ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
The use of applied improvisation at university: a mini-review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This mini review aimed to synthesize current evidence on applied improvisation programs in higher education across disciplines, identifying their impact, implementation, evaluation methods, and future research directions. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across six databases, covering publications from 1999 to 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed empirical studies involving university populations engaging in theatrical or applied improvisation interventions. After screening, 54 relevant studies were included. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant demographics, intervention methods, evaluation methodologies, and outcomes. Results: Most studies originated from the United States (70.4%), targeting students (85.2%), particularly in healthcare education (61.1%). Interventions varied from single workshops to multi-session courses, aiming to improve skills such as communication (62.9%), empathy (25.9%), collaboration (25.9%), confidence (22.2%), and stress management (14.8%). Evaluations often relied on satisfaction surveys or in-house questionnaires, with only 27.8% using standardized tools. Methodological variability and reliance on self-reported measures limited comparability and generalizability of the results. Conclusion: Applied improvisation demonstrates potential as an innovative educational tool in higher education, enhancing key skills across various disciplines. However, significant methodological limitations-including heterogeneous interventions and assessments-hinder generalization of findings. To advance the field, future research should develop standardized assessment tools, establish consistent intervention protocols, and conduct randomized controlled longitudinal studies to assess the effectiveness and the durability of outcomes. Strengthening interdisciplinary collaborations and employing rigorous research methodologies are essential to optimize the use of applied improvisation in higher education.
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.