Arts-based interventions for youth with mental health challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We facilitated an arts-based mindfulness group program with youths who were receiving short-term in-patient mental health supports within hospital. We aimed to explore the challenges and benefits these marginalized youths experienced through their exposure to the group intervention. Forty pregroup and 24 postgroup interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework. Findings: The qualitative findings are presented using creative nonfiction in the form of a composite vignette. The composite vignette portrays the content within the themes, creatively telling a more compelling story that illustrates key points and themes within the data set. The vignette shows how mental health challenges created problems in the youths’ lives. Although most of the youths were initially nervous about participating in the program, the strengths and arts-based nature of the program helped them to connect with others in the group and express themselves. All of the youths reported that the group program was enjoyable and beneficial. They learned to identify what they were feeling/thinking and to express these feelings/thoughts using creative means of expression. Making art helped them to develop their self-awareness and created enjoyment in the group and with the group methods. Also, learning about mindfulness helped them to think in different ways, and to focus and relax more. Application: The results of this pilot project warrant further investigation into the benefits of creative strengths-based mindfulness-based interventions for in-patient youths experiencing mental health challenges. The composite vignette centers the youths’ voices and provides a comprehensive account of their experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".