{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Is it premature to formulate recommendations for policy and practice, based on culture and health research? A robust critique of the CultureForHealth (2022) report.
{Author}: Kaasgaard M;Grebosz-Haring K;Davies C;Musgrave G;Shriraam J;McCrary JM;Clift S;
{Journal}: Front Public Health
{Volume}: 12
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024
{Factor}: 6.461
{DOI}: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1414070
{Abstract}: UNASSIGNED: Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).
UNASSIGNED: The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.
UNASSIGNED: The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.