Physician-prescribed museum visit benefits on mental health: results of an experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Art and cultural activities have been associated with health benefits. The effects of a physician-prescribed museum visit on the mental health of patients remain to unclear. This study aims to examine the effects of a single visit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), prescribed by a physician, on the wellbeing and quality of life of patients living in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). Methods The study used a pre-post intervention, non-randomized single-arm, experimental design with prospective data collection. A total of 86 patients (mean age 51.5 ± 17.6, 82.6% female) completed the study. The intervention consisted in a single MMFA visit prescribed by a primary or secondary care physician. Well-being and quality of life were assessed before and after the MMFA visit using validated self-questionnaires completed on a web-based platform including the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), respectively. Participants’ baseline characteristics were also recorded. Results There was a significant improvement of both WEMWBS (≤0.001) and EQ-5D (p ≤ 0.002) scores between after and before the MMFA visit. The increase in WEMWBS score was positively associated with self-reported unhappiness (coefficient of regression beta (ß) = 15.15 with 95% confident interval (CI) = [4.30,25.99] and p = 0.007) and the presence an acute disease (ß = 10.76 with 95% CI = [3.15,18.37] and p = 0.006). Interpretation A physician-prescribed visit to the MMFA was associated with improved mental health. These results suggest that museums could play a valuable role as partners in care pathways for patients in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05445453 , identifier NCT05445453.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".