Development and evaluation of an innovative creative arts program on a tertiary palliative care unit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
167 Background: The use of creative arts in palliative care is a unique psychosocial-spiritual intervention, yet there are limited evaluation studies of these programs. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the development and evaluation of a creative arts program, entitled “Tile Tales,” on a 20-bed tertiary palliative care unit. Methods: The “Tile Tales” program encourages the creative exploration of emotions, values and beliefs through the creation of a visual expression on a ceramic tile, with an accompanying story. In this second phase of a three-phase evaluation, participants (18 years or older) were asked to complete a survey at the end of their experience. Results: Over a two-year period (January, 2016 – December, 2017), 40 tiles were completed by 52 participants. Children under 18 years (n = 16) were excluded from further analysis. Twenty-one of 36 adult participants (58%) completed surveys, consisting of family members (n = 9, 43%), patients (n = 6, 28.5%) and staff (n = 6, 28.5%). Participants rated their experience as very meaningful (M 4.8, SD 0.5, scale 0-5). The three highest average impact scores (scale 0-5) were: raising spirits (M 4.9, SC 0.3), expression of feelings (M 4.6, SD .6) and working through grief (M 4.6, SD 0.7). Qualitative comments included themes of gratitude, leaving a legacy, meaning and connecting with others. Conclusions: This innovative creative arts program benefited patients, family and staff, in the expression of emotions and sharing personal stories. These findings will assist with improving program delivery and future planning of the creative arts in palliative care.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".