Is it premature to formulate recommendations for policy and practice, based on culture and health research? A robust critique of the CultureForHealth (2022) report.

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Identification and Illustration of Means to a Critical Assessment of Music and Health Research Literature.

In 2019, the WHO released a scoping review investigating art therapies in evidence-based healthcare practices to identify and understand the gaps in the literature. However, the studies curated were not evaluated for their quality. To address this limitation, several assessment tools to critically appraise music-based research studies that investigate therapies pertaining to preventative healthcare were investigated. Two critical appraisal tools were selected for their robustness and appropriateness for the studies in question: the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists and the Music-Based Intervention Guidelines. These tools were tested by two assessors on a total of 23 music studies from the Preventative and Prevention Health section of the WHO report. Based on the requirements for each critical appraisal tool, seven studies received a full assessment utilizing both checklists. Of these seven, two studies scored on the higher index, indicating that the studies followed a detailed methodology to provide concrete and accurate results. The findings of the study highlighted the limitations of study designs and music-based interventions. With this information, beneficial recommendations for future research in this domain are provided to improve the quality of research, ensuring its place in evidence-based healthcare practices.