This paper outlines the growth of interest in the UK in the social and health impacts of the arts from the late 1990s onwards. It highlights the early critiques of claims made about such impacts by Belfiore and Mirza (Mirza, 2006a). Attention is given to two recent commissioned reviews of arts and health research, by the World Health Organization (WHO) Europe, and the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which conclude that the can arts have an important role in promoting health and reducing social and health inequalities. These reports have substantial limitations, however, and the critical concerns raised by Belfiore and Mirza remain to be addressed. The paper concludes that broad scoping reviews are ill-advised as a guide for practice and policy development, and future progress should be guided by rigorous, systematic and transparent methods that ensure that review results are trustworthy. The arts and cultural engagement may have a part to play in promoting wellbeing, but whether or not they can have a substantial role in promoting population health and reducing social and health inequalities is yet to be demonstrated.

We describe work in progress to conduct a systematic review of research on effects of arts-based programs for mental health in young people. We are at the stage of searching for relevant studies through major databases and screening extant systematic reviews for additional research which meet our inclusion criteria. At this stage, however, concerns have arisen regarding both the quality of existing primary studies and of recently published systematic reviews in this area of arts and health. As a case in point, in this paper we focus on one research report on art therapy with adolescent girls and its inclusion in three systematic reviews. We demonstrate that the reviews fail to undertake a robust critique of the Bazargan and Pakdaman paper and that the paper and reviews are flawed. Drawing on recent criticisms of systematic reviewing, we consider the value of proceeding with our systematic review as initially planned.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract