PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews
A systematic review of the wellbeing outcomes of visual arts for adults (“working-age”, 15-64 years) with mental health conditions, and of the processes by which wellbeing outcomes are achieved
Alan Tomlinson, Jack Lane, Guy Julier, Louise Mansfield, Christina Victor, Tess Kay, Lily Grigsby-Duffy, Alistair John, Catherine Meads, Norma Daykin, Christine Tapson, Kerry Ball, Stefano Testoni, Paul Dolan
Alan Tomlinson, Jack Lane, Guy Julier, Louise Mansfield, Christina Victor, Tess Kay, Lily Grigsby-Duffy, Alistair John, Catherine Meads, Norma Daykin, Christine Tapson, Kerry Ball, Stefano Testoni, Paul Dolan. A systematic review of the wellbeing outcomes of visual arts for adults (“working-age”, 15-64 years) with mental health conditions, and of the processes by which wellbeing outcomes are achieved.
Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42017061008
What are the subjective wellbeing outcomes of engaging with (taking part in, performing, viewing) visual arts for adults (“working-age’, 15-64 years) with diagnosed mental health conditions?
What are the processes by which the subjective wellbeing outcomes are achieved?
We will search the following electronic bibliographic databases: PsycINFO, OVID MEDLINE, Eric, Arts and Humanities Citation Index (Web of Science), Social Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, PILOTS, CINAHL, and the International Index to Performing Arts (IIPA).
For a review of health economic evaluations we will separately search the following databases OVID MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), HTA Technology Assessment database.
Electronic databases will be searched using a combination of controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and free text terms. Search terms will be incorporated to target empirical evidence on visual arts, mental health and wellbeing. The search strategy for MEDLINE is available in the published protocol.
The search terms will be adapted for use with other bibliographic databases. We will use specific filters to identify health economic evaluations.
There will be no language restrictions. Studies published between January 2007 and the date the searches are run will be sought.
The reference lists of all relevant reviews from the last 5 years will be hand-searched to attempt to identify additional relevant empirical evidence.
A search of ‘grey literature’ will be conducted via an online call for evidence. Grey literature will be included if it is a final evaluation or report on empirical data, has the evaluation of visual arts interventions as the central objective, are published between 2014-2017, and includes details of authors (individuals, groups or organisations).
Types of study to be included
Empirical research: quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods, outcomes or process evaluations, and published from 2007-2017, will be included. Grey literature and practice surveys published from 2014 will be included.
Discussion articles, commentaries or opinion pieces not presenting empirical or theoretical research will be excluded.
Condition or domain being studied
Subjective wellbeing in people (15-64 years) with a mental health condition.
Inclusion: 15-64 year old population, worldwide, with a mental health condition.
Exclusion: Dementia patients, paid professionals, children (14 and under) and Elderly people (65 and over).
Focus on participatory visual art interventions including making, viewing and performing. This will exclude art therapy for clinical outcomes, but will include arts-based wellbeing interventions offered by a range of professionals and volunteers.
We will exclude evidence relating to paid professional artists and clinical procedures such as surgery, medical tests and diagnostics.
No visual art intervention or usual routine/care, i.e. an inactive comparator or historical/time-based comparator, and including studies with an alternative intervention as the comparator/comparison group.
Studies focusing on visual arts interventions for a mental health population will be included.
Research from countries economically similar to the UK will be included.
Subjective wellbeing using any recognised method or measure. For the health economic component, key outcomes are the outputs from cost, cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-consequence analyses.
Changes in subjective wellbeing.
We will review evidence on the processes by which wellbeing interventions are designed and delivered in achieving the primary outcome.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Data will be extracted independently by two overview authors using a standardised form. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus. Where agreement cannot be reached a third overview author will consider the paper and a majority decision will be reached. For quantitative evidence of intervention effectiveness the data extraction form will include the following details: evaluation design and objectives (the interventions studied and control conditions used, including detail where available on the intervention content, dose and adherence, and ethics); sample (size, representativeness, reporting on drop-out, attrition and details of participants including demographics); the outcome measures (independence, validity, reliability, appropriateness to wellbeing impact questions); analysis (assessment of the methodological quality/risk of bias); and the presence of possible conflicts of interest for authors. For qualitative evidence of intervention effectiveness the data extraction form will include the following details: research design and objectives (interpretive, examining subjective experiences of participants, ethics); data collection (type/form, appropriateness, recording, theoretical justification); participants (numbers and details including demographic, recruitment strategy, theoretical justification); analysis (rigour, assessment of methodological quality, identification of bias/involvement of researcher, attribution of data to respondents, theoretical justification, relevance to wellbeing impact question). For health economic studies we will extract the following additional information: included study designs - analytic methods, perspective, time horizon, discount rate, type of sensitivity analysis undertaken, type and sources of data use for resource use and costs; reporting figures for costs; methods of preference elicitation (e.g. contingent valuation, revealed preferences, trade-off methods); reporting estimates of preference values, main results including specified types of ICERs (e.g. health service or societal perspective); and the main health economic conclusions of the review. We will contact the authors of articles in the event that the required information cannot be extracted from the studies and is essential for interpretation of their results.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
We will use the quality checklists for quantitative and qualitative studies detailed in the What Works Centre for Wellbeing methods guide, and for economic evaluations (The Drummond Checklist, 1996) to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Included studies are likely to have assessed the methodological quality/risk of bias in a variety of ways. We will use the judgements made by the authors of studies regarding the quality of evidence/risk of bias and report it within the context of our assessment of the quality of a study itself.
Strategy for data synthesis
We will tabulate summaries of the characteristics of the included studies. The precise findings presented will primarily be determined by the content of the included studies. We will present effect sizes using appropriate metrics including estimates of precision. Data will be grouped according to visual art intervention type and subjective wellbeing outcomes. We will report on processes by which interventions work and do not work, for whom and in what contexts in enhancing wellbeing. Important limitations within the evidence base will be presented and discussed. We will consider the possible influence of publication/small study biases on study findings. Where included studies have not rated the quality of the body of evidence we will apply the GRADE approach for key findings. For health economic evidence we will summarise the study designs, analytic methods, perspective, time horizon, discount rate, type of sensitivity analysis undertaken, type and sources of data use for resource use and costs, reporting figures for costs, methods and results of preference elicitation, main results including specified types of ICERs.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
Via the What Works Centre for Wellbeing website and other stakeholder engagement activities.
Contact details for further information
Mr Jack Lane
Centre for Research and Development, School of Humanities, University of Brighton, 58-67 Grand Parade, East Sussex, BN2 OJY
Organisational affiliation of the review
What Works Centre for Wellbeing
Professor Alan Tomlinson, University of Brighton Mr Jack Lane, University of Brighton Professor Guy Julier, University of Brighton Dr Louise Mansfield, Brunel University London Professor Christina Victor, Brunel University London Professor Tess Kay, Brunel University London Ms Lily Grigsby-Duffy, Brunel University London Dr Alistair John, Brunel University London Dr Catherine Meads, Anglia Ruskin University Professor Norma Daykin, University of Winchester Dr Christine Tapson, University of Winchester Dr Kerry Ball, University of Winchester Mr Stefano Testoni, London School of Economics Professor Paul Dolan, London School of Economics
Anticipated or actual start date
01 March 2017
Anticipated completion date
31 July 2017
ESRC research grant ES/N003721/1 which forms part of the evidence review programme within the UK What Works Centre for Wellbeing.
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.