A growing body of research suggests that music, dance, theater, and the visual arts can contribute to physical and mental well-being, though important questions remain.
Attending dance classes or singing in a choir might seem like simple hobbies, but mounting evidence indicates that the arts can play a significant role in supporting human health.
In various trials, for instance, participants in dance programs showed improvements in balance and mobility, as well as a reduction in the frequency of falls—outcomes comparable to those seen in participants of physical exercise programs. This finding is part of a broader argument put forward by an international group of experts in health and the arts.
The experts contend that music, dance, theater, and the visual arts can foster mental, physical, and social well-being. They argue that there is now sufficient evidence for healthcare systems to integrate the arts into their planning, rather than treating them merely as an optional extra.
At the same time, they are candid about existing gaps in the research. Much of the current data comes from small, short-term studies of low to moderate quality; the group outlines key priorities that research funders should address.
These arguments are presented in an analytical article in the journal The Lancet. The essay synthesizes existing research rather than describing a new experiment. It is the first of two major papers in a new The Lancet collection, named after the Jameel Arts & Health Lab. Nisha Sajnani is the lead author, and the research team includes Agustín Ibáñez from the Global Brain Health Institute at Trinity College Dublin.
“This is a historic moment for medicine,” said Ibáñez. “For the first time, art and cultural activities are being integrated into a global healthcare framework that encompasses health promotion, disease prevention, treatment, and care.”
The authors draw upon a 2019 World Health Organization review, which analyzed over 3,000 studies. It was found that art plays a role at every stage—from the prevention of illness to its treatment. A review published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2025 focused specifically on the application of art in disease prevention.
Research on individuals who engage in the arts for pleasure—including the simple act of contemplating works of art—shows that such experiences provide greater enjoyment, increase life satisfaction, and enhance one’s sense of purpose. This also applies to everyday engagement in arts and crafts.
Some studies suggest that these experiences may help build resilience against future mental health challenges.
Regarding children, the authors draw a clear distinction. Claims that the arts improve academic performance have been debunked, they note; however, there is evidence for more specific benefits—for instance, in relation to how the brain processes language.
Research also points to a link between engaging in the arts and better preservation of cognitive abilities in later life. Furthermore, participation in the arts fosters social connection and is associated with a lower risk of loneliness, both in the present and in the future.
As one of their sources, the authors cite a review …a study that synthesizes other reviews, encompassing 149 of them. Compared to conventional treatment, arts-based programs were associated with moderate improvements in anxiety, depression, physical function, and quality of life among individuals with cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders.
For those with neurological conditions, the improvements ranged from small to moderate. This review is a preprint, meaning the peer-review process is not yet complete. Some findings are quite specific: music-based programs improved walking speed, stride length, and mobility in people with Parkinson’s disease, while dance helped improve their balance.
However, these same studies also showed mixed or negligible effects on dexterity and other measures of motor activity. Dance programs were also found to lower blood pressure in individuals with hypertension and alleviate pain in those with fibromyalgia.
Arts-based interventions helped mitigate signs of anxiety—manifested physiologically—during procedures such as biopsies, kidney dialysis, mechanical ventilation, and surgery.
The authors suggest that, taken together, these findings could translate to less pain, shorter procedure times, and a reduced need for painkillers and anti-anxiety medication. In these studies, the arts served as a component of care aimed at symptom relief.
The authors note that the timing is significant. Many governments are grappling with slow growth in healthcare budgets. Consequently, they argue that the arts should be viewed as a cost-effective and equitable element of core healthcare and social welfare systems, rather than as optional, non-essential add-ons. A comprehensive analysis of 172 policy documents revealed that ministries of health, culture, education, and social welfare are coordinating arts-and-health programs in dozens of countries.
Currently, larger-scale studies are underway in ten countries—including Argentina, Nigeria, Norway, and the United States—involving individuals across the entire age spectrum, from premature infants to the elderly.
Ibáñez described this as a shift in how we understand health. “We are moving from viewing the arts as an optional ‘add-on’ to health, toward recognizing cultural engagement as an integral component of how we understand, protect, and improve human health,” he stated.
The authors do not assume that the arts are inherently beneficial. Like any other health-related activity, they note, the arts can cause harm—whether intentionally or inadvertently. They cite a wide range of examples, from the use of music in torture and injuries sustained during performances to work-related stress among professional artists, as well as programs that may exacerbate social inequality.
The group argued that good intentions alone are insufficient; research must prioritize the voices of artists and individuals with lived experience. Furthermore, who actually benefits is not always clear-cut. The same activity might help one person while offering little benefit to another, depending on the individual’s background, the design and implementation of the program, and the setting in which it takes place.
This research has certain limitations. Many of the studies involve only short-term observation, small sample sizes, and a lack of randomized control groups.
Very few studies have directly compared arts-based programs against the best standard treatments for the same health conditions. Economic efficiency is frequently cited as a strength of arts-based programs; however, in many areas, it is not measured effectively.
Research in this field also tends to be one-sided. Most studies are conducted in high-income countries, while far less large-scale research has been carried out in low- and middle-income nations—even though arts-based health programs, deeply rooted in local culture, are widespread in those regions.
As the authors note, theories developed in wealthy nations must be adapted to local contexts before they can be applied effectively in other regions.
It remains unclear how most arts-based programs compare to standard medical treatments, both in terms of health outcomes and financial costs. Regarding mental health, the quality of evidence is beginning to reach a level comparable to that of other common treatment methods, the authors write—though it still varies significantly across many different metrics.
The second article in this collection outlines action plans for research, practice, and policy.
“Health is shaped by the interplay of biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors.”
Art and culture are part of these processes,” Ibañez commented. “The task now is to gather evidence, develop policies, and create healthcare systems that take this fact into account.”
Ongoing trials in ten countries, as well as longer-term studies that track costs, may reveal when—and for whom—the arts are most effective.
About the Author
