Background
Community-based engagement has been crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic, fostering informal and local mutual aid between individuals, community groups, charities, community interest companies and local authorities. The current rapid evidence review examines the emergence of community-based arts, nature, music, theatre and other types of cultural engagement amongst UK communities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on all community engagement with a sub-focus on provisions accessed by and targeted towards vulnerable groups.
Methods
Two hundred and fifty-six resources created between February 2020 and January 2021 were reviewed. Resources were identified through Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, MedRXic, PsycharXiv, and supplemented with searches for grey literature and items in the public domain. The majority reported services that had been adapted to become online, telephone based or delivered at a distance from doorsteps. Over a third of identified resources (37%) were targeted towards socioeconomic outcomes, such as social isolation, financial difficulty or caregiver responsibilities. Over a quarter of resources (28%) were targeted towards psychological outcomes, including individuals with mild to moderate anxiety and depression, acute mental health needs, or neurodevelopmental conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder. Under a fifth of resources (17%) were targeted towards physiological outcomes, including individuals with health conditions such as dementia, chronic pain, immunological conditions, or other conditions requiring shielding. The remaining resources were open to everyone, or targeted towards other groups that did not fall into vulnerability categories such as parents or university students. Several quality assessment frameworks were used to evaluate the quality of data. Whilst a number of peer reviewed, grey literature and public domain items were identified, less than half of the identified literature met quality thresholds. The pace of the response to the pandemic may have meant robust evaluation procedures were not always in place.
Conclusions
Outreach to vulnerable audiences was generally observed via a plethora of organisations, however more robust and longitudinal evidence is needed as to the efficacy and impact of community programmes, services and activities.