Close-Up on Our Newest Paper: Accelerometer Cut Point Methods for Midlife Women with Cardiovascular Risk Markers

Standard

Our research team takes a specific interest in women who are between the ages of 40 and 60, a period often called “midlife.” Women in this age range have elevated age-related risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), are beginning menopause, and are experiencing health conditions such as type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol – all of which independently increase CVD risk. Therefore, midlife women have a lot to gain from physical activity, as it can protect against CVD even when other risk factors are present. So health professionals have spent a good bit of effort on promoting physical activity in this group. A focus has been on getting women to meet U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommendations for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), or activity at an intensity that gets the heart rate up.

If you’re someone who tries to follow public health recommendations for physical activity (or you do research in the area of physical activity), you may be aware that recommendations changed last year. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services changed the way it defines MVPA. For several years prior to 2019, guidelines indicated that MVPA should happen in “bouts” (or episodes) sustained for at least 10 minutes at a time, and that adults should get 150 minutes of this kind of activity per week. The most recent report has removed the requirement that MVPA happen in 10-minute bouts, indicating that all MVPA is helpful for accruing health benefits. Although this is good news, as it means that shorter bouts of MVPA now count toward the 150-minute total, it raises important questions about population-level activity engagement. For example, most U.S. adults fail to meet the old guidelines; is that true now that shorter bouts count?

To make matters even more complicated, measurement of physical activity engagement isn’t entirely consistent across research studies. There are several methods for calculating whether activity reaches the threshold to be considered MVPA, and it’s not clear whether these methods give the same answers about how much time midlife women spend in MVPA. In other populations (such as among children and pregnant women), different methods give wildly different answers about how much MVPA participants get – differences of up to 100 minutes.

In our new publication (currently in press at Menopause), we took a closer look at two questions about midlife women’s MVPA:

(1)  How different are estimates of MVPA between considering only 10-minute bouts and considering all minutes?

(2)  How different are estimates of MVPA (bouted and all minutes) between different calculation methods?

What did we do?

We looked at four popular calculation (or “cut point”) methods for MVPA: Freedson et al. (1998), Swartz et al. (2000), Matthews et al. (2008), and Troiano et al. (2008) in two separate studies. The first was an observation-only study conducted by our CHASE team at The University of Scranton (before we moved to Rowan University in 2018), and the second was part of a weight loss clinical trial conducted by our collaborators at Drexel University’s WELL Center. This two-study approach allowed us to replicate our initial findings in a separate sample and confirm that findings were consistent across contexts.

What did we find?

In both studies, we met with midlife women at our research center for brief interviews, to train them in the use of a research-grade physical activity monitor to wear during waking hours for the following 7 days. Both studies showed that (1) using non-bouted (total) minutes of MVPA resulted in significantly more minutes than using 10-minute bouts only (across calculation methods), and (2) calculation methods meaningfully differed in the number of MVPA minutes they estimated (across non-bouted and bouted MVPA). Additionally, two of the methods (Freedson et al., and Troiano et al.) showed that midlife women did not meet MVPA recommendations using either bouts or not-bouts, while the other two methods (Matthews et al., and Swartz et al.) showed that midlife women met or exceeded MVPA recommendations if non-bouted minutes were considered.

What does this tell us?

Overall, our series of studies seems to be the first of its kind to focus on differences between cut point methods for physical activity among midlife women with elevated CVD risk, and to compare MVPA bouts with total (non-bouted) minutes. Findings suggested that using different cut points provide different answers, and researchers should keep in mind respective strengths and weaknesses of each method. This work is not only timely considering recent changes in physical activity recommendations, but also necessary for understanding how to estimate MVPA toward the goal of reducing CVD risk in midlife women.

What was it like to work on this study?

