ArticleGlobal advances in integrative medicine and health
Impact of a Cultural Heritage Therapy Programme on the Mental Health of People Living With a Mental Illness; a Mixed Methods Evaluation Incorporating Economic Evaluation Methods.
Article in Global advances in integrative medicine and health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental illness is a significant public health issue; with increasing prevalence, alongside associated co-morbidities and social exclusion. Social prescribing schemes, including those using cultural heritage resources, play an increasingly part in addressing this, yet the evidence-base underpinning them is weak with few long-term evaluations of health impact. Furthermore, there are, to our knowledge, no studies which include exploration of health and care resource use as part of evaluations of cultural heritage therapy programmes (CHTPs). Objectives: The aim of the Scaling-up Human Henge project was to build and evaluate a viable social prescribing CHTP for people living with a mental illness. Methods: The evaluation used a sequential mixed methods design (n=18), a paper-based questionnaire (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult, EQ-5D-5L, and health and care resource use) administered at four time-points (baseline, halfway through programme, end of programme, and six months after programme) as well as focus groups (end of programme). The significance of changes was assessed through related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank tests and published minimally important differences, using SPSS (V29) and STATA (V18). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Health-related quality of life, as assessed by EQ-5D-5L values, increased from baseline to mid-programme and again by the end of the programme but these improvements were not statistically significant. Well-being, as assessed by SWEMWBS values statistically significantly increased by the end of the programme and at six-month follow-up. Analysis of the qualitative data identified three themes 1) Living with a mental illness; 2) Connections; and 3) Impact. Conclusions: The findings show that CHTPs provide benefits to people living with a mental illness. However, the study identified participants had significantly low levels of mental well-being, raising concerns that social prescribing was being used to mitigate current shortages in clinical mental health provision. This requires further exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.