MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087536037 · doi:10.1136/medhum-2020-011845

The rationales for and challenges with employing arts-based health services research (ABHSR): a qualitative systematic review of primary studies

2020· review· en· W3087536037 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Humanities · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchPhotovoiceThe artsSociologyCLARITYHealth services researchFocus groupCitizen journalismThematic analysisHealth careParticipatory action researchPublic relationsMedical educationPsychologyMedicineSocial scienceNursingPublic healthComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health services research (HSR) is an interdisciplinary field that investigates and improves the design and delivery of health services from individual, group, organisational and system perspectives. HSR examines complex problems within health systems. Qualitative research plays an important role in aiding us to develop a nuanced understanding of patients, family, healthcare providers, teams and systems. However, the overwhelming majority of HSR publications using qualitative research use traditional methods such as focus groups and interviews. Arts-based research-artistic and creative forms of data collection such as dance, drama and photovoice-have had limited uptake in HSR due to the lack of clarity in the methods, their rationales and potential impacts. To address this uncertainty, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of studies that have employed arts-based research in HSR topics. We searched four databases for peer-reviewed, primary HSR studies. Using conventional content analysis, we analysed the rationales for using arts-based approaches in 42 primary qualitative studies. We found four rationales for using arts-based approaches for HSR: (1) Capture aspects of a topic that may be overlooked, ignored or not conceptualised by other methods (ie, quantitative and interview-based qualitative methods). (2) Allow participants to reflect on their own experiences. (3) Generate valuable community knowledge to inform intervention design and delivery. (4) Formulate research projects that are more participatory in nature. This review provides health services researchers with the tools, reasons, rationales and justifications for using arts-based methods. We conclude this review by discussing the practicalities of making arts-based approaches commensurable to HSR.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.957
GPT teacher head0.779
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it