Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 20383, 2023 11 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37990071

ABSTRACT

Growth mindsets and self-efficacy beliefs have been known to predict and promote resilience, challenge seeking, and improved outcomes in areas such as education and intelligence. However, little is known about the role of these two potentially influential beliefs in the context of type 2 diabetes (T2D), specifically in terms of whether and in which domains (i.e., beliefs toward general life, general health, or condition-specific domains) these beliefs-or lack thereof-is prevalent among individuals with T2D. Given the lifelong challenges that individuals with diabetes often encounter with managing their disease, many may slip into a conceding negative belief that their diabetes is "too difficult to control" or simply "out of their hands," inhibiting proactive self-management efforts. Results from our study (n = 893) revealed that individuals with T2D had a significantly lower growth mindset towards their blood glucose level and lower self-efficacy towards their general health, blood glucose, and cholesterol levels compared to those without T2D. Among participants with T2D, further analyses showed a pattern of higher HbA1c among those with lower growth mindsets and self-efficacy toward their general health or blood glucose level. These findings identify the belief-domains that may pose barriers to necessary self-care behaviors, informing future interventions to promote improved diabetes care and management.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Humans , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Self Efficacy , Blood Glucose , Educational Status
2.
Vaccine ; 40(37): 5407-5412, 2022 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35970640

ABSTRACT

The present case study describes a co-produced and theoretically informed workshop wherein messages were co-designed to increase the uptake of future COVID-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom. Co-design can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of public interventions, but many researchers, service providers, and policymakers may be uncertain where to start. This demonstrative example applies behavioural science and design thinking theory, illustrating how others can integrate theoretically informed co-design into similar and more complex projects efficiently. The workshop brought together members of the public, immunisers, and public health specialists. A narrative analysis was conducted to identify themes related to vaccine hesitancy. The workshop's supporting materials are made available as supplemental materials, which can be modified for future workshops. The discussion encourages additional workshops to be conducted, including diverse members of the public, to co-design novel solutions to improve public health more generally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , United Kingdom
3.
Psychol Bull ; 146(5): 451-479, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31944796

ABSTRACT

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to + 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).


Subject(s)
Crowdsourcing , Psychology/methods , Research Design , Adult , Humans , Random Allocation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...