Foreword by the JoCAT editors

In response to Sheridan Linnell’s recent review in JoCAT of The proven efficacy of creative arts therapies (ANZACATA, 2022), Deanne Gray and Kate Dempsey offer a  clarification of the scope and intentions of the ANZACATA report. 

JoCAT agrees with Gray and Dempsey that in research, “scepticism is healthy” and that the emphasis on EBR in this report can help counter lack of knowledge about the benefits of the CATs. After we reviewed the report last month, we invited Gray and Dempsey to contribute a research article to JoCAT based on the data and analysis in Gray’s report. They explained that their focus is on working toward a second edition of the report itself and offered this response to the JoCAT review.

With 700 copies sold to date, a public launch with ministerial endorsement, and citations beginning to emerge in international publications, the report is fulfilling its dual purpose of presenting evidence and making it accessible. 

An expanded edition of the report is planned for 2025. 

Read the review here

Introduction

JoCAT recently reviewed the report produced by ANZACATA called The Proven Efficacy of Creative Arts Therapies, which was produced by ANZACATA in mid-2022. The stated purpose of the report was twofold: firstly, it aimed to present a body of evidence of the efficacy of creative arts therapy for scrutiny and secondly, aimed to assist creative arts therapists with using and quoting evidence in a simple and accessible manner.

Since its publication, ANZACATA can report that the document has been purchased nearly 700 times. This level of sales demonstrates that the report has well and truly served its dual purpose. In addition, the report was officially launched by the Hon Marama Davidson, Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence, New Zealand Parliament who expressed support for the document, its contents and purpose. The report was also recently quoted as evidence of the efficacy of creative arts therapy in Psychology Today, thus giving it a world-wide audience.

As the peak professional body that represents the creative arts therapists of Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia/Pacific region, ANZACATA is responsible for training, support, regulation, and advocacy for the profession. The latter relates to ensuring institutions, governments, funding providers and clients are informed on both the value and efficacy of creative arts therapies and advocating for their recognition as equal professions within treatment models.

As such, the ANZACATA report sought to provide an overview of relevant findings that support this purpose. The report noted the importance of honouring creative expression, the centrality of this to therapy, together with the need for ongoing arts-based research. In addition, it sought to address the view held outside creative arts therapy that large scale studies, random controlled trials and meta-analysis are vital to demonstrating efficacy. Notably, ANZACATA abides by professional ethics, inclusive of research and how this is undertaken (ANZACATA, 2022). In keeping with these principles, values, and ethics, the ANZACATA report was created and provided creative arts therapists with the evidence to validate this profession in different working relationships and environments. The report was designed to be user-friendly rather than an academic piece requiring strict research design and methodology.

Tension between types of research

As noted by the reviewer of our report, creative arts therapies have a long history of being well represented within qualitative methodologies, whereby lived experiences, diversities and the affective nature of art therapy engagement is explored and highlighted (Van Lith, 2019). This approach seeks to understand the principles of how and why a phenomenon is occurring through various methods as representations of emotions, states of being and particular perspectives on experiences (Van Lith, 2019). This is an essential and valuable component of creative art therapies research and is highly necessary when considering the contributions they make for various cultures, demographics and types of creative therapies used.

By contrast, quantitative research gravitates towards deductive approaches and reasoning, moving from general areas of inquiry to specific, for the purpose of being able to test hypotheses to support theory (Deaver, 2002). Together with mixed methods, all methodologies have a validity to being included as contributors to the plethora of what constitutes arts-based research and supports the field of knowledge development.

Despite the burgeoning research regarding the arts as contributors to health and wellbeing (Fancourt & Finn, 2019) there remains limited knowledge of the validity, efficacy and effectiveness of creative arts therapies more generally within medical and health professions. Given the natural correlation between these professions and evidence-based practice, the report was designed to address these concerns. The author and ANZACATA sought to ensure rigorous studies were included which provided up-to-date, relevant, and necessary findings to assist with the ongoing validation of creative arts therapies. This does not diminish qualitative research but recognises that quantitative research is often the benchmark for those outside the profession.

Linnell (2024) critiques the report on bases which do not apply: it is not an academic work for an academic audience, rather it is a report to inform those who may be unable to access the evidence of the effectiveness of creative arts therapies. She acknowledges in her review that a discussion regarding review methodology falls outside the scope and purpose of reports, inclusive of this one pertaining to the efficacy of creative arts therapies. In addition, it is worth noting she highlights the report “provides a welcome antidote to the scepticism we as a profession sometimes encounter…” (Linnell, 2024, p.1). We believe scepticism is positive, providing an opportunity for research to be scrutinised rather than taken at face value. The field of creative arts therapies is sometimes unknown in healthcare and can be labelled as ‘alternative’. This focus on quantitative studies in the report was necessary to address ignorance and demonstrate efficacy.

We extend our gratitude to the researchers who conducted quantitative inquiries to raise the profile of creative arts therapies as a valuable and worthwhile profession. This body of work clearly demonstrates the true efficacy of creative arts therapies: it is evidence-based, effective, and significantly contributes to the field.

In conclusion, we acknowledge that this report was contextual to available research, and due to limitations of time, space, and requirements, not every piece of validating data could be included. The success of the report warrants consideration for a second report with further findings. ANZACATA is committed to offering this expanded edition in early 2025.

References

ANZACATA. (2022). ANZACATA – Ethics and standards. https://anzacata.org/ethics-and-standards

Deaver, S.P. (2002). What constitutes art therapy research? Art Therapy, 19(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2002.10129721

Fancourt, D., & Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. World Health Organisation. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329834

Linnell, S. (2024). What the literature about the literature tells us: ANZACATA’s research report on efficacy of the creative arts therapies – Book Review. JoCAT, 19(1). https://www.jocat-online.org/r-24-linnell

Van Lith, T. (2019). Qualitative research methods in art therapy. In Betts, D., & Deaver, S. (Eds.), Art therapy research: A practical guide (1st ed). (pp.83–118). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315647081