ArticlePloS one2025
A study protocol for assessing the effects of intangible cultural heritage experiences on human well-being.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The processual construction of emotional experience and cultural identity: a qualitative interview study of intangible cultural heritage education in Chinese universities.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A culturally tailored Zhuang embroidery intervention for psychological well-being among Zhuang adults in the retirement transition in Guangxi: a waitlist-controlled quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A study protocol for assessing the effects of intangible cultural heritage experiences on human well-being.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile interventions have been designed which use extended reality (XR) technology in promoting physical, mental and social well-being through cultural heritage experiences, well-defined methodologies for the assessment of such interventions is lacking.
objectivesWe present a protocol for evaluating the usability and effectiveness of an XR system that mediates and facilitates access to intangible cultural heritage experiences. We aim to assess the effects of these experiences on user well-being and attitudes across four case studies: ageing societies, sustainable tourism, disappearing communities, and immigration and multiculturalism. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. The effects of the XR intervention on well-being will be assessed through statistical analysis of the participants' salivary cortisol and cortisone levels, physiological signals, and subjective ratings, both pre- and post-intervention and between control and intervention groups. Usability will be measured through a system usability scale. Speech will be recorded for qualitative and natural language processing analysis. Machine learning models will be developed for prediction of affect and well-being on multimodal data. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first international and multidisciplinary studies to explore the effects of XR-mediated intangible cultural heritage experiences on well-being and attitudes towards issues of societal importance. One of the main strengths of this study is the range of data modalities it collects, and the range of methods it employs to analyse these data in a complementary manner, including qualitative, statistical and advanced machine learning methods.
conclusionThis protocol offers a method and four case studies to assess the potential of immersive XR experiences and interventions of intangible cultural heritage as contributors to increased well-being and as actors of societal change. It stands as a reference model for further similar interventions in the field.
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.