46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      From Therapeutic Factors to Mechanisms of Change in the Creative Arts Therapies: A Scoping Review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Empirical studies in the creative arts therapies (CATs; i.e., art therapy, dance/movement therapy, drama therapy, music therapy, psychodrama, and poetry/bibliotherapy) have grown rapidly in the last 10 years, documenting their positive impact on a wide range of psychological and physiological outcomes (e.g., stress, trauma, depression, anxiety, and pain). However, it remains unclear how and why the CATs have positive effects, and which therapeutic factors account for these changes. Research that specifically focuses on the therapeutic factors and/or mechanisms of change in CATs is only beginning to emerge. To gain more insight into how and why the CATs influence outcomes, we conducted a scoping review ( N studies = 67) to pinpoint therapeutic factors specific to each CATs discipline, joint factors of CATs, and more generic common factors across all psychotherapy approaches. This review therefore provides an overview of empirical CATs studies dealing with therapeutic factors and/or mechanisms of change, and a detailed analysis of these therapeutic factors which are grouped into domains. A framework of 19 domains of CATs therapeutic factors is proposed, of which the three domains are composed solely of factors unique to the CATs: “embodiment,” “concretization,” and “symbolism and metaphors.” The terminology used in change process research is clarified, and the implications for future research, clinical practice, and CATs education are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references206

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                15 July 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 678397
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2] 2Kennisontwikkeling Vaktherapieën (KenVaK) Research Centre for the Arts Therapies , Heerlen, Netherlands
                [3] 3Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen University of Applied Sciences , Nijmegen, Netherlands
                [4] 4Stevig Specialized and Forensic Care for Patients With Intellectual Disabilities , Dichterbij, Oostrum, Netherlands
                [5] 5Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, Emili Sagol Creative Arts Therapies Research Center, University of Haifa , Haifa, Israel
                [6] 6Division of Expressive Therapies, Lesley University , Cambridge, MA, United States
                [7] 7Research Centre for Arts and Wellbeing, Edge Hill University , Ormskirk, United Kingdom
                [8] 8Educational Theatre & Rehabilitation Science Ph.D. Programs, New York University , New York, NY, United States
                [9] 9Department of Creative Arts Therapies, Drexel University , Philadelphia, PA, United States
                [10] 10Department of Social Work and Social Administration, Centre on Behavioral Health, The University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong, China
                [11] 11Music Therapy Department, Norwegian Academy of Music , Oslo, Norway
                [12] 12Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne , Parkville, VIC, Australia
                [13] 13SRH University Heidelberg , Heidelberg, Germany
                [14] 14Department for Creative Arts Therapies and Therapy Science, Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences , Alfter, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Moshe Bensimon, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

                Reviewed by: Jaakko Erkkilä, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; Jörg Christfried Fachner, Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom; Heather Coats, University of Colorado, United States

                *Correspondence: Martina de Witte martina.dewitte@ 123456han.nl

                This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678397
                8336579
                34366998
                706bce57-7cf5-4651-93d0-f1b0f1bb2dd1
                Copyright © 2021 de Witte, Orkibi, Zarate, Karkou, Sajnani, Malhotra, Ho, Kaimal, Baker and Koch.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 March 2021
                : 01 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 208, Pages: 27, Words: 20306
                Categories
                Psychology
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                creative arts therapies,mechanisms of change,therapeutic factors,drama therapy,dance movement therapy,psychodrama,music therapy,art therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article