The need for robust critique of arts and health research: the treatment of the Gene Cohen et al. (2006) paper on singing, wellbeing and health in subsequent evidence reviews

• Published in: Arts & health p. 1
• Main Authors: Clift, Stephen, Grebosz-Haring, Katarzyna, Thun-Hohenstein, Leonhard, Schuchter-Wiegand, Anna Katharina, Bathke, Arne, Kaasgaard, Mette
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 05.01.2024
• Subjects: health; older people; Singing; creative arts; evidence reviews
• ISSN: 1753-3023
• DOI: 10.1080/17533015.2023.2290075

This paper considers weaknesses in a study by Cohen et al. (2006) on the impacts of community singing on health. These include high demand characteristics, lack of attention to attrition, flawed statistical analysis, and measurement. Nevertheless, the study is uncritically cited, in evidence reviews, with findings taken at face value. Google Scholar, SCOPUS and BASE citation functions for Cohen et al. identified 32 evidence reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Eleven of these reviews, published between 2010 and 2023, focused on creative arts interventions. We demonstrate limitations in the Cohen et al. research which undermine the conclusions they reach regarding the health benefits of group singing. Subsequent evidence reviews take the findings at face value and offer little critical commentary. We consider what is needed to improve evidence reviews in the field of creative arts and health research. A more robust approach is needed in reviewing research evidence in the field of arts and health. The Cohen et al. paper is not suitable for inclusion in future evidence reviews.