“It is amazing to think about how far the lab has come with various iterations of this [observational] study. When it first started, Dr. Arigo and I were at The University of Scranton running a pilot for our WHADE project, which is now in its full form. At this time, we were just beginning to learn the ins and outs of recruiting through primary care. I still remember being excited at the thought of getting any experience in this setting. This was my first research experience recruiting outside of the college population. It was thrilling to be recruiting those out in the community, trying to meet people where they were. ”

– Kristen Pasko, CHASE Lab Member

“Collaborating with Dr. Arigo and her team at Rowan University was an incredible experience. I processed some of the accelerometers from Drexel University that were used as part of this larger study. Working on this project allowed me to see the research process through from start to finish, from assisting with analyzing the raw data to the writing of the manuscript. Before this project, I had never worked on research specifically relevant to the question of women’s health and physical activity. It was a pleasure to work with Dr. Arigo and her students to answer such an important research question that has clear clinical implications for how women are advised to engage in physical activity.”

–  Savannah Roberts, Former research coordinator at Drexel’s WELL Center (current Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh)

“This was a pretty large project that involved a number of team members, for two different studies, across three different universities (including Rowan, Drexel, and Penn State). So it took a lot of open communication and teamwork to bring the project together and communicate what we found. Our group was fantastic and stayed focused on learning what we could from the project. It’s been fun and rewarding to do this work and see it published in a journal that focuses on women’s health.”

– Dr. Dani Arigo, CHASE Lab director

Next Steps

If you follow our posts, you’ll remember that recently, we summarized our review of studies that assess social comparison using within-person methods – those that capture comparisons repeatedly for the same person over days or weeks. This review and the physical activity study described in this post was designed to help us make informed decisions about how to estimate midlife women’s physical activity in our women’s health study, which is running now. The goal of this work is to understand the circumstances that contribute to changes in midlife women’s physical activity from day to day, and ultimately, to design better activity interventions for midlife women. Stay tuned as we work toward these goals!

Inside our Newest Paper – Methods to Assess Social Comparison Processes within Persons in Daily Life: A Scoping Review

Standard

Have you ever had the experience of comparing yourself to others? For example, learning that someone in your work unit got a raise (typically a positive for them) or got written up (typically a negative for them), and thinking about your situation in comparison to theirs? This experience, called social comparison, is extremely common. It can happen in response to conversations with close others and information we get about other people through social media or TV, or by simply imagining someone in a particular situation. More than sixty years of research on social comparison suggests that this process can make us feel good or bad and that it can affect our self-perceptions and behaviors (for better or worse). 

Our team is particularly interested in understanding how social comparisons can affect health behaviors such as eating and engaging in physical activity. We’ve done a lot of work in this area (see our list of publications) and we have multiple ongoing studies devoted to understanding particular aspects of these associations. A consistent challenge for this research is selecting with tools and methods to use to assess comparison, as these decisions can affect the answers we get. For instance, asking someone how often they make comparisons or how interested they are in making comparisons requires people to consider their thoughts and behaviors over long stretches of time (we’re not good at doing this accurately!) and over different situations (which could affect our responses – yes in some situations, no in others). 

Recently, we’ve been asking questions about the best way to assess social comparison – as in, how to get the most accurate information about how and when comparisons happen and how people respond. To avoid the problems associated with a person indicating how much they make comparisons overall (called the “between person” method), we’ve considered asking the same person to report their comparisons as they happen in daily life, repeating the same assessment for each person multiple times (called the “within-person” method). 

Repeated, within-person assessment should allow us to map how often comparisons happen and any changes in how a given person makes or responds to comparisons with greater accuracy. But because this approach is relatively new, there hasn’t been much work to provide guidance on how to conduct within-person assessments of social comparison or how to report findings from these studies. Our group wanted to meet these needs by giving an overview of existing social comparison studies that use within-person methods and identifying next steps for this type of research. 

To do this, CHASE lab teamed up with members of the ReMind and SHADE labs at Penn State University for a large-scale project. We conducted a systematic scoping review (now published in Frontiers in Psychology), which involves a process of carefully searching for and identifying existing research on a topic and summarizing what this research can tell us, using pre-identified research questions and selection criteria. (Our review questions and criteria were preregistered with the Open Science Framework.) We searched the databases PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL for studies of social comparison that used within-person assessment methods. This resulted in 621 potential articles that we could include, which we evaluated with respect to our inclusion criteria. In the end, we included and reviewed 36 studies; we coded these studies on a range of variables, including how participants recorded their comparisons (via paper vs. technology such as smartphones), how often they were asked to record comparisons (how many times per day), and what other experiences were assessed.

What was it like to work on this project?

“Social comparison is my primary research interest, and a key training goal of my current K23 grant is to learn more about using within-person methods to study it. So working with Dr. Mogle to coordinate a multi-lab review of what we know in this area was a dream come true. Our teams worked really well together, as usual. Most papers don’t have submission deadlines, but this one did [as part of a Frontiers in Psychology special issue], and everyone stepped up to overcome some logistical setbacks and keep us on track to finish and submit on time. It’s exciting to see the final product after months of intense focus to get us here.”

— Dr. Dani Arigo, CHASE Lab, Rowan University

“Working on this review opened my eyes to the extent of differences between study methods, even when the studies have similar goals. I enjoyed working collaboratively with colleagues from another institution, and was impressed by how easily collaboration was. This was mostly due to our lead authors consistent and clear communication to the rest of the team. This was the first paper I have had the opportunity to work on, and the process was extremely rewarding. I’m excited for future work!”

— Laura Travers, M.S., second-year Ph.D. student

“Conducting this review with the CHASE lab was fascinating! My area of expertise is in methodology, and I didn’t know as much about social comparison measurement. There are so many ways researchers are trying to capture this experience in the real world, which all get at different aspects of the experience. We worked together to create a method for coding and summarizing the differences across studies so we could synthesize and make sense of the scope of this literature in the paper. I enjoyed working with the team and together we generated an exciting product; we’re hoping that our conclusions and recommendations will be helpful to other researchers.”

— Dr. Jacquie Mogle, ReMind Lab, Penn State University

What did we find?

  • Most studies assessed only comparisons of appearance comparison and included only college students or young women. 
  • The majority of studies collected information in response to signals (rather than initiated by participants). 
  • Studies meaningfully differed in the number of assessments of comparison per day, the number of days of assessment, how participants recorded comparisons, and even how “comparison” was defined.

From this and other information we summarized, some of our recommendations for future work are:

  • Conducting more work to understand social comparisons that occur in understudied groups, such as men, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, and people who attempt to change their behavior
  • Several aspects of the method should be more clearly spelled out in future publications, including: the rationale for selecting the number of assessment days, total number of assessments, timing of assessments, item wording, specific definition of comparison, and the instructions provided to participants (regarding what “counts” as a comparison and how to recognize one)
  • Published reports should include estimation of within-person fluctuation in the number of and response to comparisons during the study

Next steps

We’re combining what we learned from this review with findings from two studies of midlife women’s physical activity.* This contributed to the design of a within-person study on associations between social comparisons (and other experiences) and physical activity among midlife women (currently underway), which will help us better understand how to deliver physical activity interventions in this population. Stay tuned for updates as we move this work forward!

*See our upcoming post on this paper!

Reflections on #SBM2019

Standard

We’re back from a busy and invigorating week at the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) 2019 annual meeting in Washington, D.C.! Read on for our lab members’ reflections on their experience.

Megan M. Brown, B.S., CHASE Lab Research Coordinator (First-Time Attendee)
Brown SBM2019Attending the 2019 SBM conference was an inspiring and motivating experience. Before SBM I had never attended a large, four-day long professional conference. The thought of this was intimidating, and despite our preparations on campus, I was unsure of what to expect. However, as soon as I walked into the first poster session I felt welcomed and surrounded by individuals who appreciate research as much as I do. I enjoyed knowing there was a mix of peers attending SBM, from students to early-, mid-, and senior career health professionals. I knew I had so much to learn from peers at all different levels. As the days went on, I experienced many firsts: attending symposia, keynotes, breakfast roundtables, and paper sessions, and presenting two posters.

