Scientific evidence on artistic interventions: a review
PDF1. Active visual art therapy
- Publication analysed: Joschko et al. (2024) [1]
Study type and quality. Systematic review with meta-analysis of 69 randomised trials, of which 50 were included in the quantitative analyses, involving 2,766 participants and 217 outcome measures. The methodology is rigorous, but the quality of the primary studies is low to moderate due to frequent risks of bias.
Results. Art therapy was associated with a small to moderate overall effect: a standardised mean difference of 0.38 for pre-to-post change scores and 0.19 in post-intervention scores. However, of the 217 outcome measures analysed, 18% favoured art therapy, 1% favoured the control group and 81% showed no difference.
Limitations. The studies vary considerably in terms of the populations studied, indications, the artistic practices offered, duration and control groups. Sample sizes are often small, follow-up periods are short and publication bias is possible. The analyses are exploratory, focus mainly on immediate effects and do not allow the persistence of these effects to be established.
Conclusion. Visual art therapy shows promising potential, particularly for certain mental health outcomes, but the evidence remains exploratory. It is not yet possible to firmly establish its clinical efficacy or to specify its indications.
2. Arts-based interventions for depression and anxiety in older adults
- Publication analysed: Quinn et al. (2025) [2]
Study type and quality. A systematic review and meta-analysis of group-based arts interventions among adults aged 55 and over without dementia. It includes 50 controlled studies, 42 of which were randomised. The methodology is generally sound, with an assessment of risk of bias and sensitivity analyses.
Results. Group-based arts interventions — music, dance, visual arts, writing or theatre — reduce depression with a moderate to large effect (d = 0.70) and anxiety (d = 0.76). After adjusting for publication bias (likely under-representation of studies with negative results), the effect on depression is more modest (d = 0.42). The effects appear to be greater in institutional settings than in community settings.
Limitations. Heterogeneity is high, and studies often use self-reported measures without blinding. Participants generally present with mild symptoms, and evidence on anxiety and long-term effects is limited.
Conclusion. The results are encouraging, particularly for depression. This meta-analysis provides more favourable and more targeted results than those of Joschko et al. [1]: group-based arts interventions are associated with a reduction in depressive and anxiety symptoms among older people. Nevertheless, these interventions are best viewed as a potential adjunct rather than a stand-alone treatment for anxiety or depressive disorders.
3. Arts on Prescription
- Publication analysed: Jensen et al. (2024) [3]
Study type and quality. A mixed-methods systematic review of 25 publications, including a meta-analysis of seven studies using the same well-being scale. The quantitative studies are mainly observational, with no control groups (pre-post studies without controls).
Results. Participation in an arts-on-prescription programme is associated with an average improvement of 5.82 points on the WEMWBS scale, which exceeds the threshold usually considered clinically relevant. The qualitative studies also report psychological and social benefits.
Limitations. The absence of control groups prevents the improvements from being attributed with certainty to the arts intervention. The results may also depend on peer support, facilitators or social participation. The samples lack diversity and the follow-up periods are short.
Conclusion. Arts on Prescription programmes appear to be acceptable and potentially beneficial for well-being. The results therefore support the potential value of ‘Arts on Prescription’ programmes but do not constitute robust evidence of their effectiveness, particularly in relation to depression or anxiety.
4. Music, dance and health
- Publication analysed: McCrary et al. (2021) [4]
Study type and quality. An umbrella review comprising 33 systematic reviews, 9 epidemiological studies and studies on physiological responses. It focuses on active participation in music and dance.
Results. Favourable effects are reported in 17 of the 18 health domains studied. Benefits are observed in children, adolescents, adults and older adults. The forms associated with the greatest number of favourable domains are aerobic dance, ballroom dancing, social dancing, Zumba and percussion. Sustained benefits are mainly associated with participation of at least one session per week, amounting to approximately 60 minutes per week for at least four weeks. The most compelling evidence relates in particular to cognition, mental health, physical fitness, physical functioning, well-being and social relationships.
