ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Craftwell: a feasibility and acceptability study of outdoor heritage crafting for wellbeing and mental health.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There has been increasing interest in creativity, heritage and nature to improve health-related outcomes. However, limited research has examined the intersection of heritage crafting in the context of natural spaces. This study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an archaeologically informed outdoor heritage crafting intervention. Methods: A mixed-methods single group before and after feasibility study was conducted. Participants completed questionnaires, including validated items measuring outcomes related to mental health, wellbeing, social connectedness, mindfulness, perceived state of flow and the connection with nature and the environment. Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants to explore their experiences, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Forty-eight participants from a University in the United Kingdom attended the workshops, achieving the recruitment target within the required timeframe. The response rate to all pre-workshop measures was 100% and remained at 100% post-workshop, with the exception of missing data for two participants (4.2%) for measures assessing wellbeing and anxiety, and missing data for five participants (10.4%) for the measure assessing depression. Therefore, response and retention rates indicate high levels of feasibility to conduct a robust evaluation of this intervention. Five themes were identified, including: participant motivation to sign up; engaging with creative activities in a natural setting; skilled facilitation and a flexible approach; group delivery, and duration and frequency of workshops. Overall, the workshops were positively received by participants, primarily attributing their satisfaction to engagement with group-based creative activities in a natural setting with an educational component. Conclusion: This study has shown it is feasible and acceptable to deliver and evaluate an archaeologically informed heritage crafting intervention to support wellbeing. These results suggest the need for formal testing of the potential health benefits of the intervention to address policy imperatives for developing and implementing community- and place-based approaches to support mental health.
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.