A review of theatre interventions and mental health: inspiration, elicitation and dissemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of how theatre interventions have been deployed to address mental health issues in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Our aim was to examine the role of theatre as a research activity and explore the ways in which its research potential had been actualised in the literature, and examine the extent to which authors have addressed LMICs. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review informed by PRISMA guidelines, which yielded an initial capture of 1200 items, which was narrowed down to 21 papers, including some relevant interventions from Canada and the UK too. RESULTS: The literature demonstrates extensive experience of using theatre interventions, which used a variety of performance modalities. Theatre is used as a way of inspiring change, eliciting data from audience members and participants and as a way of disseminating public health messages or research findings. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude with observations about areas which deserve further attention, such as critical deconstruction of expert-approved health messages, or the potential of the originating radical theatrical traditions to question patterns of power and legitimacy.
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 | 0.032 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".