After observing how experts in the field communicated their research and findings, it made me think of ways to improve how I convey my research, and the types of questions I want to develop. Being a research coordinator with clinical psychology Ph.D. aspirations, I had a broad idea of the research I wanted to pursue in a clinical psychology program. But after being exposed to the vast amounts of research at SBM, I found myself beginning to mold my general interests into specific questions. With that being said, there is something truly motivating about watching other people get passionate about their research, and this experience made me eager to go back home and further mine. An observation I noticed during the conference was the excitement I felt getting to pick talks that sparked my interest, and getting to sit in rooms filled with people who have similar passions as I do (e.g., mental and physical health).

SBM not only exposed me to novel and innovative research, but it also allowed me the opportunity to network and introduce myself to experts in the field of behavioral medicine. From the personal one-on-one conversations I had at poster sessions, to the information I learned during research talks, SBM 2019 was an overwhelmingly positive experience, and I look forward to attending next year’s conference.

Kristen Pasko, B.S., First-Year Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Student (Second-Time Attendee)
The 40th Annual Society of Behavioral Medicine Conference was a powerful illustration of the need to increase the scope of influence in addressing healthcare barriers. The evolution of our communication and behavior through social media is considerable. In the opening keynote, Duke University Researcher Susannah Fox spoke about Health and Technology Megatrends: How You Can Anticipate the Future. Through various health psychology research findings, she demonstrated the power of a bottom-up approach with social resources in a healthcare system that prioritizes top-down policy and treatment. This allows patients and their families/friends to be the experts of their own bodies and treatment. It promoted more attention on training and equipping our caregivers who are often the first responders in our healthcare. In addition, this does not have to stop at in-person social interaction. Individuals are increasingly turning to social media to get the latest health information and advice. We need to better capitalize on these built-in resources, especially when research dissemination to the public can be as simple as a tweet.

Pasko SBM2019However, it is important to note that we are not all as lucky to have these caregivers, or an environment conducive to accurate health information and resources. This was demonstrated in a keynote, Heroes Tackling the Social Determinants of Health, presented by Mindi Knebel (Kaizen Health) and Khali Sweeney (Detroit Boxing Gym Youth Program). Transportation access alone is associated with medical appointment adherence and likelihood of more effective treatment. Further, growing up in a “bad neighborhood” without sufficient social support and resources can put a child at extreme economic, educational and medical disadvantage. For many who enter the behavioral medicine field without this background, it could be easy to forget or take for granted how these environments and resources affect our health. We were reminded through this presentation that as healthcare professionals, we need to be culturally and socioeconomically sensitive to health disparities. Anything can be a barrier within healthcare, especially social influence and resources.

By attending SBM, I increased my general knowledge about healthcare and further specified my own research questions was related to social influences. We rarely experience health in a vacuum. Therefore, as we move forward in our navigation and advancement in behavioral medicine, we must not forget social influence.

Dr. Dani Arigo, Lab Director (Multi-Time Attendee)
Arigo SBM2019.2I’ve attended SBM annual meetings nearly every year for more than 10 years – ever since my Ph.D. mentor introduced me to the Society in 2007. Even after all this time, I still experienced some firsts at #SBM2019. In my time with SBM, this organization has increased its focus on science communication (#scicomm; i.e., getting our science and message to the public). I have embraced this notion both within and outside of SBM, running Twitter and LinkedIn accounts for my professional work (@DrDaniArigo, @RowanCHASELab) and for SBM entities such as the Behavioral Informatics and Technology Special Interest Group (@SBMDigitalHlth, BIT SIG LinkedIn Group). This year, I served as a speaker for two science communication sessions* and contributed to dissemination of SBM content via Twitter throughout the week.

“First” #1 – Leadership Activities
As I’ve become more involved in SBM, I’ve started to take on leadership responsibilities. Just before last year’s annual meeting, I was elected co-chair of the SBM Behavioral Informatics and Technology SIG; I assumed that role after the meeting and began a very full year of administration for the SIG. This was my first year planning for the annual meeting as a SIG leader, which came with a number of organizational tasks – helping to decide which sessions to sponsor, which abstracts to select for awards, coordinating our Tech Madness data blitz preview, and facilitating our business meeting. I also helped to initiate our new leaders. I’ve now started my one-year term as SIG chair, and I serve in collaboration with our new co-chair and student co-chair. It will be a busy and exciting year for the SIG.

