Effects of art therapy in cancer care: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of art therapy on cancer patients' quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched from their inception up to 20 August 2019. Trials examining the effects of art therapy on physical and psychological symptoms and quality of life versus a control group were included. The methodological quality of the included randomised controlled trials was assessed using the risk of bias tool of Cochrane Handbook. Meanwhile, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the non-randomised studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 587 cancer patients were included. The results revealed that art therapy significantly reduced anxiety symptoms (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.90, 0.02], p = .04), depression symptoms (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.21], p < .01), and fatigue (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.09], p = .01) in cancer patients. Art therapy also significantly improved the quality of life of cancer patients (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI [0.18, 0.68], p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Art therapy had a positive effect on quality of life and symptoms in cancer patients and can be used as a complementary treatment for cancer patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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