Group arts interventions for depression and anxiety among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

32Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy of group arts interventions, where individuals engage together in a shared artistic experience (for example, dance or painting), for reducing depression and anxiety among older adults (> 55 yr without dementia). Fifty controlled studies were identified via electronic databases searched to February 2024 (randomised: 42, non-randomised: 8). Thirty-nine studies were included. Thirty-six studies investigated the impact of group arts interventions on depression (n = 3,360) and ten studies investigated anxiety (n = 949). Subgroup analyses assessed whether participant, contextual, intervention and study characteristics moderated the intervention–outcome relationship. Risk of bias was assessed with appropriate tools (RoB-2, ROBINS-1). Group arts interventions were associated with a moderate reduction in depression (Cohen’s d = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54–0.87, P < 0.001) and a moderate reduction in anxiety (d = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.37–1.52, P < 0.001), although there was publication bias in the depression studies. After a trim and fill adjustment, the effect for depression remained (d = 0.42; CI = 0.35–0.50; P < 0.001). Context moderated this effect: There was a greater reduction in depression when group arts interventions were delivered in care homes (d = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.72–1.42, P < 0.001) relative to the community (d = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32–0.70, P < 0.001). Findings indicate that group arts are an effective intervention for addressing depression and anxiety among older adults.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Quinn, E. A., Millard, E., & Jones, J. M. (2025). Group arts interventions for depression and anxiety among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Mental Health, 3(3), 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00368-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free