| Literature DB >> 32231134 |
Dorit Segal-Engelchin1, Netta Achdut1, Efrat Huss1, Orly Sarid1.
Abstract
Research on mental health professionals (MHPs) exposed to a shared war reality indicates that they are subject to emotional distress, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, and vicarious trauma. This article focuses on a CB-ART (cognitive behavioral and art-based) intervention implemented during the 2014 Gaza conflict with 51 MHPs who shared war-related experiences with their clients. The intervention included drawing pictures related to three topics: (1) war-related stressors, (2) coping resources, and (3) integration of the stressful image and the resources drawing. The major aims of the study were (1) to examine whether significant changes occurred in MHP distress levels after the intervention; (2) to explore the narratives of the three drawing and their compositional characteristics; and (3) to determine which of selected formats of the integrated drawing and compositional transformations of the stressful image are associated with greater distress reduction. Results indicate that MHP distress levels significantly decreased after the intervention. This stress-reducing effect was also reflected in differences between the compositional elements of the 'stress drawing' and the 'integrated drawing,' which includes elements of resources. Reduced distress accompanied compositional transformations of the stressful image. MHPs can further use the easily implemented intervention described here as a coping tool in other stressful situations.Entities:
Keywords: art-based intervention; coping resources; distress; mental health professionals; shared war realty; war-related stressors
Year: 2020 PMID: 32231134 PMCID: PMC7177500 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 51).
| Characteristics |
| % or Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 37.5 (12.5) | |
| 23–35 | 26 | 52.0 |
| 36–54 | 19 | 38.0 |
| 55 and above | 5 | 10.0 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 7 | 14.0 |
| Female | 43 | 86.0 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 16 | 32.0 |
| Married | 23 | 46.0 |
| Cohabiting | 9 | 18.0 |
| Divorced/Separated | 2 | 4.0 |
| Has children | ||
| Yes | 26 | 52.0 |
| No | 24 | 48.0 |
| Country of birth | ||
| Israel | 41 | 82.0 |
| Other (US, Europe, FSU) | 9 | 18.0 |
| Religion | ||
| Jewish | 49 | 96.0 |
| Muslim | 2 | 4.0 |
| Degree of religiosity | ||
| Secular | 36 | 72.0 |
| Traditional or religious | 14 | 28.0 |
| Education | ||
| Academic-B.A. degree | 36 | 72.0 |
| Academic-M.A. degree | 14 | 28.0 |
| Perceived financial situation | ||
| Bad | 4 | 8.0 |
| Fair | 26 | 52.0 |
| Good or very good | 20 | 40.0 |
Pre–post Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDs) scores (N = 51).
| SUDS Score Mean (SD) | Paired Sample | |
|---|---|---|
| SUDS score at t1 | 5.97 (2.22) | |
| SUDS score at t2 | 4.46 (1.98) | |
| Mean difference | 1.51 (1.39) | 7.41 ** |
** p < 0.01.
Descriptive statistics of the compositional characteristics of the three drawings (N = 51).
| Drawings | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Stress Drawing (%) | Resources Drawing (%) | Integrated Drawing (%) | |
| Background | |||
| No background | 49.0 | 37.3 | 29.4 |
| Had background | 51.0 | 62.7 | 76.6 |
| Number of objects | |||
| One | 25.5 | 7.8 | 9.8 |
| Several | 74.5 | 92.2 | 90.2 |
| Object placement | |||
| Center of the drawing | 37.3 | 19.6 | 13.7 |
| All over the drawing | 62.7 | 80.4 | 86.3 |
| Object size | |||
| Large-medium | 54.9 | 54.9 | 45.1 |
| Small or mixed | 45.1 | 45.1 | 54.9 |
| Colors | |||
| Black | |||
| None or minor | 52.9 | 96.1 | 78.4 |
| Dominant or only | 47.1 | 3.9 | 21.6 |
| Green | |||
| None or minor | 92.2 | 68.6 | 66.7 |
| Dominant or only | 7.8 | 31.4 | 33.3 |
| Grey | |||
| None or minor | 88.2 | 98.0 | 94.1 |
| Dominant or only | 11.8 | 2.0 | 5.9 |
Figure 1Selecting a new sheet of paper as the format for the integrative drawing.
Figure 2Selecting the stress drawing as the format for the integrative drawing.
SUDS-difference scores by the selected format of the integrated drawing and compositional transformations: stress-drawing versus integrated drawing (N = 51).
| SUDS-Difference | Independent Sample | |
|---|---|---|
| Selected format for the integrative drawing | 1.828 * | |
| Stress drawing | −0.92 (0.86) | |
| Resources drawing or a new drawing | −1.73 (0.15) | |
| Shape transformation | 0.150 | |
| Addition of shapes | −1.50 (1.40) | |
| Change or omission of shapes | −1.60 (1.51) | |
| Color transformation | −0.78 | |
| Yes | −1.59 (1.36) | |
| No | −1.20 (1.54) | |
| Size transformation | −1.786 * | |
| Reduction of initial size | −1.87 (1.22) | |
| Maintenance of initial size | −1.13 (1.48) |
* p < 0.05.