The Effectiveness of Dance Therapy as an Adjunct to Rehabilitation of Adults With a Physical Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: To determine the added benefit on participants’ mobility and participation of a 12-week dance therapy (DT) intervention combined with usual physical rehabilitation for adults with varied physical disabilities. Their appreciation of DT was also explored. Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental study pre-post test with a non-equivalent control group and repeated measurements pre, post and at 3-month follow-up. Results: Although participants in both groups significantly improved over time (at 12 weeks and at follow-up) compared to baseline on mobility (Timed up and go, TUG) and participation (e.g. Life-H scores and number of leisure activities), treatment effects analysis using propensity score matching showed no significant treatment effect of DT. The TUG scores showed the best promise of a treatment effect. DT participants’ Flow State Scale scores significantly improved (p <0.01) for 5/9 dimensions of flow (Being in control, Loss of self-consciousness) and they all recommended DT. Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate an added benefit of the DT intervention in improving participants’ mobility and participation. Overwhelmingly favorable participants’ opinions about the intervention support its potential impact.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".