Art therapy as treatment modality for persons living with dementia- a protocol for a scoping review of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To establish a robust understanding of the state of the evidence on the effectiveness and/or efficacy of art therapy (AT) as a non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) modality for persons living with dementia (PLWD). Background Over the past decade, AT has received increased attention from health care professionals and researchers as having a potential role to play within treatment plans for PLWD.(1-4) Inclusion criteria This scoping review will include systematic reviews from health-related disciplines conducted within the last 20 years that report the effectiveness and/or efficacy of AT as an NPT modality for PLWD and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) as their main objective. Study outcomes must include cognition, quality of life, emotional and psychological well-being, and/or neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). Methods A scoping review of systematic reviews was selected to outline different types of evidence and to identify gaps in the literature. The proposed review will be guided by the methodological framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will therefore specify the research question, identify relevant studies, select eligible studies, extract, collate, and summarize our results. We will not conduct a quality appraisal of the included studies as this review aims to explore the general scope of research conducted that assesses AT effectiveness and efficacy in PLWD.
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 | 0.111 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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".