Abstract
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.
Highlights
Clift et al (2021) have argued the need for robust critique of research on the social and health impacts of the arts
We describe work undertaken as part of the process of conducting a systematic review of research on the role of arts engagement and art therapy with children and adolescents experiencing mental disorders (See ‘Footnote 1’)
We have consulted previous relevant systematic reviews for studies in the broader filed on young people, arts engagement/art therapy and mental health
Summary
Clift et al (2021) have argued the need for robust critique of research on the social and health impacts of the arts. They consider two recent, scoping reviews of the arts and health literature (Fancourt and Finn, 2019; Fancourt et al, 2020) and document problems associated with a lack of critical perspective on the research included. Informed by this view, we are currently engaged in conducting a systematic review of controlled studies of creative arts activities/ arts therapy for children and young people experiencing challenges to their mental health. A protocol for the proposed review was developed with reference to the latest PRISMA guidelines (Møller and Myles, 2016; Page et al, 2021) and published through PROSPERO.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
