Creative Arts Occupations in Therapeutic Practice: A Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a matrix method literature review of published research on the use of creative arts occupations in therapeutic practice. Peer-reviewed original research articles, published between the years 2000 and 2008, were included in the review. The research articles studied creative arts occupations as a therapeutic medium. Twenty-three articles, located through multiple electronic searches, were identified as meeting the criteria of the review. Data analysis included quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. The findings suggest that the use of creative arts occupations in therapeutic practice may have important qualitative value related to health and wellbeing. Six predominant outcomes were most frequently identified across the studies: enhanced perceived control, building a sense of self, expression, transforming the illness experience, gaining a sense of purpose and building social support. The results suggest that qualitative research may well be the methodology of choice for the study of this topic and raise questions about the paucity of research in this area. Further research into the use of creative arts occupations as a therapeutic approach in occupational therapy and other health and social care disciplines is warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it