12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Critical perspectives on Arts on Prescription

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The positive outcomes of engaging in the arts are increasingly reported in the research literature, supporting the use of the arts to enhance individual and community health and wellbeing. However, little attention is given to the less positive aspects of arts engagement. In some countries, healthcare practitioners and link workers can refer service-users experiencing mental health issues to social interventions such as Arts on Prescription (AoP) programmes. This critical review identifies problematic issues across such social prescriptions and AoP, including failures in arts and health projects, participants’ negative experiences, and an absence of ethical guidelines for arts and health practice. Furthermore, it is evident that there is a lack of awareness and knowledge within healthcare systems, leading to inappropriate referrals, failure to take account of individual preferences, and a lack of communication between the third sector and healthcare services. Significantly, it is also unclear who holds the health responsibility for AoP participants. This article raises more questions than it answers, but for AoP to be effectively embedded in healthcare practice, the issues highlighted need to be addressed in order to safeguard participants and support the effective implementation of programmes more widely.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence

          Objectives Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. Setting/data sources Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. Participants Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. Results We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. Conclusions Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. Trial registration number PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The dark side of social capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social capital

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              When groups help and when groups harm: Origins, developments, and future directions of the “Social Cure” perspective of group dynamics

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Perspect Public Health
                Perspect Public Health
                RSH
                sprsh
                Perspectives in Public Health
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1757-9139
                1757-9147
                12 May 2023
                November 2024
                : 144
                : 6
                : 363-368
                Affiliations
                [1-17579139231170776]School of Allied and Public Health, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
                [2-17579139231170776]Primary Healthcare, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
                [3-17579139231170776]Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
                [4-17579139231170776]Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Hilary Bungay, School of Allied and Public Health, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. Email: hilary.bungay@ 123456aru.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-4521
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4771-7768
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-7214
                Article
                10.1177_17579139231170776
                10.1177/17579139231170776
                11619186
                37170835
                4e08244f-a0c5-4346-b3dd-d087f88b5006
                © Royal Society for Public Health 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Peer Review
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                arts on prescription,mental health and wellbeing,social prescribing,primary healthcare,referrals

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                4
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                4
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content172

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors331