What works for wellbeing? A systematic review of wellbeing outcomes for music and singing in adults.

AIMS: The role of arts and music in supporting subjective wellbeing (SWB) is increasingly recognised. Robust evidence is needed to support policy and practice. This article reports on the first of four reviews of Culture, Sport and Wellbeing (CSW) commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded What Works Centre for Wellbeing ( https://whatworkswellbeing.org/ ). OBJECTIVE: To identify SWB outcomes for music and singing in adults. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PsychInfo, Medline, ERIC, Arts and Humanities, Social Science and Science Citation Indexes, Scopus, PILOTS and CINAHL databases. From 5,397 records identified, 61 relevant records were assessed using GRADE and CERQual schema. RESULTS: A wide range of wellbeing measures was used, with no consistency in how SWB was measured across the studies. A wide range of activities was reported, most commonly music listening and regular group singing. Music has been associated with reduced anxiety in young adults, enhanced mood and purpose in adults and mental wellbeing, quality of life, self-awareness and coping in people with diagnosed health conditions. Music and singing have been shown to be effective in enhancing morale and reducing risk of depression in older people. Few studies address SWB in people with dementia. While there are a few studies of music with marginalised communities, participants in community choirs tend to be female, white and relatively well educated. Research challenges include recruiting participants with baseline wellbeing scores that are low enough to record any significant or noteworthy change following a music or singing intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is reliable evidence for positive effects of music and singing on wellbeing in adults. There remains a need for research with sub-groups who are at greater risk of lower levels of wellbeing, and on the processes by which wellbeing outcomes are, or are not, achieved.

What works for wellbeing in culture and sport? Report of a DELPHI process to support coproduction and establish principles and parameters of an evidence review.

AIMS: There is a growing recognition of the ways in which culture and sport can contribute to wellbeing. A strong evidence base is needed to support innovative service development and a 3-year research programme is being undertaken to capture best evidence of wellbeing impacts and outcomes of cultural and sporting activities in order to inform UK policy and practice. This article provides an overview of methods and findings from an initial coproduction process with key stakeholders that sought to explore and agree principles and parameters of the evidence review for culture, sport and wellbeing (CSW). METHODS: A two-stage DELPHI process was conducted with a purposeful sample of 57 stakeholders between August and December 2015. Participants were drawn from a range of culture and sport organisations and included commissioners and managers, policy makers, representatives of service delivery organisations (SDOs) and scholars. The DELPHI 1 questionnaire was developed from extensive consultation in July and August 2015. It explored definitions of wellbeing, the role of evidence, quality assessment, and the culture and sport populations, settings and interventions that are most likely to deliver wellbeing outcomes. Following further consultation, the results, presented as a series of ranked statements, were sent back to participants (DELPHI 2), which allowed them to reflect on and, if they wished, express agreement or disagreement with the emerging consensus. RESULTS: A total of 40 stakeholders (70.02%) responded to the DELPHI questionnaires. DELPHI 1 mapped areas of agreement and disagreement, confirmed in DELPHI 2. The exercise drew together the key priorities for the CSW evidence review. CONCLUSION: The DELPHI process, in combination with face-to-face deliberation, enabled stakeholders to engage in complex discussion and express nuanced priorities while also allowing the group to come to an overall consensus and agree outcomes. The results will inform the CSW evidence review programme until its completion in March 2018.