“First” #2 – K23 Check-In and Disclosures
Arigo SBM2019.1Technically this wasn’t my *first* check-in, as my NHLBI K23 award started on 3/1/2018. But it was the first year that I scheduled specific times to meet with mentors who are not at my institution, to give them updates on my progress and plan for Year 2. But it was the first time that I got to disclose my K23 for its support of my time, and for its funding to continue the lines of research I presented in symposia and poster sessions (see below). It’s an honor to be able to describe our CHASE work as NIH-funded.

Scholarly Presentations
Arigo SBM2019.3In addition to co-leading two BIT SIG meetings, I also gave research talks in two symposia and led a poster presentation (expertly taken over by Kristen when I had to leave for a meet-and-greet session). All three of these submissions were based on preliminary data for our now-funded NHLBI women’s health study. Findings demonstrated that: 1) accelerometer cut points for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity need to be carefully considered and selected when applied to activity data from midlife women with elevated cardiovascular risk (see open access poster here), 2) among these women, increases in certain social experiences (such as the quality of social interactions and social comparisons) are associated with changes in food intake recording and objectively assessed physical activity. To Kristen’s point above, we still have much to learn about how the social environment influences health behavior, and how we can harness these influences in tailored interventions.

Stay tuned for more updates on our work toward these goals!

*I was supposed to give only one of these talks; a speaker for a session I chaired didn’t make it to the conference, and I subbed for her as best I could.

Rowan’s Clinical Health And Social Experiences (CHASE) Lab at #SBM2019

Standard

 

SBM2019Our newest research findings will be on display at #SBM2019, and we’re involved in additional sessions focused on science communication and digital health. Come check it out and talk with us!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6th
Preconference Workshop: Learning How to Effectively Communicate Your Science
Location: Monroe
Date: Wednesday March 6, 2019
Time: 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Chairs: Dr. Dani Arigo and Dr. Jennifer Funderburk

Poster: The Effect of #Fitspiration Messaging on College Students’ Fitness Center Use: An Experimental Pilot Study
Poster Number: A200
Time: 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Presenters: Megan Brown and Dr. Dani Arigo

Poster: Examining Differences between Accelerometer Cut Point Methods among Midlife Women with Cardiovascular Risk Markers: A Two-Study Approach
Poster Number: A308
Time: 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Presenters: Kristen Pasko and Dr. Dani Arigo

THURSDAY, MARCH 7th
Breakfast Roundtable: Behavioral Informatics and Technology (BIT) SIG Presents ‘Tech Madness’ (Data Blitz)
Location: Jefferson East
Date: Thursday March 7, 2019
Time: 7:00 AM to 7:50 AM
Chairs: Dr. Dani Arigo and Dr. Lisa Cadmus-Bertram

Symposium: Measuring Proximal Factors Associated with Change in Weight-related Behaviors Using Advanced Technology
Location: Columbia 8
Date: Thursday March 7, 2019
Time: 8:00 AM to 9:15 AM
Presenters: Dr. Dani Arigo, Dr. Kat Ross, and Becca Crochiere (Discussant: Dr. Graham Thomas) – Dr. Arigo presenting “Social Influences on Midlife Women’s Food Intake Recording in Daily Life: A Pilot Ecological Momentary Assessment Study”

Poster: Do Gender, Anxiety, or Sleep Quality Predict Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Outcomes?
Poster Number: B160
Time: 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Presenter: Megan Brown

FRIDAY, MARCH 8th
Breakfast Roundtable: Women’s Health SIG (Science Communication)
Location: Columbia 4
Time: 7:00 AM to 7:50 AM
Presenters: Dr. Dani Arigo and Dr. Becca Krukowski

Midday Meeting: Behavioral Informatics and Technology (BIT) SIG Business and Networking Meeting
Location: Columbia 10
Time: 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Chairs: Dr. Dani Arigo and Dr. Lisa Cadmus-Bertram

