Analysis of article using Artificial Intelligence tools
|Author||Thomson, L. J. M.; Chatterjee, H. J.|
|Title||Well-Being With Objects: Evaluating a Museum ObjectHandling Intervention for Older Adults in Health Care Settings|
Thomson, L. J. M., & Chatterjee, H. J. (2016). Well-Being With Objects: Evaluating a Museum Object-Handling Intervention for Older Adults in Health Care Settings. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 35(3), 349–362.
|Keywords||happiness; health care; measures; museum object-handling intervention; subjective well-being
|Link to article|| https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0733464814558267
|Abstract||The research objective was to conduct museum object handling with older adults in differing health care settings and measure therapeutic benefits using valid and reliable clinical scales. Previous quantitative research into museum interventions found well-being improvements in acute and elderly (Thomson, Ander, Lanceley, et al., 2012) and residential care (Thomson, Ander, Menon, et al., 2012), but participants from psychiatric care were not included in the studies. The current study compared older adults receiving psychiatric care with those in acute and elderly and residential settings. Findings showed increased positive emotion and wellness for acute and elderly and residential though not psychiatric care and increased happiness and decreased negative emotion for all settings. Participants were not diagnosed with dementia as in the Camic et al. (2014) and Eeckelaar et al. (2012) studies but analysis of audio recordings implied similar cognitive gains of enhanced confidence, social interaction, and learning. The study allowed people who would not otherwise have engaged with museums to benefit from access to museum objects albeit the intervention only measured short-term gain. It is recommended that a longitudinal study taking measures over several weeks is conducted within a randomized controlled trial to endorse the current findings.
|Metodology||A mixed, pre–post design with repeated-measures factors of score (pre- and postsession) and between participant factors of setting (acute and elderly, psychiatric or residential) was employed. Self-report measures comprised PANAS (10 positive and 10 negative emotions rated from 1 “not at all” to 5 “extremely”) and VAS (vertical scales rated from 0 “unwell”/“unhappy” to 100 “well”/“happy”). Incomplete data sets were omitted. Mauchley’s sphericity test showed data violated ANOVA assumptions so one-tailed, mixed test by setting (2 × 3) MANOVA with Wilks’s λ F value adjustment was used. Simple effects were examined using planned, one-tailed t tests. Proportion of variance was estimated by ηp 2 effect sizes. Previous studies indicated an optimum sample size (n = 14) to detect large effects with power 0.8 (80%), p
||Technique||Statistics; QoL Measures; PANAS; VAS; ANOVA analysis; MANOVA analysis|