At The Individual Level
페이지 정보
작성일 23-08-23 07:52본문
amidalla.deHow might a behavioral economic technique enhance other treatment approaches?
Because the BE technique focuses on changing environmental factors or reinforcers to alter food- and PA-related habits, the BE approach works with a lot of currently offered behavioral treatment techniques (e.g., family-based lifestyle behavioral interventions), and might match medication-assisted treatments when those pertained to fruition for pediatric weight problems treatment. We emphasize that BE methods must not be implemented in isolation however, rather, incorporated with other practical techniques as part of multimodal, multilevel interventions.4
On the other hand, the BE technique - which counts on ecological sources of reinforcement to promote healthier outcomes (e.g., weight-loss) - could potentially contravene those cognitive-behavioral interventions that highlight the importance of patients' internal inspiration for behavior modification (self-determination). Notably, there has been dispute concerning this problem of exogenous vs. endogenous locus of inspiration elsewhere; namely, it has been hypothesized that external rewards could undermine a client's internal inspiration for habits modification. However, information supporting this conclusion are blended; 6-8 instead of opposite ends of the inspiration spectrum, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation appear to exist more individually than earlier thought.9-11 A current evaluation of treatments for Medical Cannabis For Chronic Pain reliance demonstrated that long-term follow-up arise from interventions combining contingency management (i.e., providing vouchers for abstaining) and cognitive-behavioral treatment were much better than for those using just one type of treatment,12 suggesting that interventions targeting both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation to change can be effective.
Compatibility of BE-based interventions with other treatment approaches partially depends on which results are being targeted. Key concerns in BE studies include which habits(s) will be strengthened, whether the habits will be price-sensitive (elastic), and how other available reinforcers will complete for control of habits. The particular technique depends upon the proposed mechanism of action in relation to the desired outcome, e.g., increased healthy (or reduced unhealthy) food consumption, increased PA (or reduced inactive activities), increased energy expenditure (or reduced energy intake), or possibly weight reduction that is more distally mediated by the aforementioned elements.
When it comes to increasing healthy nutrient intake, the BE approach presumes that higher schedule and price-lowering manipulations will drive demand higher and, indirectly, could increase demand flexibility for unhealthy food. Conversely, if decreasing unhealthy nutrient intake is the focus, this presumes that demand for punished nutrient intake will become more price-elastic and, indirectly, could lead to more inelastic need for healthy food. Similar BE substitutive relationships can be highlighted with regard to targeting behaviors connected with energy expense. Thus, when strengthening PA one might observe a security decrease in sedentary activity, or when penalizing inactive activity one might observe an increase in PA. Both types of effects have been experimentally shown in obese kids.13
As kept in mind above, targeting more than one behavioral result (multimodal intervention) might be helpful, however involves more complex systems. A traditional example is targeting both increased healthy nutrient consumption and PA, which presumes these behaviors work or, in BE terms, complementary. Increased PA might (aside from its acute anorectic effect) increase overall food consumption without regard to type of nutrient consumption, thus, an intervention that looks for to increase desirable macronutrient intake would be required to narrow post-exercise food intake. Consequently, a substantial challenge of multimodal interventions will involve determining which reinforcers can function as economic complements, so that desired outcomes are synergistically improved and unwanted outcomes synergistically reduced. Failure to consider these concerns might result in 2 interventions that, while mildly efficient in isolation, cancel each other's effects.
At the specific level, BE interventions can be used to reduce unwanted activities such as sedentary habits (see Tables 1-- 3).3). At the interpersonal level, BE approaches can be utilized to promote immersion of the individual in peer socials media that engage in PA and meaningfully social interactions, and/or discouraging inactive habits and unhealthy food intake.14 It noteworthy that PA and inactive habits, or consuming healthy foods and avoiding unhealthy foods, are not necessarily substitute activities; rather, an inverted behavioral relationship needs to be shown empirically in particular contexts when one controls one but not the other.15,16
Table 1
Table 3
Likewise, BE interventions can be targeted at the household level, e.g., enhancing behaviors of the caregiver (e.g., buying predominantly healthy foods at the supermarket, limiting electronic media until after the kid has actually exercised for 15 min) and the kid (e.g., consuming enough fruits and vegetables, working out 3 × weekly for 30 min each time). At the community level, BE approaches might be executed within schools, after school centers, work location snack bars, or other centers in which food and activity choices exist. Although lots of companies might attempt an education approach, proof recommends education alone might not improve habits; on the other hand, combining education with a reinforcer can increase healthier food options.17 Many of these are viewed as "nudge" approaches,18 in which customers' choices are limited or restricted in some way to increase choice of healthier options.
