How and Why Do They Use Dietary Supplements? Unveiling Dietary Supplements Consumption in Social Commerce in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary supplements (DS) are used by consumers all over the world to treat disease, prevent disease, or promote health.Various categories of DS are widely distributed and intensively advertised through the Internet and social media.However, in spite of the fact that clinical studies show some DS are ineffective in fulfilling their functional purposes, consumers are committed to the purchase and use of these DS.This apparent paradox leads us to seek answers for the following two research questions: "What are the benefits achieved by committed DS users?" and "How do they practice in order to achieve those benefits?"By answering these two research questions, this study aims to understand and interpret the particular horizons of meaning associated with a specific consumption object, and the variety of ways in which people consume.DS consumption in social commerce in China provides the research context and facilitates the examination of the benefits achieved by DS consumers and their practices for achieving those benefits.Active interviewing was employed to obtain a rich set of data from twenty-two mass elite females who are committed to the consumption of DS in the context of social commerce in China.Bourdieu's and Giddens's sociological theories of structure-agency dialectic provide the theoretical lens for this research.In addition, four foundational works that apply sociological perspectives to understand individuals' health consumption and promotion behaviors assist with the analysis: Joy and Venkatesh's (1994) and Thompson and Hirschman's (1995) theories of the body culture and morality, Abel's (1991) theory of health-related lifestyles, and Balbo's (2007) theory of the gender perspective in health promotion.iii A grounded theory analysis based on the constructivist view and abductive reasoning revealed that individuals' DS consumption was influenced by the structureagency dialectic, in which four different strategies were developed: self-learning, disciplined use, consumerism, and socializing.While practicing the four strategies, individuals selectively act upon the choices existing in the structure to actively engage in health promotion and to relieve the tensions caused by the structure-agency interplay, for example, the difficulty in evaluating the functional effectiveness of DS products.As a result, individuals achieve not only functional benefits from DS consumption but also various purposes associated with identity expression and status distinction.In this process, multiple layers of meanings of DS consumption are socially constructed.Importantly, this research provides implications for the DS consumption literature, health promotion literature, and consumer behavior literature.Recommendations for health product marketers and health promotion policymakers are suggested.Opportunities for future research are also proposed and discussed.I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my co-supervisors -Dr.Leighann Neilson and Dr. Shaobo Ji -for their guidance and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies.As my mentors, they have shared with me their time, expertise, and insight, which helps me to become a better researcher.Furthermore, as my friends, they have offered me enormous trust
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".