Creative Arts Interventions as Adjunctive Strategies in Clinical and Occupational Medicine: Evidence, Mechanisms, Implementation, and Research Priorities

Review Article

Abstract

Creative arts interventions are gaining clinical credibility as adjunctive strategies in medicine, particularly in behavioral health, oncology, dementia care, pain management, palliative care, and occupational health. Their appeal lies in their low pharmacological burden, adaptability across care settings, and capacity to engage affective, cognitive, social, and physiological processes simultaneously. This narrative review synthesizes policy documents, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, selected randomized trials, and implementation-science literature relevant to visual art therapy, therapeutic art-making, music therapy, dance and movement-based interventions, and exposure to visual art in healthcare environments. The review focused on outcomes of direct clinical and service relevance: anxiety, depression, distress, pain, cognition, sleep, quality of life, burnout, feasibility, and implementation.

The strongest contemporary signals support music-based interventions for anxiety and selected pain outcomes; structured art therapy and art-making for distress and quality of life in cancer care; music-based interventions for behavioral and cognitive symptoms in dementia; and arts-based approaches for burnout-related distress among healthcare workers. Receptive exposure to visual art in healthcare environments also appears to contribute to well-being, positive distraction, and more humane care experiences. At the same time, the field remains constrained by heterogeneity of interventions, inconsistent reporting of dose and fidelity, small samples, variable comparators, and conceptual ambiguity in some reviews.

The evidence does not justify framing the arts as a universal remedy. It does support their selective integration into multidisciplinary care when interventions are well specified, aligned with clinically meaningful targets, and delivered with professional governance. Future progress depends on better terminology, stronger trial design, integration of implementation outcomes, and a more critical approach to evidence appraisal.