Poster: Does Social Support Buffer against the Influence of Depressive Symptoms on Motivation for Illness Management in Prediabetes?
Poster Number: C170
Time: 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Presenter: Kristen Pasko

SATURDAY, MARCH 9th
Symposium: Social Processes in Daily Life: What Do They Mean for Women’s Weight Control Behaviors?
Location: Georgetown East
Time: 8:00 AM to 9:15 AM
Presenters: Dr. Dani Arigo, Dr. Tyler Mason, and Rachel MacIntyre (Discussant: Dr. Genevieve Dunton) – Dr. Arigo presenting “Daily Social Experiences and Physical Activity Among Midlife Women with CVD Risk: A Pilot Ecological Momentary Assessment Study”

The University of Scranton’s 2018 Celebration of Student Scholars (Student Research Day)

Standard

The University of Scranton’s annual Celebration of Student Scholars (aka Scholar Day) is a three-hour poster session featuring research by University students and faculty. This year, we presented two posters: a systematic review of social comparison features in mobile apps that promote physical activity (Arigo, Pasko, Plantier, and Montalbano), and an empirical study of #fitspiration posters and followers’ perceptions (DiBisceglie, DiLorenzo, Pasko, and Arigo). Here, our student presenters reflect on their experience of the 2018 event.

Madison Montalbano, junior, on her first poster experience

scholarday2018.4Student Scholar Day was a wonderful learning experience for me. I’ve never presented a poster before and I was grateful for the opportunity. Explaining the research and discussing it with professors and fellow students was a great way to prepare for future conferences I may attend. The I enjoyed the supportive nature of the environment. The students presenting posters were friendly and seemed excited both to talk about their research and hear about what I was presenting. Overall, I was happy to present the poster and practice conveying the research in an engaging way.

Elle DiLorenzo, sophomore, on her first poster experience

Student Scholar Day was a unique and wonderful learning experience for me.  I have never presented a poster before scholar day, and I am grateful I got to have the experience early in my undergraduate career.  I was able to present findings in a scholarly way to a variety of people who all had different of understandings of psychology and #fitspiration.  I learned to adjust how I described the study based on who I spoke to (and their familiarity with psychology research/fitspiration), and to try to relate what was being said and asked back to the results and implications of the research. Everyone was supportive, so that allowed me to feel comfortable and to get a lot out of the experience. I am happy I was able to present at Scholar Day before going to a conference, because it gave me a preview of what a conference could be like.  Overall I think the event allowed me to become more comfortable with presenting research and believing that I know what I am talking about, even if the poster isn’t about my own independent project. Scholar Day is a wonderful way to engage students and professors in intellectually stimulating conversations and presentations about the research taking place at Scranton.

scholarday2018.3Nicole Plantier, graduating senior, on her second Celebration of Student Scholars event

Although I presented at a regional professional conference earlier this year, this was my first time presenting at Scholar Day, and it was a great experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to present my research findings to members of the University community. Students and faculty showed interest in my research posters (one with (UofSHealthPsych and one with another lab), and answering questions and interacting with individuals from other fields was enjoyable. Also, seeing the work my fellow classmates have been doing was great. I’m often so consumed with my psychology research, I forget that departments across the University are actively engaged in research as well. Overall, the experience of assisting with poster-making and presenting was rewarding.

Sabrina DiBisceglie, graduating senior, on her second Celebration of Student Scholars event

scholarday2018.2This Student Scholar Day was a different experience than the past Scholar Day that I attended (2017). Lat year, I assisted a senior student with creating and presenting a poster on a secondary analysis project. This year, I presented my independent research, which was supported by a Presidential Summer Fellowship in 2017. I was proud to present the research that I have been working on for a year and was glad to see people interested in my research. I also found it fulfilling to take a leadership role in assisting other lab members with their first time presenting a poster. This event is a great tool to prepare students for future professional poster sessions. This experience allowed me to become more comfortable with presenting my research and I feel well prepared to present at a professional conference later this month.

Read and see more about the 2018 event here. For our reflection on last year’s event, see here.

