Can arts-based interventions improve health? A conceptual and methodological critique

Area of Science:

• Arts and health research
• Clinical trial methodology
• Evidence-based practice

Background:

• Claims of art's efficacy in improving health and wellbeing are increasingly accepted.
• These claims support various arts-based clinical interventions and health policies.
• Thorough scrutiny of the evidence is necessary.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the evidence for arts-based interventions.
• To assess the methodological and statistical quality of cited studies.
• To examine experimental designs for demonstrating art's specific health effects.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of methodological and statistical quality of studies on arts-based interventions.
• Examination of experimental designs to identify art-specific effects.
• Review of key clinical trial features and appropriate statistical reporting.

Main Results:

• Many studies cited for efficacy lack essential clinical trial features like randomization and appropriate controls.
• Most studies fail to define "art," compare it to non-art interventions, or demonstrate art-specific physiological or neural mechanisms.
• Methodological weaknesses and flawed designs cast doubt on the claimed health benefits of art.

Conclusions:

• The evidence supporting the efficacy of arts-based interventions is significantly weaker than often claimed.
• Current research designs do not adequately demonstrate that art induces specific physiological changes for health benefits.
• Ethical considerations for patients receiving these interventions require attention due to the lack of robust evidence.