Claymation art therapy in early phase psychosis: A qualitative study to explore participants' experiences with the program and identify outcome effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Art therapy is a complex intervention that has mixed evidence for people with schizophrenia and scant research in early phase psychosis. Benefits appear to depend on level of engagement and more qualitative studies are needed to elucidate how it works and what outcomes to measure. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of a 13-week Claymation art therapy group intervention for young adults with early phase psychosis, and to explore participants' experiences with the program and to identify outcome effects. METHODS: Thirteen participants completed the intervention in two cohorts. The participants' experiences were explored through qualitative thematic analysis of individual interviews postintervention and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The program had a 62% retention rate and an 80% attendance rate. Qualitative analysis of postintervention and 3-month follow-up interviews identified six themes that described program elements: (a) Claymation valued; (b) film screening fostered support; (c) getting to know each other through art; (d) connecting with others with lived experience; (e) opportunity to build skills; and (f) supportive facilitators. Five themes were identified as outcome effects from both time points: (a) stress relief; (b) self-discovery; (c) pride in art; (d) confidence and hope; and (e) engagement in meaningful activity postintervention. Two themes were unique to the 3-month follow-up interviews: (a) Claymation was enabling and (b) showing my film. CONCLUSIONS: This group Claymation art therapy intervention effectively engaged people with early phase psychosis and the qualitative analysis identified program elements and outcome effects that can be evaluated in future studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".