Fancourt, D. and Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review
Fancourt, D. and Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review
复制标题
Fancourt, D. 和 Finn, S. (2019)。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Clift
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Clift
这篇雄心勃勃的综述由艺术与健康领域的领先研究人员撰写，得到了世界卫生组织（WHO）欧洲信息、证据、研究和创新司以及健康证据网络团队的支持。它还得益于这一领域四位杰出学者的同行审查。在世界卫生组织的认可下，读者应该有信心找到一个关于创造性艺术在促进健康方面的贡献的证据现状的有力评估。作者谨慎地陈述了他们试图回答的问题：“艺术在改善健康和福祉方面的作用有什么证据？”他们更广泛的目标也很重要：缩小他们所认为的研究证据与参与医疗保健政策制定和实践的专业人员之间的“意识差距”。一个关键的问题是促进证据的“知识和技术转让”，以提供服务。关于“政策考虑”的讨论（第55页）表明，报告的预期受众包括：政府决策者、卫生和保健服务专员、研究资助者、艺术和文化组织管理人员以及参与培训卫生和艺术专业人员的机构。作者建议，艺术和健康政策制定者应该考虑“在存在大量证据基础的情况下支持实施艺术干预”-这一观点将在艺术和健康领域引起广泛的共识。该报告有许多积极的方面。第1节是对该领域的一个很好的介绍，图1中给出的逻辑模型是理解艺术对健康的价值的一个强有力的方案。同样，在第二节中，图2清楚地列出了艺术可以为预防和促进健康以及管理和治疗健康状况做出的许多贡献。当然，这份报告也非常广泛，汇集了大量证据，作者将其描述为“迄今为止对艺术与健康文献的最全面调查”。尽管如此，仍有令人惊讶的遗漏，读者还应参考《艺术与健康：一本研究、政策和实践的国际期刊》和《应用艺术与健康杂志》中十年的研究证据。很多人认为-
Introduction This ambitious review, authored by leading researchers in the field of arts and health, was supported by the Division of Information, Evidence, Research and Innovation, and the Health Evidence Network team, both at the World Health Organization (WHO), Europe. It also had the benefit of peer reviews from four distinguished academics in this field. With the imprimatur of the WHO, readers should feel confident about finding a robust assessment of the current state of evidence on the contribution of creative arts in promoting health. The authors are careful to state the question they are seeking to answer: ‘What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being?’ Their broader aim is also important: to close what they see as an ‘awareness gap’ between the research evidence and those professionals involved in healthcare policy development and practice. A key concern is promoting ‘knowledge and technology transfer’ of evidence into service provision. Discussion of ‘policy considerations’ (p. 55) makes it clear that the intended audiences for the report include: policy makers in government, commissioners of health and care services, funders of research, managers of arts and cultural organisations, and institutions involved in the training of health and arts professionals. Arts and health policy makers, the authors suggest, should consider ‘supporting the implementation of arts interventions where a substantial evidence base exists’ – a view that will attract wide-spread agreement across the arts and health field. The report has many positives. Section 1 is an excellent introduction to the field, and the logic model given in Figure 1 is a powerful scheme for understanding the value of the arts for health. Similarly, in Section 2, Figure 2 lays out clearly the many contributions the arts can make to prevention and health promotion, and to the management and treatment of health conditions. Certainly too, the report is very wide-ranging and brings together a considerable body of evidence, and the authors describe it as ‘the most comprehensive survey of the literature on arts and health to date’. Nevertheless, there are surprising omissions and readers should also consult ten years of research evidence in Arts & Health: An international journal for research, policy and practice, and Journal of Applied Arts & Health. Much of the consider-
劳特利奇健康人文伴侣
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bartel H
通讯作者：
Bartel H