Coloring Activities for Anxiety Reduction and Mood Improvement in Taiwanese Community‐Dwelling Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the effect of mandala coloring, plaid pattern coloring, and free‐form drawing activities on anxiety and mood in older Taiwanese adults. A total of 120 older adults aged 55 years to 75 years were recruited from 18 community‐based learning centers for older adults in southern Taiwan. They were randomly assigned to engage in one of the following four activities for 20 minutes: (1) mandala coloring group, (2) plaid pattern coloring group, (3) free‐form drawing group, and (4) reading group (control). Information on sociodemographic, lifestyle, and perceived health status was collected at the baseline. In addition, anxiety levels, measured using the 20‐item State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory–State Anxiety Scale (STAI‐S), were ascertained at the baseline (T1), after a brief anxiety induction (T2), and at the end of the assigned activity (T3). The mean anxiety levels among the four groups at T3 were analyzed using analysis of covariance, followed by Šidák multiple comparison test, as appropriate. The mean age of the 120 study participants was 65.1 years and 73.3% were females. A significantly lower anxiety level was observed only in the mandala coloring group (least square mean = 28.2; 95% confidence interval = 24.7–31.7) compared with the control group (least square mean = 36.0; 95% confidence interval = 32.9–39.2) ( P = 0.004, partial eta‐squared = 0.113). Furthermore, when the STAI‐S was analyzed at the item level, the mandala coloring group was significantly different from the control group in the following six feelings: calmed down, safe, at ease, rested, satisfied, and I feel good. In conclusion, short‐term mandala coloring activity could significantly alleviate self‐induced anxiety in community‐dwelling older adults. Further studies on the long‐term effects of mandala coloring activity in improving the emotional well‐being of older adults are warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".