Arts and health glossary - A summary of definitions for use in research, policy and practice

Evidence-based research, reviews, policy, practice and programs, informed by the discipline of ‘Arts and Health' (also sometimes referred to as ‘Arts in Health,' ‘Arts for Health,' ‘Arts-Health') (White, 2009), have the potential to positively contribute to the health and wellbeing of the general population and specific population groups (e.g., young people, older adults, LGBTQI+ people, refugees, people with a disability, people who are isolated, etc) (Smith, 2002; South, 2004; Staricoff, 2004; Putland, 2008; White, 2009; Fraser et al., 2015; Mapuana et al., 2015; Menzer, 2015; Clift and Camic, 2016; Davies et al., 2016; Wreford, 2016; Zarobe and Bungay, 2017; Daykin et al., 2018; A New Approach (ANA), 2019; Vella-Burrows et al., 2019; Davies and Pescud, 2020; Corbin et al., 2021). A recent systematic review of both qualitative and quantitative articles found ‘strong evidence' of the impact of arts engagement on mental wellbeing, ‘moderate to strong evidence' on social health and ‘emerging/low evidence' related to healthy eating, physical activity, preventing tobacco use and preventing harm from alcohol (Davies and Pescud, 2020). Although the idea that the arts can impact health is not novel (e.g., paintings have been used in hospitals since the middle ages to enhance the health environment) (Clift et al., 2009), compared to other health fields, the discipline of Arts and Health is relatively new, therefore a glossary of definitions is useful to facilitate communication and to clarify terminology and concepts from which evidence-based research, reviews, policy, practice and programs can be developed. The definitions included in this opinion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and draw on a wide range of disciplines including health promotion, epidemiology, psychology, medicine and the arts. We have endeavored to keep our definitions short, and where needed, encourage the reader to seek deeper interpretations and explanations which may be found by consulting the relevant references associated with each definition. When reading this opinion piece, we encourage the reader to consider the following limitations. First, some of the concepts and definitions used in this glossary reflect the discipline of expertise, experience, cultural bias and country of the authors (i.e., Australia and the UK). Second, the definitions provided will be influenced by current language, knowledge, health, social and economic conditions. Third, the definitions provided are by their very nature summaries of complex ideas and therefore restrictive in scope. With these limitations in mind, an arts and health glossary on which to base shared language and meaning, still has the potential to facilitate understanding, co-operation and multi-discipline partnerships at a local, national and international level.