Because the BE technique focuses on changing environmental factors or reinforcers to alter food- and PA-related habits, the BE approach works with a lot of currently offered behavioral treatment techniques (e.g., family-based lifestyle behavioral interventions), and might match medication-assisted treatments when those pertained to fruition for pediatric weight problems treatment. We emphasize that BE methods must not be implemented in isolation however, rather, incorporated with other practical techniques as part of multimodal, multilevel interventions.4
On the other hand, the BE technique - which counts on ecological sources of reinforcement to promote healthier outcomes (e.g., weight-loss) - could potentially contravene those cognitive-behavioral interventions that highlight the importance of patients' internal inspiration for behavior modification (self-determination). Notably, there has been dispute concerning this problem of exogenous vs. endogenous locus of inspiration elsewhere; namely, it has been hypothesized that external rewards could undermine a client's internal inspiration for habits modification. However, information supporting this conclusion are blended; 6-8 instead of opposite ends of the inspiration spectrum, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation appear to exist more individually than earlier thought.9-11 A current evaluation of treatments for Medical Cannabis For Chronic Pain reliance demonstrated that long-term follow-up arise from interventions combining contingency management (i.e., providing vouchers for abstaining) and cognitive-behavioral treatment were much better than for those using just one type of treatment,12 suggesting that interventions targeting both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation to change can be effective.
Compatibility of BE-based interventions with other treatment approaches partially depends on which results are being targeted. Key concerns in BE studies include which habits(s) will be strengthened, whether the habits will be price-sensitive (elastic), and how other available reinforcers will complete for control of habits. The particular technique depends upon the proposed mechanism of action in relation to the desired outcome, e.g., increased healthy (or reduced unhealthy) food consumption, increased PA (or reduced inactive activities), increased energy expenditure (or reduced energy intake), or possibly weight reduction that is more distally mediated by the aforementioned elements.
When it comes to increasing healthy nutrient intake, the BE approach presumes that higher schedule and price-lowering manipulations will drive demand higher and, indirectly, could increase demand flexibility for unhealthy food. Conversely, if decreasing unhealthy nutrient intake is the focus, this presumes that demand for punished nutrient intake will become more price-elastic and, indirectly, could lead to more inelastic need for healthy food. Similar BE substitutive relationships can be highlighted with regard to targeting behaviors connected with energy expense. Thus, when strengthening PA one might observe a security decrease in sedentary activity, or when penalizing inactive activity one might observe an increase in PA. Both types of effects have been experimentally shown in obese kids.13
As kept in mind above, targeting more than one behavioral result (multimodal intervention) might be helpful, however involves more complex systems. A traditional example is targeting both increased healthy nutrient consumption and PA, which presumes these behaviors work or, in BE terms, complementary. Increased PA might (aside from its acute anorectic effect) increase overall food consumption without regard to type of nutrient consumption, thus, an intervention that looks for to increase desirable macronutrient intake would be required to narrow post-exercise food intake. Consequently, a substantial challenge of multimodal interventions will involve determining which reinforcers can function as economic complements, so that desired outcomes are synergistically improved and unwanted outcomes synergistically reduced. Failure to consider these concerns might result in 2 interventions that, while mildly efficient in isolation, cancel each other's effects.
At the specific level, BE interventions can be used to reduce unwanted activities such as sedentary habits (see Tables 1-- 3).3). At the interpersonal level, BE approaches can be utilized to promote immersion of the individual in peer socials media that engage in PA and meaningfully social interactions, and/or discouraging inactive habits and unhealthy food intake.14 It noteworthy that PA and inactive habits, or consuming healthy foods and avoiding unhealthy foods, are not necessarily substitute activities; rather, an inverted behavioral relationship needs to be shown empirically in particular contexts when one controls one but not the other.15,16
Table 1
Table 3
Likewise, BE interventions can be targeted at the household level, e.g., enhancing behaviors of the caregiver (e.g., buying predominantly healthy foods at the supermarket, limiting electronic media until after the kid has actually exercised for 15 min) and the kid (e.g., consuming enough fruits and vegetables, working out 3 × weekly for 30 min each time). At the community level, BE approaches might be executed within schools, after school centers, work location snack bars, or other centers in which food and activity choices exist. Although lots of companies might attempt an education approach, proof recommends education alone might not improve habits; on the other hand, combining education with a reinforcer can increase healthier food options.17 Many of these are viewed as "nudge" approaches,18 in which customers' choices are limited or restricted in some way to increase choice of healthier options.