ArticlePloS one2024
How to optimise creative art therapy to foster the mental health of refugee adolescents? A Delphi study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to identify the most recommended components of creative art therapy (CAT) to improve the mental health of refugee adolescents.
designA three-round Delphi design is proposed. The first round will include semi-structured interviews with a panel of 12 CAT professionals worldwide and 12 refugee adolescents aged 10-24 in Jordan with a history of participating in creative arts interventions. The hybrid approach of coding and thematic analysis will be conducted to develop statements on recommended CAT components from the interview narratives. In the second round, the same and newly enrolled 24 professionals and 24 refugee adolescents will be asked to rate the statements according to their importance, propose new statements, and add comments. A similar procedure will be followed in the third round, where panellists will rate new and old statements after perusing the feedback from the second round.
main outcome measureA statement will gain consensus and indicate essential components when rated 'essential' or 'very important' by > = 80% of panellists. Very important components are those with the same ratings by 60-79.9% of panellists.
resultsA list of essential and very important components, perspectives and suggestions will be provided to guide practice and intervention development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.