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