Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Research and evaluation in arts and health is required to be more robust and demonstrate efficacy similarly to pharmacological interventions. Yet, the relationship between methods, sample size and evidence remains problematic and the relational elements of creative interventions hard to measure.

Paper long abstract:

‘Arts and health’ encompasses the broad range of ways in which artists contribute to health care and health promotion. Reflecting this complexity, the terminologies and definitions for arts and health activities are currently fragmented and disputed, with a plethora of different terms used by different groups. Furthermore, the field of arts and health is particularly vulnerable to academic dismissal and poor visibility, particularly among clinical professionals due to stark epistemological differences between the creative arts and medicine. Key to this, is a preoccupation with developing a standardised and quantified evidence base of impact, with a view to examine their potential to be ‘mechanised’/ replicated in a similar fashion to pharmacological interventions. This leads to a series of problematic assumptions about which methods and sample size are best suited to measure the efficacy of arts and health interventions which heavily rely on creative professionals as sentient agents. Drawing on observations, interviews and questionnaires with 44 participants in 17 arts and health projects (7 completed, 10 ongoing) that form part of the Health Art Research People innovation programme (HARP) and a cross-Wales online survey completed by 28 professionals and 56 participants, this paper will discuss what is being missed when we move from experiential and observational methods of assessing impact to more standardised forms of evaluation, and what methods might be best suited to evidence the relational and psychosocial agency of creative professionals who are at the heart of arts and health interventions.