[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In recent years the health-arts nexus has received increasing attention; however, the relationship is not well understood and the extent of possible positive, negative and unintended outcomes is unknown. Guided by the biopsychosocial model of health and theories of social epidemiology, the aim of this study was to develop a framework pertaining to the relationship between arts engagement and population health that included outcomes, confounders and effect modifiers. A health-arts framework is of value to researchers seeking to build the evidence base; health professionals interested in understanding the health-arts relationship, especially those who use social prescribing for health promotion or to complement treatments; in teaching medical, nursing and health-science students about arts outcomes, as well as artists and health professionals in the development of policy and programmes.
A qualitative study was conducted. Semistructured interviews were analysed thematically.
33 Western Australian adults (18+ years). Participants were randomly selected from a pool of general population nominees who engaged in the arts for enjoyment, entertainment or as a hobby (response rate=100%).
A thematic analysis was conducted using QSR-NVivo10. The resulting framework contained seven outcome themes and 63 subthemes. Three themes specifically related to health, that is, mental, social and physical health, while economic, knowledge, art and identity outcomes were classified as health determinants. Within each theme, positive, negative and unintended outcomes (subthemes) were identified and categorised as relating to the individual and/or to the community. A list of confounding and/or effect modifying factors, related to both the arts and health, was identified.
Given the increasing pressure on health resources, the arts have the potential to assist in the promotion of health and healing. This framework expands on current knowledge, further defines the health-arts relationship and is a step towards the conceptualisation of a causal health-arts model.
BMJ Open 04/2014; 4(4):e004790. · 2.06 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Art interventions are increasingly used in public health for the enhancement of patients’ health and wellbeing. The present study investigated perceived outcomes and role of an art intervention from the collective perspectives of participants (patients who took part), deliverers (artists) and referrers (general practitioners and practice nurses).
A qualitative methodology, using interviews and focus groups, allowed investigation of participants (n = 18) perceived outcomes and role of the intervention. Participants included patients (n = 10), artists (n = 5), and referring health professionals (n = 3).
Themes that emerged from the analysis included perceived benefits, role and value of the intervention, and setting and referral process. Central to these themes were psychological and mental health benefits, an appreciated holistic treatment option and the merits of the intervention being situated in the surgery setting.
The study showed that art interventions within primary care are valuable in the promotion of public health, and in particular, patients’ mental health. Interactions between other participants and the artist were central to achieving patients’ perceived health improvement. Locating the intervention in primary care facilitated patient participation and provided health professionals with a holistic treatment alternative. There is also some evidence that participation in the intervention encourages less dependence on the health professional.
Journal of Public Health 01/2012; · 2.06 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: The arts and health evidence base needs to be grounded by common terminology and concepts from which original research and comparative studies can be developed. The aim of this study was to elucidate terminology central to understanding the arts and health causal pathway by defining arts engagement via art forms, activities and level (magnitude) of engagement. Method: The study design was cross-sectional. International experts (n=280) completed an online survey about the concept of arts engagement (response fraction 44%) to generate a list of art forms and activities. Responses were analysed using NVIVO. Participating experts then completed a second survey to rate activities by level of engagement (response fraction 57%). Ratings were analysed via descriptive statistics and factor analysis. Results: Arts engagement can be defined by five art forms (1.performing arts; 2.visual arts, design and craft; 3.community/cultural festivals, fairs and events; 4.literature; and 5.online, digital and electronic arts) and measured via 91 activities. ‘Active’ arts activities had higher levels of engagement than ‘passive’ activities. Conclusion: Study findings provide guidance about which art forms and activities should be included in population surveys and provide a measurement of exposure for use in studies investigating the relationship between arts engagement and health.
Arts & Health 10/2012; 4(3):203.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.