 

 

 

 

 

UofSHealth Psych on the Road: Trainee Reflections on the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Meeting (New Orleans, April 2018)

Standard

Post by Kristen Pasko, B.S. (research coordinator) and Sabrina DiBisceglie (senior undergraduate student). This was their first opportunity to attend a professional conference. 

SBM 2018 Logo

Kristen

The 2018 Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) conference was a learning opportunity distinct from any of my prior professional development experiences. Specifically, I was able to disseminate my original findings, discover cutting-edge research in health psychology, connect with pioneers in the field of similar interest, and experience growth as a budding clinical psychologist.

As someone who is about to enter graduate school, SBM provided me KP SBM 2018 2with an opportunity to grow as an independent researcher. This experience was a chance to build my network of potential collaborators, train my eye to qualities of impactful posters and presentations, and gain a deeper understanding of topics of particular interest. One observation was how specific the research projects were, which got me thinking about how generalizable these findings are, beyond the particular context of each study. From these lines of consideration, I was able to make connections across findings and develop new research questions.

I also realized that I am now a member of this professional organization, in the same learning environment among fellow beginners, intermediate and advanced individuals alike. The continued educational aspect of this field excited me. Likewise, experiencing many collaborative efforts in action was helpful, as members of SBM include healthcare professionals from a variety of disciplines besides psychology. These differences between fields provoked interactive conversation within almost every presentation to work across disciplines and perspectives for the common goal of creating research for the best healthcare outcomes.

Social Divides and Health Divides – Keynote: Sandro Galea
In a seamless narrative that led with data, this keynote addressed the connection between social and health disparities across the United States. The speaker demonstrated the extent to which life expectancy can range at the levels of country, state, and even county. For example, an individual could receive the same treatment in two different countries for a chronic illness and still have a large gap in life expectancy depending on where they reside. Furthermore, when we compare healthcare costs by country, the United States prioritizes treatment over prevention, as opposed to most other countries. Overall, the speaker acknowledged that health behaviors don’t exist in a vacuum and proposed getting social and economic forces into the healthcare conversation.

Acceptance-Based Approaches to Behavior Changes; Application to Weight Control and Physical Activity Interventions – Symposium: Jocelyn Remmert, Leah Schumacher, Courtney Stevens, Meghan Butryn
This symposium centered around the affective barriers before, during, and after engaging in physical activity. It was suggested that acceptance-based therapy (ACT) could mitigate barriers that stem from the associated uncomfortable feelings (fatigue, sweat) as many aspects of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity are not subject to change. Taken together, these findings are intuitive as ACT and psychological flexibility go hand-in-hand and are associated with the greatest long-term outcomes for physical activity. Individuals could benefit from being flexible with guidelines for physical activity for a more tailored approach to their ability and goals.     

Sabrina

SD SBM 2018SBM was a stimulating experience that bolstered my interest in pursuing a career in the behavioral medicine field. Sandro Galea’s opening keynote provided an eye opening presentation on social divides and health divides. His enthusiasm and fascinating findings set the tone for the following days of the conference. As this was my first professional conference, this was a great learning experiences as to how conferences work as well as an experience to be exposed to thought provoking research.

Not only did I gain knowledge on interesting topics and research, I also gained professional knowledge in terms of sharing and presenting research. Attending poster sessions as well as paper sessions allowed me to observe different ways people shared knowledge. It was exciting as a beginner to be introduced to new information alongside experts in this field. My favorite portion of the conference was the poster sessions. These sessions allowed close and personalized interaction with investigators. I was amazed by the breadth of topics that were covered throughout these sessions.

This experience has allowed me to not only gain knowledge on topics new to me, but it has also allowed me to reflect on my individual research and to reevaluate as well as add components to support and further my research. I look forward to continuing my membership with SBM and to continue to use this society to further my research interests.

 

The University of Scranton’s 2017 Celebration of Student Scholars (Student Research Day)

Standard

By Kristen Pasko (Summer Research Coordinator) and Sabrina DiBisceglie (Presidential Summer Research Fellow).

