The Effectiveness of Combining Visual Art Activities and Physical Exercise for Older Adults on Well-Being or Quality of Life and Mood: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual art activities and physical exercise are both low-intensity and low-cost interventions. The present study aims to comprehensively describe published literature on the effectiveness of a combination of these interventions on well-being or quality of life (QoL) and mood of older adults. Embase, CINAHL, Ovid Medline (R), PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published between 1990 and 2015 that evaluated interventions combining visual art therapy and exercise for people aged 50 years or older with at least one resultant well-being or QoL or mood outcome. We found 10 studies utilizing different combination programs and outcome measures, and most had small sample sizes. Seventy percent of the studies reported that combining both interventions was effective in improving well-being or QoL and mood in older adults. Future studies are, however, requisite to investigate whether in the respective population such a combination is more effective than either of the interventions alone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".