Art-Based Workshops for Women: An Opportunity for Reflection on Identity and Transformation following Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals experiencing cancer often report feelings of abandonment by the healthcare system after medical treatment has ended. Specifically, women with cancer have expressed the need for support beyond traditional medical and rehabilitation periods, especially with the process of reconstructing the self in the context of enduring illness. Occupational therapists could play a critical role in providing opportunities for self-reflection and transformation through occupation for this population. Art-based occupations may be especially useful for providing space for self-reflection and personal change. This article describes the experiences of women living with cancer who participated in community art-based workshops that focused on the themes of identity and transformation. The project consisted of mixed-media workshops that were held at a community-based facility providing supportive programs for people living with cancer. Eleven women participated in the workshops led by an art-based rehabilitation researcher and a visual artist. Workshops were audio-recorded, and photographs of the participants' artwork were taken. Individual postworkshop interviews were conducted with the participants, within 4 to 6 weeks following the last workshop. Interpretive description was used to capture four themes with implications for personal change, transformation, and occupational therapy: (1) revealing: therapeutic potential; (2) sharing: vulnerability and new perspectives; (3) transforming: the self; and (4) creating: regular practices. The findings point to ways occupational therapists can form new partnerships with other disciplines and professionals to generate positive outcomes for people living with cancer.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".