A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Effects of an Innovative Art-Based Rehabilitation Program for Youths with Stabilized Psychiatric Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Art-based interventions are promising strategies to improve the well-being and adjustment of youths suffering from mental disorders, but rigorous evaluations of these interventions are scarce and warranted. This study reports on a mixed methods evaluation of the effects of All on Stage, an innovative artbased group program aimed at fostering the rehabilitation of adolescents and young adults with recently stabilized psychiatric disorders. Method: Fifteen participants took part in the program and were included in the evaluation. At pre-program, post-program, and three-month follow-up, participants completed measures of social comfort and competence and self-perception. At the same time points, clinicians who referred participants to the program assessed their global functioning using standardized measures. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with participants and clinicians. Results: Post-program and follow-up improvements in the general functioning of participants were observed with clinician-rated measures (p < 0.01) and were largely echoed in interview material. Improvements in selfperception and social comfort and competence were not observed quantitatively, but were reported in interviews by half of program participants and the large majority of clinicians who referred them. Conclusions: Findings suggest that All on Stage can be successful at improving the global functioning of youths with stabilized psychiatric disorders, as well as the self-perception and the social comfort and competence of a fair proportion of them. This preliminary evaluation supports the relevance and potential efficacy of the program All on Stage and of similar initiatives as approaches to foster the rehabilitation of youths suffering from mental disorders. Keywords: Art-based interventions, effects evaluation, mental disorders, mixed methods, rehabilitation, youths.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".