Limitations. Only around a quarter of the findings are based on evidence of moderate or high quality. There is potential confounding between artistic, physical and social effects: dance, particularly Zumba and aerobic dance, is also a form of physical activity that can be moderate or vigorous. It is therefore difficult to determine how much of the benefit stems from artistic expression, exercise, motor learning or social interaction. The studies are highly heterogeneous and do not allow the artistic effects to be isolated from the physical or social effects. The optimal level of activity has not been established.
Conclusion. Music and dance may be valuable resources for health promotion, but the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate any specific therapeutic efficacy.
5. Reducing stigma among young people
- Publication analysed: Gaiha et al. (2021) [5]
Study type and quality. A systematic review with meta-analysis of 57 studies involving 41,621 participants. Only eight quantitative studies were randomised, and none were considered to be of high quality overall.
Results. The majority of studies reported an improvement in at least one indicator of knowledge or attitude towards mental health conditions.
The supported evidence is therefore limited: programmes combining several art forms may slightly improve self-reported or intended behaviour towards people with mental health conditions. However, the overall effect on behaviour is not statistically significant. interventions combining several art forms nevertheless show a small but favourable effect.
Limitations. Methods, interventions and measures vary widely. Studies often assess intentions rather than actual behaviour and are subject to social desirability bias. Long-term effects have been little studied.
Conclusion. Arts-based interventions may improve knowledge and certain attitudes, but their ability to bring about lasting changes in stigmatising behaviours remains uncertain.
6. Framework for integrating the arts into public health
- Publication analysed: Golden et al. (2025) [6]
Study type and quality. This is a conceptual study based on a national survey, focus groups, expert dialogues and a selection of scientific literature. It is not an effectiveness study.
Limitations. The participants are mainly American and already supportive of the arts. The literature review is not systematic, the quality of the evidence has not been formally assessed, and the framework has not yet been empirically validated.
Conclusion. This framework provides a useful tool for designing and analysing initiatives combining the arts and public health, but it does not constitute proof of their effectiveness.
7. Messages to remember
-
- These six publications point to the potential benefits of arts-based interventions for well-being, depression, anxiety, social participation and certain attitudes relating to mental health.
- Confidence in the results varies considerably. The evidence is relatively encouraging for group-based interventions aimed at older people, but remains less robust for arts on prescription, the reduction of stigma and the identification of effects specific to artistic activity.
- The majority of studies show modest to moderate effects and remain limited by heterogeneity and methodological quality.
- The arts appear primarily as complementary tools for health promotion and support, rather than as treatments whose effectiveness has been definitively established.
- Group-based arts interventions show the most consistent results, particularly among older people.
- Overall, the arts appear to be best viewed, as complementary approaches to health promotion and support, rather than first-line treatments, whose effectiveness has been definitely established
Notes & references
Thumbail. [Source: Cerveau multicolore, by Neffati, Art for Science, Photo: Emmanuel Drouet]
[1] Joschko, R., Klatte, C., Grabowska, W. A., et al. (2024). Active visual art therapy and health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 7(9), e2428709.
[2] Quinn, et al. (2025). Arts-based interventions for depression and anxiety in older adults: A meta-analysis of 50 controlled studies. Nature Mental Health, 3, 374–386.
[3] Jensen, A., Holt, N., Honda, S., & Bungay, H. (2024). The impact of arts on prescription on individual health and wellbeing: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1412306.
[4] McCrary, J. M., Redding, E., & Altenmüller, E. (2021). Health benefits of performing arts: An umbrella review including 33 systematic reviews and 9 epidemiological studies. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0252956.
[5] Gaiha, S. M., et al. (2021). Effectiveness of arts-based interventions in reducing mental health stigma among young people: A meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 21, 364.
[6] Golden, T. L., et al. (2025). Integrating arts and culture into public health practice: A conceptual framework. Health Promotion Practice, 26(3), 454–462.