Effectiveness of using calligraphic activity to treat people with schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial in Southern Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Prior research has shown preliminary evidence that calligraphy activity improves various body functions and decreases severity of psychotic symptoms in individuals with schizophrenia. However, major limitations of earlier studies include small and heterogeneous samples. The current large-scale randomized controlled trial examined effects of calligraphy activity on cognition (including attention), emotions, psychotic symptoms, quality of life, and mood in people with schizophrenia.Methods:One-hundred-and-fifty patients with schizophrenia were randomly allocated to the treatment group (receiving calligraphy activity) or the control group (receiving general activity), both of which lasted for 24 weeks (70 minutes per session; one session per week). Assessments were conducted at pretest, posttest, and three-month follow-up. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Chu’s Attention Test, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, World Health Questionnaire on the Quality of Life-Brief Form, and Visual Analogue Scale were used.Results:Improved cognition and attention were found in both groups, although no group effects were shown. The treatment group appeared to show lower severity of positive symptoms at follow-up than posttest, whereas the control group appeared to show the opposite pattern. Improved mood was found in the treatment group.Conclusion:This study provides evidence regarding effects of calligraphy activity on increasing cognition and potentially decreasing severity of positive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. Calligraphy activity can be incorporated in clinical occupational therapy and may be provided to supplement medication treatment.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03882619; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03882619
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.251 | 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".