Skip to main content

Table 5 Six included studies with statistically significant findings in the art therapy group in some but not all outcome measures

From: The clinical and cost effectiveness of group art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Study & control description Outcome measures: mean changes from baseline (CFB) and p values
Beebe 2010 [29] Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) Asthma module
Wait list Intervention positive reduction in 4/10 QoL items at 7 weeks:
Between groups means at 7 weeks
QoL–Parent total (6.167 vs −13.091) p = 0.025; QoL–Child total (9.727 vs −13.364) p = 0.0123; QoL–Parent worry (47.917 vs −13.182) p = 0.0144; QoL–Child worry (54.545 vs −45.909) p = 0.0142
Intervention positive reduction in 2/10 at 6 months:
Between groups means at 6 months:
QoL–Parent worry (58.333 vs −40.909) p = 0.024; QoL–Child worry (79.545 vs −25.000) p = 0.0279
Beck Youth Inventories–Second Edition
Intervention significant reduction in 2/5 items at 7 weeks compared to control:
Beck–Anxiety (−15.6 vs 5.3) p = 0.0388; Beck–Self-concept (12.091 vs −3.545) p = 0.0222
Intervention significant reduction 1/5 at 6 months:
Beck–Anxiety (−14 vs 0.545) p = 0.03
No significant differences for depression component of Beck youth inventory at 7 weeks (p = 0.21) or 6 months (p = 0.29)
Baseline means NR
Gussak 2007 [30] Beck Depression Inventory-Short Form (BDI)
Treatment as usual Statistically significantly greater decrease in intervention compared to control:
BDI Intervention mean CFB (−7.81) vs Control (+1.0) p < 0.05
Hattori 2011 [24] SF-8–Physical (PCS-8) & Mental (MCS-8)
Simple calculations Intervention significant improvement from baseline in MCS-8 subscale of SF-8 components:
Percentage of patients showing a 10 % > improvement was compared between groups by chi-squared test. MCS-8 (p = 0.038; odds ratio, 5.54)
Apathy Scale (Japanese version)
Statistically significant improvement from baseline (p = 0.0014) in Apathy scale but not significantly different to control:
CFB Intervention (−3.2) vs Control (−1.1) p = 0.09
Mini-Mental State Examination Score (MMSE)
Control group significant improvement in MMSE compared to art therapy intervention:
CFB Intervention (−0.02) vs Control (+1.1) p < 0.01
Wechler Memory Scale revised (WMS-R); Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Barthel Index; Dementia Behaviour Disturbance Scale (DBD); Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview
No significant differences in other items
Lyshak-Stelzer 2007 [18] UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-IV Child Version
Arts and craft Intervention significantly better at reducing trauma symptoms than Control:
CFB Int (−20.8) vs Con (−2.5) p < 0.01
Milieu behavioural measures e.g. use of restraints
No significant differences for behavioural milieu
Monti 2006 [16] Global Severity Index (GSI)
Wait-list Intervention had significantly decreased symptoms of distress and highly significant improvements in some QoL areas: compared to control: GSI CFB Int (−0.20) vs Con (−0.04) p < 0.001
Symptom Checklist 90 Revised (SCL-90-R)
SCL-90-R CFB: Anxiety Int (−0.26) vs Con (−0.10) p = 0.02; Depression Int (−0.27) vs Con (−0.08) p = 0.01
Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)
SF36: General health Int (7.97) vs Con (−.59) p = 0.008; Mental health Int (13.05) vs Con (2.16) p < 0.001
Monti 2012 [17] Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)
Educational support group Anxiety reduced in Int but not control group:
SCL-90-R decrease in Int (p = 0.03) but not in Con (p = 0.09)
fMRI Cerebral blood flow (CBF) and correlation with anxiety using CBF
fMRI changed in certain brain areas in art therapy group only.
No changes in control group