Bibliotherapy: The Therapeutic use of Fiction and Poetry in Mental Health
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
Background: An overview of the way in which bibliotherapy has been defined and implemented historically is provided.Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of using fiction and poetry as a therapeutic modality in mental health. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted following the elements of the 2009 PRISMA statement. Results: This literature review demonstrated a lack of empirical studies examining the therapeutic effect of poetry or fiction in a mental health context. However, three studies indicated benefit for patients with symptoms of depression or anxiety, or for those experiencing difficulties coping with a diagnosis of cancer. Bibliotherapy can however be considered to be a promising modality within the growing field of narrative medicine. Conclusions: The use of poetry or fiction in therapy appears to be beneficial when used in a group context with a skilled facilitator. Larger randomized control trials examining this form of bibliotherapy in a variety of mental health conditions and settings are now required.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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