scholarly journals Behavior science led technology for financial wellness

Author(s):  
Jayasree Raveendran ◽  
John Soren ◽  
V. Ramanathan ◽  
R. Sudharshan ◽  
Suman Mahalanabis ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-155
Author(s):  
D. Scott Drake ◽  
Tim O’Neil ◽  
John S. Hoffmire
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Madalina Sucala ◽  
Nnamdi Peter Ezeanochie ◽  
Heather Cole-Lewis ◽  
Jennifer Turgiss

Abstract The rapid expansion of technology promises to transform the behavior science field by revolutionizing the ways in which individuals can monitor and improve their health behaviors. To fully live into this promise, the behavior science field must address distinct challenges, including: building interventions that are not only scientifically sound but also engaging; using evaluation methods to precisely assess intervention components for intervention optimization; and building personalized interventions that acknowledge and adapt to the dynamic ecosystem of individual and contextual variables that impact behavior change. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework to address these challenges by leveraging behavior science, human-centered design, and data science expertise throughout the cycle of developing and evaluating digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs). To define this framework, we reviewed current models and practices for intervention development and evaluation, as well as technology industry models for product development. The framework promotes an iterative process, aiming to maximize outcomes by incorporating faster and more frequent testing cycles into the lifecycle of a DBCI. Within the framework provided, we describe each phase, from development to evaluation, to discuss the optimal practices, necessary stakeholders, and proposed evaluation methods. The proposed framework may inform practices in both academia and industry, as well as highlight the need to offer collaborative platforms to ensure successful partnerships that can lead to more effective DBCIs that reach broad and diverse populations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Huecker ◽  

Introduction: This article comprises Part 2 of the Journal of Wellness review of 2020 wellness literature (July – December). In this review, JWellness editors continue the goal of offering a cohesive summary of recent publications within the wellness domain. We summarize new science and resilience initiatives published outside of JWellness that seek understanding of either burnout and its prevention or thriving in the medical community. Methods: From the interval of 01 July – 31 Dec 2020, PubMed was queried for empirical research studies, review articles, and editorials in accordance with the following algorithm: an article was required to have two delineating keywords, each from a separate grouping. The first identified medical professionals in either the title or the abstract: (“clinical professionals,” “physicians,” or “caregivers”), and the other identified a wellness-related keyword in the title: (“wellness,” “burnout,” “resilience,” or “resiliency”). Literature in Review: A total of 234 articles resulted. The list for inclusion was then narrowed to sixty-three articles plus one that was hand-picked. Recent literature into physician wellness, burnout and resilience continues to focus heavily on COVID-19. Well-researched topics include burnout surveillance, proposals for and small investigations into resilience, multiple studies attempting to differentiate characteristics that predispose to burnout, and the impact of the pandemic. Less has been written on leadership, financial wellness, and sustainable resilience-building initiatives. We note relatively few control-measured interventional studies—the majority of which remain small in endeavor and short in duration, limiting generalizability. Conclusion: Recent literature into physician wellness, burnout and resilience focuses heavily on COVID-19. Many workplace / organizational factors negatively influence wellness: cumbersome EHRs, cultures not focused on socialization and self-compassion, and high physician task load. We express optimism regarding future interventional studies of burnout mitigation and resilience enhancement.


Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 223-223
Author(s):  
S V Kulikova

Adequate application of the Lea symbol and BUST visual acuity tests (Hyvarinen et al, 1980 Acta Ophthalmologica58 507; Lindstedt, 1986 British Journal of Visual Impairment4 49), designed for children over 18 months of developmental age, in young and/or handicapped pre-school children require preliminary assessment of their level of development. To assess the developmental demands more precisely, 162 children aged from 15 to 35 months and 54 older pre-schoolers, most with normal vision, were examined. Nearly half of the children showed some developmental delays in physical and mental capabilities as assessed on the CDI scale (Ireton, 1992, Child Developmental Inventory, Behavior Science System Inc). Nevertheless, in 77% far and/or near visual acuity was successfully measured by combinations of Lea symbol and/or BUST tests. The youngest successful children, 18 and 20 months of age, passed BUST-N and Lea-Domino. For children aged 18 – 24, 24 – 29, 30 – 35 months, and 36 months and above the success rates were, respectively, 39%, 75%, 89%, and 96%. The minimal values of the CDI scale indexes among the successful children may be regarded, in addition to chronological age, as minimal developmental demands, ie conditions necessary, although not always sufficient, for the child to pass visual acuity measurements. These values in months were 16 (‘social’), 18 (‘selfserving’), 14 (‘gross motor’), 16 (‘fine motor’), 16 (‘speech development’) and 19 (‘language comprehension’). The value of the last index was the most critical. Since the developmental demands are not very high, there are good prospects of using Lea symbol and BUST tests in young and/or handicapped children.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document