Search for: All records

Background:A core challenge in managing diabetes is predicting glycemic responses to meals. Prior work identified significant interindividual variation in responses and developed personalized forecasts. However, intraindividual variation is still not well understood, and the most accurate approaches require invasive microbiome data. We aimed to investigate (1) whether postprandial glycemic responses (PPGRs) can be predicted with limited data and (2) sources of intraindividual variation. Methods:We used data collected from 397 people with Type 1 Diabetes (T1DEXI) and 100 people with Type 2 Diabetes (ShanghaiT2DM) who wore continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and logged meals. Using dietary, demographic, and temporal features, we predicted 2 hours PPGR, and peak 2 hours postprandial glucose rise (Glu_max). We evaluated the contribution of food features (eg, macronutrients, food category) and use of personal training data and investigated intraindividual variability in responses. Results:We achieved comparable accuracy to prior work for PPGR (T1DEXI R = 0.61, ShanghaiT2DM R = 0.72) and Glu_max(T1DEXI R = 0.64, ShanghaiT2DM R = 0.73), without using invasive data like microbiome. Including food category features led to higher accuracy than macronutrients alone. Analysis of glycemic responses to duplicate meals identified time of day (PPGR: T1DEXI P < .05 for lunch, ShanghaiT2DM P < .001 for lunch and dinner) and menstrual cycle (Glu_max: P < .05 for perimenstrual) as sources of variability. Conclusions:We demonstrate that in individuals with T1D and T2D, glycemic responses to meals can be predicted without personalized training data or invasive physiological data. 

BackgroundHealth care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians’ work is educating their patients, people’s concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people’s perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient’s disease. DesignWe recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient’s ability to manage their disease, and the patient’s trust in doctors. ResultsParticipants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient’s diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3). ConclusionsParticipants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients’ concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education. HighlightsUnderstanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care. 

Causal information, from health guidance on diets that prevent disease to financial advice for growing savings, is everywhere. Psychological research has shown that people can readily use causal information to make decisions and choose interventions. However, this work has mainly focused on novel systems rather than everyday domains, such as health and finance. Recent research suggests that in familiar scenarios, causal information can lead to worse decisions than having no information at all, but the mechanism behind this effect is not yet known. We aimed to address this by studying whether people reason differently when they receive causal information and whether the type of reasoning affects decision quality. For a set of decisions about health and personal finance, we used quantitative (e.g., decision accuracy) and qualitative (e.g., free-text descriptions of decision processes) methods to capture decision quality and how people used the provided information. We found that participants given causal information focused on different aspects than did those who did not receive causal information and that reasoning linked to better decisions with no information was associated with worse decisions with causal information. Furthermore, people brought in many aspects of their existing knowledge and preferences, going beyond the conclusions licensed by the provided information. Our findings provide new insights into why decision quality differs systematically between familiar and novel scenarios and suggest directions for future work guiding everyday choices. 

Background People’s health-related knowledge influences health outcomes, as this knowledge may influence whether individuals follow advice from their doctors or public health agencies. Yet, little attention has been paid to where people obtain health information and how these information sources relate to the quality of knowledge. Objective We aim to discover what information sources people use to learn about health conditions, how these sources relate to the quality of their health knowledge, and how both the number of information sources and health knowledge change over time. Methods We surveyed 200 different individuals at 12 time points from March through September 2020. At each time point, we elicited participants’ knowledge about causes, risk factors, and preventative interventions for 8 viral (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika) and nonviral (food allergies, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], strep throat, stroke) illnesses. Participants were further asked how they learned about each illness and to rate how much they trust various sources of health information. Results We found that participants used different information sources to obtain health information about common illnesses (food allergies, strep throat, stroke) compared to emerging illnesses (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika). Participants relied mainly on news media, government agencies, and social media for information about emerging illnesses, while learning about common illnesses from family, friends, and medical professionals. Participants relied on social media for information about COVID-19, with their knowledge accuracy of COVID-19 declining over the course of the pandemic. The number of information sources participants used was positively correlated with health knowledge quality, though there was no relationship with the specific source types consulted. Conclusions Building on prior work on health information seeking and factors affecting health knowledge, we now find that people systematically consult different types of information sources by illness type and that the number of information sources people use affects the quality of individuals’ health knowledge. Interventions to disseminate health information may need to be targeted to where individuals are likely to seek out information, and these information sources differ systematically by illness type.