Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.
Scoping Review
The aim of this rapid scoping review is to improve understanding of the underlying relationships between creativity and subjective wellbeing and to identify pathways that lead to wellbeing outcomes.
The rapid scoping review question was:
What are the contexts and mechanisms that link creativity and subjective wellbeing?
The quantitative studies measured a range of wellbeing outcomes from creative interventions with different population groups, using small sample sizes. They showed positive effects of creativity on wellbeing measured through a variety of wellbeing scales, reduced anxiety, depression and stress, improved emotions and mood, high levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy and self-awareness and improved quality of life.
Only two studies used a randomised controlled design and processes of allocation concealment or blinding were unclear or missing. No quantitative study was pre-registered with a study protocol and so there is a risk of selective outcome reporting and other post hoc changes in study design. Reported details of study designs was not always detailed enough to understand what was done with whom, how and for what reasons.
The qualitative studies provide evidence of wellbeing benefits for a wide range of different types of creative interventions, and for different and diverse population groups. Five core themes inform a context, mechanisms, outcomes model for creativity and pathways to wellbeing outcomes. Context factors include (i) types of creativity and ways of engaging across the lifecourse, (ii) professional facilitation and management, and mechanisms include (iii) autonomy, experimentation and relationships, (iv) originality and personal transformation and (v) coping and therapeutic benefits.
The qualitative evidence indicates that when people have some choice regarding what creative activities they engage with and how, they experience a range of enhanced positive emotions/mood. Taking an active part in creative processes and producing creative outputs is also associated with developing stronger social connections and has the potential to reduce isolation and loneliness.
Professional facilitation by expert leaders and/or artists seems to optimise wellbeing outcomes, serving to create safe and supportive environments in which people can try new creative activity and experiment with the process. Harnessing the novel experience that characterises creativity is associated with personally transformative experiences relating to a positive sense of self and a capacity to address negative emotions and stigma. Creativity is also associated with supporting psychological and social strategies for coping with negativity, trauma and physical and mental health-related challenges.
The negative wellbeing impacts on creativity reporting in the evidence include feeling overwhelmed or frustrated by the creative process, experiencing negative feelings associated with a lack of skill or competence, feeling vulnerable to criticism, and not being fully involved in the cocreation of interventions, processes and outputs.
The evidence also illustrated that there is geographic variation in provision, a lack of formal policy for creativity, and a reliance on voluntary organisational delivery. Limited evidence on processes and mechanism which contribute to patterns of health and wellbeing improvement or on evidence-based approaches to improving equitable access to programmes supporting, teaching and facilitating creativity.
A number of evidence gaps are identified from the evidence in this review:
● No studies included a longitudinal follow up to explore if positive wellbeing outcomes last beyond the timescales of a defined intervention;
● There appears to be limited evidence about students and learning/training contexts;
● There is little evidence in this review on the direct experience of professional artists, creative practitioners, and facilitators.