Investigation of the effect of goal-oriented dance movement therapy on depressive symptoms in people with schizophrenia: a rater-blinded randomised controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims Depression is a common symptom in schizophrenia and can negatively affect treatment. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of goal‑oriented dance or movement therapy on depressive symptoms in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. Methods The study was designed as a randomised controlled rater‑blinded study, in which 32 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to either the intervention (dance movement therapy) group or control group. The intervention consisted of twice‑weekly goal‑oriented dance movement therapy sessions, with each session lasting approximately 40–50 minutes, for a total of 8 weeks. Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. Results The depressive symptoms before and after the intervention were compared. No significant differences between groups were observed at baseline. There was no change in the control group, whereas a significant improvement on depressive symptoms was observed in the total Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia score in the dance movement therapy group after the intervention. Conclusions Goal‑oriented dance movement therapy is an effective treatment for the depressive symptoms in schizophrenia patients in addition to conventional treatments. Although the results are favourable, further studies are needed to test its effectiveness. Implications for practice In the traditional treatment of schizophrenia, it is important to evaluate depression and support the treatment with approaches such as dance movement therapy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".