsakul, Suthat; Huh, Yang Hoon; Kwon, Tae-Hwan; Park, Keun-Gyu; Harris, Robert A.; Park, Kyu-Sang; Rhee, Hyun-Woo; Lee, In-Kyu; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Recent evidence in mobile health has demonstrated that, in some cases, apps are an effective way to improve health care delivery. Health care interventions delivered via mobile technology have demonstrated both practicality and affordability. Lately, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions delivered over the internet have also shown a meaningful impact on patients with anxiety and depression. Objective: Given the growing proliferation of smartphones and the trust in apps to support improved health behaviors and outcomes, we were interested in comparing a mobile app with Web-based methods for the delivery of CBT. This study aimed to compare the usability of a CBT mobile app called MoodTrainer with an evidence-based website called MoodGYM. Methods: We used convenience sampling to recruit 30 students from a large Midwestern university and randomly assigned them to either the MoodGYM or MoodTrainer user group. The trial period ran for 2 weeks, after which the students completed a self-assessment survey based on Nielsen heuristics. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the survey results from the 2 groups. We also compared the number of modules attempted or completed and the time spent on CBT strategies. Results: The results indicate that the MoodTrainer app received a higher usability score when compared with MoodGYM. Overall, 87% (13/15) of the participants felt that it was easy to navigate through the MoodTrainer app compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. All MoodTrainer participants agreed that the app was easy to use and did not require any external assistance, whereas only 67% (10/15) had the same opinion for MoodGYM. Furthermore, 67% (10/15) of the MoodTrainer participants found that the navigation controls were easy to locate compared with 80% (12/15) of the MoodGYM participants. MoodTrainer users, on average, completed 2.5 modules compared with 1 module completed by MoodGYM users. Conclusions: As among the first studies to directly compare the usability of a mobile app-based CBT with smartphone-specific features against a Web-based CBT, there is an opportunity for app-based CBT as, at least in our limited trial, it was more usable and engaging. The study was limited to evaluate usability only and not the clinical effectiveness of the app.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    RESIDENTIAL LEARNING: A SAFEHOUSE FOR STUDY AND GROWTH
    (2005-10-13T19:47:11Z) Kabel, Carole J.
    In June 1998, two life-changing events occurred, affecting me profoundly; I began a doctoral program and I was diagnosed with breast cancer. A major requirement of the program was a two-week residency, each year for the three years of the program. I began the first residency a week after surgery and two weeks before I was to start chemotherapy treatments. The impact this residential experience had on me and, as I was to discover later, on others, was so intense and emotional, that it became the topic of my research and consequently, of my dissertation. The purpose of my research was to discover the affective impact a residential learning experience had on the participants of a graduate degree program. My heuristic study related my thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc., regarding my own residential learning experience, and through interviews, the experiences of others. After the data was collected and analyzed, eight themes emerged. From these I concluded that residential learning did indeed impact its participants and that learning in residence enhanced both the cognitive and the affective domains. The findings of this study indicated that forming and building relationships, formal and informal learning, and individual change does occur during a residential experience.