A mixed method pilot study exploring the benefits of an arts-based mindfulness group intervention with adults experiencing anxiety and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a mixed methods study, we explored the suitability of a 12-week arts-based mindfulness group program for adults experiencing anxiety/depression. We were interested in learning if an arts-based mindfulness intervention would be suitable and beneficial for these adults. We compared findings from this intervention with adults who attended a 12-week cognitive-behavioral group program. From a total of 32 participants who sought intervention at a mental health service, 15 participants chose to participate in the arts-based mindfulness group and 17 participants participated in the cognitive-behavioral group. Using the Beck Depression Inventory and the Beck Anxiety Inventory, data was collected using pre- and post-intervention self-reported scores on depression and anxiety. Post-intervention group interviews were also conducted. A multivariate analysis of variance indicated that participants in both intervention groups self-reported lower anxiety and depression scores, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. Qualitative analysis indicated that both group programs had benefits for the participants, but the experience of group participation in the two programs appeared to be different; for example, the arts-based group participants stressed mutual aid and enjoyment of the intervention while the other group participants were focused on individual learning. The arts-based program appears to be suitable for adults experiencing anxiety/depression warranting further investigation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".