Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsThis paper considers weaknesses in a study by Cohen et al. (2006) on the impacts of community singing on health. These include high demand characteristics, lack of attention to attrition, flawed statistical analysis, and measurement. Nevertheless, the study is uncritically cited, in evidence reviews, with findings taken at face value.Google Scholar, SCOPUS and BASE citation functions for Cohen et al. identified 32 evidence reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Eleven of these reviews, published between 2010 and 2023, focused on creative arts interventions.We demonstrate limitations in the Cohen et al. research which undermine the conclusions they reach regarding the health benefits of group singing. Subsequent evidence reviews take the findings at face value and offer little critical commentary.We consider what is needed to improve evidence reviews in the field of creative arts and health research.A more robust approach is needed in reviewing research evidence in the field of arts and health. The Cohen et al. paper is not suitable for inclusion in future evidence reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]