CHP 2017 Scholar Day Dinner2

Graduating members of the Clinical Health Research Team at the Celebration of Student Scholars (L-R): Katie Notarianni, Kristen Pasko, Dr. Arigo, Marissa DeStefano, and Zuhri Outland.

The University of Scranton held their 17th annual Celebration of Student Scholars on May 11th from 1-4 pm in the lobby of our campus’ main science center. Students from various departments (such as occupational therapy, exercise science, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, computer science, communications, and physical therapy) presented their recent research findings in their respective fields. Student peers, faculty, and the general public listened and asked questions of the student researchers as they viewed posters. The event ended with a dinner in honor of the scholars and their mentors. Student scholars Maria Begliomini and Victor Dec from M.S. program Health Administration spoke of their experience with the Telehealth Intervention Program for Seniors (TIPS).

Preparing for the Celebration of Student Scholars allowed each of us to engage in the research process from beginning to end. Last year, most of us presented summaries of literature reviews, rather than original research. This year, each team of students started with an original research question (way back in the fall of 2016!) and worked toward new and interesting findings. At the celebration, it was rewarding to share these findings and the hard work we put into the research, as well as to see the interest our peers took in our findings.

Sabrina and Marisa Scholar Day 2017

Sabrina and Marissa with their poster.

The poster session at the Celebration of Student Scholars provided a unique experience for members of the Clinical Health Psychology Lab. It shed light on differing perspectives in research between fields, as well as between researchers and the public. After speaking to fellow students, we discovered a large gap in communication and understanding between different fields of research. For example, several guests were unaware of particular domains of psychology, and some members of the lab had to preface their individual work with a background in clinical health psychology. This is especially important to our lab because the field of health psychology emphasizes an interdisciplinary mindset. This understanding can potentially help us in later research and clinical practice as we strive to close the gap between health professions (and between professions broadly).

This experience allowed us to deliver information that is relevant to our audience, which primarily consisted of college students. Our goal was to provide this audience with information about our work that could easily be understood and applied in their everyday lives to promote better health. We learned that presenting major findings with complex statistical analyses alone would not suffice in starting conversation relevant to our audience.

K&K Scholar Day 2017

Research Selfie! Kristen and Katie with their poster.

Lab member Kristen Pasko presented her independent study on relations between use of different types of social media and self-reported health behaviors, including sexual activity, eating behavior, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. She enjoyed beingable to collaborate with her partner, Katie Notarianni, and other lab members – this teamwork made it easier for ideas to expand. She also appreciated the support from ZO Scholar Day 2017the lab throughout the process. Another member, Sabrina DiBisceglie, assisted Marissa DeStefano with her research on the predictive value of different types of motivation for objectively assessed exercise engagement among college women. She valued the experience she gained throughout the process and learned skills from Marissa that will be useful when completing her own independent study. Lab member Zuhri Outland (right) presented two separate sets of analyses: one on relations between college women’s living situations and their reported social comparisons and health behaviors, and a second on perceptions of male and female body types with respect to perceived attractiveness.

During the Celebration dinner, Maria Begliomini and Victor Dec impressed the audience with their personal accounts of experience with research with the TIPS program. They delivered first-hand accounts of working for TIPS, which included showing older adults how to monitor vital signs such as blood pressure, pulse, oxygen levels, and weight, in conjunction with providing checkups to inform them about available services and programs. These components were designed to increase the likelihood that older adults would be proactive in their health behaviors, and decrease medical expenses to improve overall health. This presentation was highly relevant to the work we do in clinical health psychology.

CHP 2017 Scholar Day Dinner1

The whole team at the post-Celebration dinner.

The hosts noted that this was the first time in the event’s history that students, rather than professors, were invited to speak about their research experiences. This change felt appropriate, as the day was about honoring the research accomplishments of students. Specifically, our lab members identified with the speakers’ processes of maturation through research. Their stories demonstrated that the impact of student research goes far beyond the Celebration of Student Scholars. We look forward to presenting our updated research findings at the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s annual conference in the spring of 2018.