Improved Self-Esteem in Artists After Participating in the “Building Confidence and Self-Esteem Toolbox Workshop”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performing and creative artists have unique occupational and lifestyle stresses and challenges that can negatively affect self-esteem. Low self-esteem not only has serious implications for their psychological and physical health, it can also affect their performance and creativity. There is a need to establish effective interventions to deal with this issue. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reported studies specific to workshops or interventions on enhancing self- esteem for artists. The Al and Malka Green Artists’ Health Centre at the Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is a unique multidisciplinary and integrative clinic serving the special needs of the artist population. We developed a workshop entitled “Building Confidence and Self Esteem Toolbox Workshop” to address this this need. We then designed a single-blind, randomized, prospective, pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop on enhancing self-esteem in artists, and to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of using the recommended tools in maintaining a healthy self-esteem, as well as maintaining physical and emotional health. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. A validated “Self-Esteem Checkup” questionnaire was administered pre- and immediately post workshop, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months post workshop. Open-ended questions were posed to study participants via email at 2 and 12 months following the workshop, and at 6 months in in-person interviews. Thirty-five professional artists consented to participate in the study, with 26 completing all study visits. Mean scores for all time points, and the individual questionnaire statement mean scores for the five timepoints increased significantly immediately post-workshop and remained statistically significantly improved by the by the 3rd follow-up 12 months later. (p<0.001). The mean self-esteem rating score increased significantly post-workshop and remained statistically significantly improved by the 3rd follow-up 12 months later. (p<0.01). Qualitative data showed positive feedback on the utilization of the tools learned in the workshop that helped maintain this improvement over a one-year period. This workshop may be an effective means of addressing the issue of self-esteem in artists. Further controlled studies of larger sample size and longer duration are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".